Warren Brookbanks: AUT law expert on the Christchurch couple fighting to keep $230,000 they found in their roof

Finders keepers may not apply, as a young Christchurch couple fight to keep $230,000 they found in their roof.

Open Justice reported that an electrician found five sealed plastic bags of cash, which the couple reported to authorities.

Police took out a civil court case under the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act, believing the cash is the product of crime - from previous gang links to the property.

AUT law expert Warren Brookbanks says normally in these kind of cases, the couple would be the rightful owners.

"But this is in a different league, because this is a significant sum of money - which is clearly up there for no good purpose."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now a young couple are fighting with the police in
court over two hundred and thirty thousand dollars in cash
that they found in the roof. So what happened is
they bought the house. Money was sealed in plastic bags
sometime before the couple moved in, and as soon as
they found it they handed it in. Now the police
say it's drug money and it should be forfeited to
the crown, but the couple think that since they haven't
they themselves haven't committed any crimes, they should be allowed

(00:22):
to keep it. Warren brook Banks is a law professor
at aut and with US. Now, hey, Warren, hi, do
you reckon the cops have got a case.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
Well, unfortunately for the couple, I rather suspect they have
because it goes to the It goes to a legislation
called the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Proceeds of
Crime Act. The whole purpose of it is to ensure
that where money's discovered which is strongly suspected of being

(00:56):
the proceeds of crime, there is provision for it to
be confisusated.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
So Warren, does it have to just be the suspicion
that doesn't have to be any proof.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
Well, no, there has to be proof and for the
for the for the Broceeds of Crime Act to actually function,
and this is where it becomes problematic. Normally it would
require somebody having been convicted of a serious offense that
the money is related to. And where they can establish

(01:29):
a particular offender having been convicted of an offense and
this money is associated with that offense, then the Act
gives the power to the police to confiscate it and
so that it becomes the owned by the state. It
certainly depends on the person having been convicted of an
offense or a person who is suspected of a crime

(01:52):
having absconded so that the branch can't brace them.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
So the closest that the cops have come to any
kind of proof that maybe maybe there was some crime
going on is that the house was previously owned by
a family trust and one person who was a beneficiary
of the family trust, who did have a conviction for
possession of cannabis five years ago, had known connections to
the Mongrel mob. I would say that's pretty tenuous, wouldn't you.

Speaker 2 (02:14):
I would think it's probably pretty tenuous, because I think
there would be necessary to establish that that person is
the person who is in the police's sights, is having
committed a serious crime that the money is related to.
But of course I guess the difficulty is actually making
that connection between the person who's been nominated and the

(02:36):
commission of a particular offense that the money has been
derived from. So it's a difficult one because as a
general matter of law, where property is abandoned and there
is no prospect of finding the owner and the person's
made reasonable efforts to identify the owner, normally the property

(02:57):
would defer to that person as the law full finder.
And obviously that that would have been the case. Hef if,
for example, it had been something like a gold brooch
that had been in the house for a long time
there was no possible possibility of tracing the owner and
all like that, that would have evolved to the to

(03:18):
the new owners of the house, is their property, provided
that made honest efforts to find out who the original
owner was. But this is in a different league because
of this is a significant sum of money which is
clearly up there for no good purpose and is presumptibly
the product of serious criminal affirm making.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
An assumption there might have been an old lady there
who was like a conspiracy theorist and didn't like banks.

Speaker 2 (03:44):
Yeah, well, you're right, I mean, that's that's that's true,
that is a possibility. So in a case like this,
the crowding that the police are going to have to
work very hard to establish a link with a probable
offender who was involved in in in major crime, drug
dealing particularly, and that for that reason it's just for

(04:05):
a forfeiture order to be made in favor of the police.
But I can see why the covery wanted to continue.

Speaker 1 (04:13):
Don't they just mount the argument the cops are being
dicks about it? I mean because like these the young people,
they found two hundred and thirty thousand dollars, they didn't
do anything wrong, finders keepers, what a win for Why
don't the cops just let them held?

Speaker 2 (04:24):
Well, you're right, you're right, But I mean, we have
a system of law that depends on the law being
applied fairly improperly, and we have an Act the purpose
of which is to ensure that we're a money which
has been obtained through crime is forfeited. Yeah, and so
that's the policy issue, and emotionally we feel very sympathetic

(04:45):
to the young couple, but unfortunately the law doesn't reflect
the same degree of sympathy because of the statute.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
Warren, I appreciate your time. Thank you for talking us
through at Warren brook Banks, aut law professor. What's the
lesson If you find the cash, don't tell the cops.
That's the lesson in this I think this is going
to backfire on the mind. I think they should have
just let the young people have it anyway. For more
from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to news talks.
It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast

(05:12):
on iHeartRadio.