Kaldon Karout v New South Wales Crime Commission

2025/00205659

EVIDENCE – in 2012, Mr Kaldon Karout (the appellant) was charged with possession of a marketable quantity of a border-controlled drug – he was on bail in relation to that charge until his second arrest on 11 September 2015 – Mr Karout was subsequently sentenced to an overall term of 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment – arising from Mr Karout’s offending, the New South Wales Crime Commission requested that the primary judge, pursuant to s 27 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), make a proceeds assessment order for the period from 21 November 2012 up to the commencement of these proceedings – the primary judge assessed the value of the proceeds of the defendant’s illegal activity and ordered Mr Karout to pay $4,602,659.91 – whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the total value of the prohibited drugs in the appellant’s possession at the time of his arrest was $546,095 – whether the primary judge erred in taking into account the evidence given by the appellant during his compulsory examination held in accordance with s 12(1) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), despite such statements not being admissible for their truth – whether the primary judge erred in assessing Mr Karout’s expenditure by finding that the amounts paid to Ms Taylor by the appellant, by way of maintenance payments, equated to $23,000 per month – whether the primary judge erred in failing to be satisfied that the monies directed to be transferred to Mr Karout originated from sources unrelated to illegal activity – in rejecting the evidence of various witnesses, whether the primary judge erred by relying on supposed practices concerning, inter alia, loans, their documentation, and their repayment, in circumstances where, pursuant to s 144 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and the principles explained in Holland v Jones (1917) 23 CLR 149, it was not open to the judge to take judicial notice of such practices – whether the primary judge misapplied the onus, which rested upon Mr Karout in accordance with s 28(3) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), as clarified in Vu v New South Wales Crime Commission [2013] NSWCA 282, as the basis for rejecting Mr Karout’s case – whether the primary judge erred in failing to accept the evidence of Ms Elgammal, Mr Issa, Mr Samia, and Mr Barton, and in using the evidence given by Mr Karout during his compulsory examination – whether the primary judge erred in failing to provide adequate reasons.

New South Wales Crime Commission v Karout [2025] NSWSC 538