Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act – Contravention Of Restraining Order

What the law says

Section 52 of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscations Act Queensland states:

A person who conceals restrained property or does another act or makes another omission in relation to restrained property with the intention of directly or indirectly defeating the operation of the Restraining Order commits a crime.

What the police must prove

In order for the Police to prove their case at Court, they must prove each of the following matters beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (1) That property was restrained under a Restraining Order made under section 31 of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscations Act Queensland (i.e. before conviction); AND
2. (2) The accused:
   • (a) Concealed restrained property; OR
   • (b) Did an act in respect of restrained property with the intention of defeating the operation of the Restraining Order; OR
   • (c) Made an omission with the intention of defeating the operation of the Restraining Order.

It will be necessary for the Police in every offence to prove that the accused was the person who committed the offence. Click here to learn more about identification evidence.

Maximum penalty

Maximum Penalty – 350 penalty units or 7 years imprisonment.

Penalty Unit – $100.00.

Which court will hear the matter

This offence is an indictable offence and will be dealt with in the District Court by virtue of sections 60 and 61 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967.

Possible defences

Possible defences to this offence include but are not limited to:

1. The accused had no notice that the property was restrained and did not have any reason to believe it was restrained.
2. The accused did not in fact conceal restrained property.
3. The accused did not do any act with the intention of defeating the operation of the Restraining Order.
4. The accused did not make any omission with the intention of defeating the operation of the Restraining Order.
5. Duress – example: there was a threat of harm to the accused or another person that the accused reasonably believed would be carried out if he/she did not do the act or omission that constituted the offence.
6. Insanity.
7. Identification i.e. the offender was not the accused.