The police continued to investigate the “complex” ownership structure and then went to the High Court to restrain another nine commercial properties and $10m held in New Zealand bank accounts.
The total value of the 15 properties is estimated to be worth more than $10m.
While the first set of properties were restrained by the High Court on the grounds of Thomas Cheng’s meth dealing and alleged money laundering, the second freezing order was granted on suspicion of tax evasion and money laundering by his parents.
Last month, lawyers for the Singaporean couple sought to have the freezing orders lifted because of insufficient evidence and the length of time the orders had been in place.
This was rejected by Justice Christine Grice, who, in a judgement released last week, said the police investigation into their financial affairs was still ongoing, including inquiries in Hong Kong and Singapore.No income tax has been paid from the rental income on the properties and William Cheng and Nyioh had provided false information to convince the Companies Office they lived in New Zealand.
The couple also applied for New Zealand residency but were unable to satisfy Immigration New Zealand of the origin of the $10m held in the bank accounts.
The restraining orders were set to expire in May this year but the police asked for a 12-month extension to complete the investigation.
This was opposed by the legal team for the Chengs and Nyioh, but Justice Grice said the explanation by police for the delay was reasonable.
“Money laundering is usually complex, particularly where it involves multiple foreign entities, and is difficult to detect and to investigate,” she said.
While William Cheng and Nyioh did not have to provide evidence while living overseas, Justice Grice said “they could speed up the process” by supplying the requested documents.
Given the complex structures and the problems in investigating matters overseas, Justice Grice extended the freezing orders for another year but noted that the Police Commissioner “should bring an application for forfeiture as soon as possible”.
In 2016, the High Court at Gisborne heard Thomas Cheng was believed to have told a potential witness in his (then) upcoming trial how money was laundered through the purchase of those properties.
However, there was no suggestion these were acquired through ill-gotten funds.