Crime Commission Proceedings: Restraining Order Lifted, Assets Released

Result at a Glance

• Proceedings: NSW Crime Commission restraining order under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) (CARA). The Commission applied to freeze our client's assets on suspicion of serious crime-related activity.
• Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales.
• Defence approach: Exclusion applications to release legitimately acquired property, followed by settlement negotiation.
• Outcome: Restraining order lifted. Matter settled.

Your Assets Frozen, Your Accounts Locked, No Conviction Required

Most people assume the government can't take your property unless you've been found guilty of something. That assumption is wrong.

Under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), the NSW Crime Commission can apply to the Supreme Court to freeze your bank accounts, real property, vehicles, and business assets. They don't need to wait for criminal charges. They don't need a conviction. They don't even need to tell you it's happening. Under s10A of CARA, the Commission can obtain a restraining order ex parte, meaning the Court can make the order without giving you notice or a chance to respond.

Our client found themselves in exactly this position. Assets frozen. Bank accounts inaccessible. No criminal conviction, and in some cases like these, no criminal charges at all. One day you have access to your own money. The next day you don't, and you're reading a Supreme Court order explaining why.

The immediate damage goes beyond the legal proceedings. Mortgage repayments can't be met. Business expenses can't be covered. And the cost of fighting the restraining order itself becomes a problem when every dollar you own is locked.

How Crime Commission Proceedings Work

Crime Commission matters run on a separate track from any criminal case. This distinction matters because many people assume that if they're acquitted of criminal charges, the asset restraint disappears. It doesn't. You can be found not guilty in a criminal court and still lose property through civil forfeiture.

The reason is the standard of proof. Criminal charges require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Crime Commission proceedings under CARA operate on the civil standard: the balance of probabilities. The Commission only needs to show it's more likely than not that the property is connected to serious crime-related activity. That's a lower bar, and it changes the entire complexion of the defence.

Under s10C of CARA, if the restrained person can't prove on the balance of probabilities that their property was legitimately acquired, the Court can order it forfeited. The burden sits on you to prove the assets are clean, not on the Commission to prove they're not. That reversal catches people off guard.

These proceedings are typically complex and drawn out. The Supreme Court manages them, and the Crime Commission has significant resources and investigative powers behind its applications. Without experienced legal representation from the outset, the restrained person is at a structural disadvantage before a single argument is made.

How We Changed the Outcome

Exclusion Applications and Settlement

The first priority in any Crime Commission matter is releasing assets for living expenses and legal fees. When everything is frozen, the person can't fund their own defence, which is precisely the pressure point the restraining order creates. Moving early to have funds released is often the difference between being able to contest the proceedings and being forced to accept whatever the Commission offers.

The core of our defence strategy was built around s25 of CARA: exclusion applications. If you can demonstrate that specific property was legitimately acquired, with documentary evidence tracing the source of funds or the history of ownership, the Court can exclude that property from the restraining order. Tax records, employment history, loan documents, and bank statements all form part of that evidentiary picture.

In our client's matter, we prepared detailed exclusion applications supported by financial records that demonstrated the lawful origin of the restrained assets. That preparation put us in a position to negotiate.

Settlement is a realistic and sometimes strategic outcome in Crime Commission proceedings. The Commission may agree to lift the restraining order in exchange for forfeiture of some assets. When the cost of protracted Supreme Court litigation outweighs the value of the contested property, or when the strongest exclusion evidence covers the most significant assets, a negotiated resolution can be the best available result. That was the case here.

The Result

The restraining order was lifted and the matter settled. Our client regained access to their assets and the Supreme Court proceedings concluded.

In Crime Commission matters, the result isn't measured by a verdict. It's measured by what you keep and how quickly your life returns to normal. For our client, settlement ended the uncertainty and restored access to property that had been frozen.

Has the Crime Commission Contacted You?

Time is the critical factor in these proceedings. Once a restraining order is in place, every day that passes without legal action is a day you can't access your own money, can't meet your financial obligations, and can't properly prepare your defence. The Commission has already built its case by the time you find out about the order. The gap between that moment and your first legal response determines how much ground you have to make up.

If the NSW Crime Commission has frozen your assets or you've been served with documents relating to a restraining order under CARA, call JBP Law on 1800 527 529 or book a case review. We handle Crime Commission proceedings in the Supreme Court and can advise on exclusion applications, asset release, and settlement. We're based in Parramatta and represent clients across NSW.

This case study describes the type of outcome we've achieved in Crime Commission proceedings and is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal advice. Every matter depends on its own facts, evidence, and circumstances. Past outcomes are not indicative of future results.