Cash seized by Tonga Police during a search of Sione Filipe Jr's home in relation to a bribery allegation in July, was ordered to be returned to him by the Supreme Court on August 23.

The search of his residence under warrant was carried out as part of a police operation to arrest Filipe for alleged bribery of a police officer.

The money located included $10,912 pa’anga found on him; $125 pa'anga and USD$96.25 inside a black purse inside a drawer next to his bed; $31,178.35 pa’anga, AUD$1,385, and NZD$15.40 found in his safe; and $2,000 pa’anga which was allegedly money given to Constable Fifita as an inducement to steal methamphetamine from the police exhibit room.

In addition to the money Senior Constable Leveni had deposed that members of the task force found substances, which were suspected to be cannabis buds and smoking apparatus for methamphetamine in the bedroom, and suspected cannabis oil and residue in the bathroom.

The charge arose out of an allegation that Filipe gave the $2000 to Constable Alalea to bribe a member of the Special Drugs Taskforce, namely Constable Fifita to enter the exhibit room and steal the methamphetamine.

Constable Fifita reported the matter and Alalea was subsequently arrested.

Application

On August 23, Acting Chief Justice Hon. Mr Justice Cato ruled on an Application to extend the detention of recoverable cash, held under the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act 2000, in this case between Police vs Filipe.

He overturned an initial order by the former Chief Justice Paulsen made on July 19, that the recovered cash be detained for a further three months, based the evidence before [Paulsen], that police had proper reason to retain the money on the grounds that it was allegedly related to drug dealing.

Mr Justice Cato said Filipe's counsel Wiliiam Edwards submitted that his client was a legitimate businessman and was engaged in legitimate and quite substantial import activity and that money was linked to more than $300,000 of goods found within containers at his home.

Edwards filed an application to discharge the order and an affidavit from the respondent Filipe, who deposed that he had never been charged with criminal offending until recently. He explained that part of the money in the safe belonged also to, he said, his in laws, and his wife and was there for safekeeping.

He also mentioned Chinese clients who regularly transacted business in cash and the continued detention of the cash was not from dealing drugs, nor was its use intended to buy drugs and the destination was not drugs.

In addition, Edwards submitted that the continued detention of the cash was not justified. He contended there was no basis for the allegation that the money found in Filipe's possession was linked to drugs or an attempt to bribe a police officer.

He strongly denied the charges.

Evidence

Meanwhile, the Crown Prosecutor Mr 'Aho claimed the onus was on Filipe to show a legitimate provenance of that cash for the Court to set aside the restraining order.

Fiilipe had not provided the necessary evidence to that effect.

However, the Acting Chief Justice said that the former Chief Justice did not have before him the benefit of the evidence that was before him now, undisputed, of police searching containers of goods located at the respondent's property that did not contain illicit substances.

“All the respondent has been charged with relevantly here is one count of bribery.”

If the respondent is convicted on that charge it might be the subject of an application for forfeiture, he explained.

Mr Justice Cato said Mr 'Aho did not seek to cross-examine the respondent on the veracity of his explanations.

“I am concerned in any event at the paucity of evidence that could in the initial stages have justified Senior Constable Leveni seizing the money as recoverable cash.”

“I regard the officer’s suspicion as not much more than a hunch that the cash located was proceeds of crime rather than a suspicion based on reasonable grounds.

"I do not consider the police had a foundation of evidence sufficient to amount to reasonable grounds of suspicion that he was involved in drug dealing and the cash found was recoverable property derived from drugs activity."

In addition, he did not consider that the mere fact a person may consume drugs meets the threshold of reasonable grounds for suspicion that cash found in Filipe's possession was the product of drug dealing or activity. 

"For reasons I have given, I do not consider that there were reasonable grounds advanced by Senior Constable Leveni to justify seizure of the cash on the basis he advanced in his affidavit. The fact that the police knew he, was an importer of legitimate products and had sought permission to extend his bail to travel on business to New Zealand, should have in my view be placed before former Chief Justice."

He said, in addition, Filipe explanations went largely unchallenged. 

“Consequently, I rescind the orders made by Paulsen CJ, and order the return of the cash seized from the residence to the respondent.

“I recognize Tonga is still a society where a lot of business is transacted in cash and I mention that only to acknowledge Edward's observations concerning some of Filipe’s Chinese customers' preference for cash transactions. 

“I do accept the Crown’s criticism about the failure to adduce evidence disentangling the cash in the safe but as against this there was no cross-examination of the Filipe from which I can infer his explanation is untrue,” Mr Justice Cato said.