AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 17 August 2026

The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Ilyas & Ors

[2026] NSWSC 1047

Fraud & dishonesty

Citation: The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Ilyas & Ors [2026] NSWSC 1047
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 August 2026
Judge(s): Coleman J

Background

The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police applied to the Supreme Court for restraining orders, custody and control orders, and ancillary orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) against two individuals and a corporate trustee. The first defendant had pleaded guilty in the District Court to two money laundering offences involving proceeds of crime valued at over $1 million and at least $100,000 respectively. The second defendant had pleaded guilty to two separate money laundering offences each involving proceeds valued at least $100,000. Both men entered their pleas on 4 May 2026 and were awaiting sentence.

The property targeted by the application included three residential properties in the Sydney suburbs of Guildford and Fairfield East, cash seized during search warrants executed in May 2021, two motor vehicles (a Toyota LandCruiser and a Toyota Camry), and a bank account held with ANZ. The third defendant, a corporate entity acting as trustee for a family unit trust, was also named in relation to certain property.

The application was brought ex parte (without giving notice to the defendants) and sought to be made returnable immediately, consistent with the AFP's concern that prior notice could lead to the defendants dealing with or dissipating the property before orders could be made.

  • Whether the summons should be made returnable immediately under r 6.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
  • Whether the application should be heard and determined without notice to the defendants under ss 26(4) and 39(3A) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)
  • Whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect the defendants had committed serious offences within the meaning of s 18(1)(d) of the Act
  • Whether the authorised officer held those suspicions on reasonable grounds, satisfying the affidavit requirements in s 18(3) of the Act
  • Whether the restrained property fell within the categories in s 18(2) of the Act, including as property of the suspect, property under the effective control of the suspect, or proceeds of the offences

Decision

Issue 1: Returnable immediately and without notice

Coleman J was satisfied that the summons should be made returnable immediately, having regard to the nature of the application and the contents of the authorised officer's affidavit. On the question of proceeding without notice, the court noted that s 26(4) of the Act is mandatory: once the responsible authority (here, the AFP Commissioner) requests the court to hear the application without notice, the court must do so. The purpose of preventing the defendants from dealing with potentially restrained property reinforced the appropriateness of that course.

Issue 2: Reasonable grounds for suspicion

The court confirmed the threshold for reasonable suspicion under s 18 is not particularly high. Both defendants had already pleaded guilty to serious money laundering offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), and the authorised officer's affidavit set out the grounds for his suspicions in detail. Coleman J was satisfied that the officer held those suspicions on reasonable grounds, meeting the requirements of ss 18(1)(d) and 18(1)(f) of the Act.

Issue 3: Property falling within s 18(2) categories

The court was satisfied that each category of property met at least one of the relevant s 18(2) grounds. Residential properties were restrained as either property of the suspect or property under the suspect's effective control. The cash seized during the 2021 search warrants was restrained on multiple grounds, including as property of the suspect, property under effective control, and as proceeds of the relevant offending. The motor vehicles and the ANZ bank account were similarly brought within the scope of the restraining orders.

Orders Made

  • The Amended Summons was made returnable immediately (r 6.15 UCPR)
  • The application for relief in prayers 1 to 40 was heard and determined without notice (ss 26(4) and 39(3A) of the Act)
  • Restraining orders made under s 18(1) of the Act in respect of:
  • Schedule 1 (44 Bright Street, Guildford) as property of the first defendant
  • Schedule 3 (17 Lisbon Street, Fairfield East) as property under the effective control of the first defendant
  • Schedules 4, 5, and 6 (cash seized at various locations) as property of the first defendant, under his effective control, and/or proceeds of his offending
  • Schedule 8 (Toyota LandCruiser) as property of the first defendant
  • Schedule 2 (54 Bright Street, Guildford) as property of the second defendant
  • Schedule 9 (Toyota Camry) in relation to the second defendant
  • Schedule 7 (cash seized from the Toyota Camry) and Schedule 10 (ANZ bank account) also restrained in relation to the second defendant
  • Custody and control orders and ancillary orders also made (full terms recorded in the judgment)
  • The Commonwealth provided the usual undertaking as to costs and damages
  • Penal notices endorsed on the orders, warning each defendant and the corporate trustee of liability to sequestration of property and imprisonment for non-compliance

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 26(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), a court has no discretion once a responsible authority requests the application be heard without notice: the court must proceed on that basis.
  • The reasonable suspicion threshold in s 18(1)(d) of the Act is not a demanding one, and pre-existing guilty pleas to the underlying offences provide a straightforward basis on which an authorised officer's suspicions can be established as reasonable.
  • A single item of property may satisfy multiple categories under s 18(2) simultaneously, such as being both property of the suspect and proceeds of the relevant offence, and the court may restrain it on all applicable grounds.
  • Restraining orders under s 18 of the Act extend beyond property directly held by suspects, reaching property under a suspect's effective control and property held through corporate trustees.
  • Section 18(5) of the Act removes any requirement for the applicant to demonstrate a risk that property will be disposed of: the court must make the order once the statutory conditions are met, regardless of whether dissipation is likely.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
- Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases
- Application of the Commissioner of Australian Federal Police; In the matter of Rifai [2019] NSWSC 914
- Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Bigatton [2020] NSWSC 245