HARD LINE ON CRIME PROFITS 'UNFAIR'

A plan to strip crime syndicates and drug barons of their assets will
proceed, despite the Government's own justice officials warning it risks
giving police a "perverse incentive" to chase cash instead of criminals.

Justice Minister Phil Goff has unveiled a bill that would allow the Crown
to freeze and seize criminals' assets where there is insufficient evidence
to lay criminal charges.

The move follows frustration with the Proceeds of Crime Act, which requires
a criminal conviction to seize criminals' assets and has netted only $8.3
million since 1995.

Mr Goff said the new law, to be introduced next year, was based on a New
South Wales measure that had seized $84 million in that time.

But briefing papers obtained under the Official Information Act reveal the
plan could be viewed as "inherently unfair" and breach the Bill of Rights.

Under the plan, the Crown would apply to the High Court to freeze assets if
there was a "reasonable belief" they were obtained by crime. It would cover
crimes punishable by at least five years in prison - including drug
dealing, fraud, burglary and theft - or for assets worth more than $30,000.

If the criminals could not prove the assets were acquired legally they
would be forfeited. The law would be able to target criminals who had been
acquitted of criminal charges. As well, those who agreed to forfeit assets
had no protection against future charges.

"The critical thing that this will do is demonstrate that, in fact, crime
does not pay for those people for whom at the moment crime most certainly
does pay," Mr Goff said.

"That includes the organised criminal groups, the gangs in particular -
those dealing with drug activity."

Laying criminal charges would remain the priority but the civil action was
the "second-best solution" if the evidence was insufficient to prosecute.

Police headquarters welcomed the measure, saying it would help staff combat
sophisticated money laundering and put more pressure on organised crime groups.

But the briefing papers, prepared this year, reveal the law could breach
the time-honoured legal convention of double jeopardy and risk diverting
police from prosecuting the criminals they investigate.

One Cabinet paper warns: "The regime could be regarded as an easier way of
penalising criminal conduct than the ordinary criminal process, thus
creating a perverse incentive to divert police resources away from criminal
investigation in favour of pursuing civil forfeiture."

The law would allow information uncovered by a police criminal
investigation - such as wiretaps, undercover officers' evidence and bugged
conversations - to be used in attempts to seize assets.

People who had been acquitted of criminal charges could also face civil
proceedings.

"To expose a person who has been found not guilty on criminal charges to
the risk of forfeiture of property through civil proceedings on the same
evidence may also be viewed as inherently unfair and contrary to
double-justice principles," another briefing paper says.

National Party MP Tony Ryall said the new law did not go far enough and had
loopholes "so large you could drive a truck laden with ill-gotten gains
through them".