Background
On 19 December 2025, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police sought urgent asset-preservation orders without notice against Yuchang Yuan and two companies, Okari Prime Pty Ltd and YFW Solutions Pty Ltd. Mr Yuan had been arrested and charged with a Commonwealth money-laundering offence involving property valued at $1 million or more. The AFP also suspected a further money-laundering offence.
The AFP alleged that Mr Yuan effectively controlled the companies’ bank accounts, although the companies were registered using the details of alleged straw directors. The accounts recorded approximately $9 million and $22 million in credits and debits between April and October or November 2025. The AFP suspected they were “layering” accounts used to obscure illicit funds’ origins.
The Court’s Holding
McGuire J held that the application could be heard urgently and ex parte. The defendants were likely already aware of the criminal investigation and the asset-freezing steps, while the banks’ discretionary freezes could be lifted with little or no notice to the AFP. Those circumstances created a real risk that the funds would be dissipated.
The Court made restraining orders under ss 18 and 19 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), preventing dealings with the identified bank-account property and accrued interest. The statutory requirements were met: the AFP Commissioner was a proceeds-of-crime authority; there were reasonable grounds for the authorised officer’s suspicions; and the supporting affidavit complied with the Act. Once those conditions were established, the Court had no discretion to refuse the ss 18 and 19 orders. It also made custody and control orders under s 38 in favour of the NSW Trustee and Guardian.
Key Takeaways
- Restraining orders under ss 18 and 19 must be made when the statutory suspicion-based criteria are satisfied.
- “Reasonable suspicion” requires a factual basis, but is a lower threshold than reasonable belief.
- The risk that bank-imposed freezes could be removed supported urgent orders without notice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the low, protective threshold for Commonwealth proceeds-of-crime restraint orders at the investigative stage. Detailed evidence connecting a suspect to corporate accounts, including alleged straw-director arrangements and transaction patterns, can support orders even before the investigation is complete.
It also confirms that ex parte relief may be appropriate where advance notice could enable access to, and dissipation of, suspected proceeds.