Background
The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police filed a summons on 5 June 2026 seeking orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth). The application concerned bank accounts held by eight entities, including one entity with two accounts.
Sarpreet Singh was the sole director and shareholder, or governing mind, of those entities. The companies had been involved in selling illegal vaping products. On 9 July 2026, while offshore, Mr Singh signed a consent order agreeing to the orders sought. He did not appear personally or through legal representation.
The Court’s Holding
Elkaim AJ made the orders set out in the consent order signed for the Commissioner on 6 July 2026 and by Mr Singh on 9 July 2026.
The Court held that the proposed orders fell within Chapter 2 of the Act and could therefore be made under s 316 without considering the substantive matters that would otherwise need to be established under provisions including ss 19, 38, 49 and 69(2). The Court was satisfied that Mr Singh was the person whom it had reason to believe would be affected by the orders, satisfying s 316’s consent requirement.
Key Takeaways
- Section 316 permits Chapter 2 proceeds-of-crime orders to be made by consent without determining the usual substantive statutory criteria.
- The Court treated Mr Singh as the affected person for s 316, despite his being offshore and absent from the hearing.
- The orders concerned accounts connected with entities involved in the sale of illegal vaping products.
Why It Matters
The decision is a straightforward application of the Act’s consent-order mechanism. It confirms that, where the applicant and every person the Court has reason to believe is affected consent, the Court may make Chapter 2 orders without undertaking the proof otherwise required for proceeds-of-crime relief.
The judgment does not resolve a contested issue concerning whether the account funds met the substantive thresholds for forfeiture or other orders; those issues were unnecessary because of the consent order.