George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Wright, you correctly point out that there is a difference between proceeds of crime legislation and unexplained wealth legislation in the sense that we know that the assets that are the subject of proceeds of crime legislation are, as it were, the ill-gotten gains of the person whose assets are being seized. In relation to unexplained wealth legislation, there is not a direct relationship established between the assets and the crime. But the difference is not as great as you may think, Senator Wright, because the whole point of unexplained wealth legislation is that, where the statutory tests are satisfied, the unexplained wealth, because it is unexplained in circumstances sufficient to generate a reasonable belief that it was derived from illicit or illegal activity, is treated inferentially as if it were the proceeds of crime or ill-gotten wealth. So it does require an inference to be drawn. But the unexplained wealth is treated as if it were the proceeds of wrongdoing, and therefore the rationale for why the proceeds of crime should not be available for legal defence is the same as the rationale for unexplained wealth if one admits the inference.