Clause 16

in subsection (1), replace paragraph (a) with —“(a)when the law enforcement officer considers that —

the property is not relevant for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under any written law; and

either of the following applies:

there is no pending investigation mentioned in subsection (3)(c)(i) or (ii);

there is a pending investigation mentioned in subsection (3)(c)(i) or (ii) but the law enforcement officer considers that the continued seizure of the property is no longer required;”;

in subsection (2), replace “subsection (3)” with “subsections (3), (3A) and (3B)”;

in subsection (2), after paragraph (c), insert —“(ca)in any case where the relevant court is satisfied that the property consists of the net proceeds of the sale under section 35(8A) of any property mentioned in paragraph (b) — such order as the relevant court thinks fit for the disposal of the net proceeds of the sale of the property;”;

in subsection (2)(e)(ii), after “cannot be ascertained”, insert “or cannot be found”;

in subsection (3)(a), delete “or” at the end;

in subsection (3)(b), replace the full‑stop at the end with “; or”;

in subsection (3), after paragraph (b), insert —“(c)the relevant court is satisfied that, in a case where the law enforcement officer applies for the continued seizure of the property, there is any pending investigation —

to locate, or ascertain the identity of, any person or persons entitled to possession of the property; or

into any absconded person reasonably suspected of having committed a relevant offence in connection with which the property mentioned in section 35(1) or 78(1) or (1A) was seized, and the continued seizure will not cause injustice to any person entitled to possession of the property.”;

after subsection (3), insert —“(3A) An absconded person reasonably suspected of having committed a relevant offence in connection with which the property mentioned in section 35(1) or 78(1) or (1A) was seized cannot claim to be entitled to the property unless that person personally presents himself or herself before a law enforcement officer for the purpose of an investigation into the relevant offence.(3B) The relevant court must not make an order under subsection (2) relating to the delivery of property to an absconded person reasonably suspected of having committed a relevant offence in connection with which the property mentioned in section 35(1) or 78(1) or (1A) was seized, unless that person personally presents himself or herself before a law enforcement officer for the purpose of an investigation into the relevant offence; but the relevant court may make any other order under subsection (2) despite that person’s absence.”;

in subsection (6), before the definition of “law enforcement officer”, insert —“ “absconded person” means any person who cannot be found, apprehended or extradited, at the end of the period of 6 months from the date on which investigations were commenced against that person to ascertain whether that person has committed any relevant offence in connection with which the property mentioned in section 35(1) or 78(1) or (1A) was seized;”;

in subsection (6), in the definition of “relevant court”, in paragraph (b), replace the full‑stop at the end with a semi‑colon;

in subsection (6), after the definition of “relevant court”, insert —“ “relevant offence” means —

an arrestable offence; or

a serious offence under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992.”; and

after subsection (6), insert —“(7) For the purposes of this section and sections 371 and 372 —

without affecting any other matter that the relevant court may consider relevant, in determining whether a person is entitled to property or to possession of property (as the case may be), the relevant court may take into account whether the person had acquired the property through legitimate sources (whether from income, investments, trading or otherwise);

if a person who claims that he or she is entitled to property or to possession of property (as the case may be) alleges that the property was a gift from any absconded person reasonably suspected of having committed a relevant offence in connection with which the property mentioned in section 35(1) or 78(1) or (1A) was seized, the mere fact that the property was a gift is relevant, but is not sufficient without other evidence, to prove that the person is entitled to the property or to possession of the property, as the case may be;

without affecting any other matter that the relevant court may consider relevant, in determining whether the firstmentioned person in paragraph (b) is entitled to property or to possession of property (as the case may be), the relevant court may take into account other evidence relating to —

the circumstances in which the gift was made; or

whether the property was purchased through legitimate sources before it was gifted; and

any property that is transferred, directly or indirectly, by one person (A) to another person (B) for a consideration the value of which is significantly less than the value of the consideration provided by A, is deemed to be a gift.”.