Remitted from High Court — restoration of cash forfeit — knowingly attempting to export undeclared cash — making a cash report knowing it was false or misleading in a material respect — attempting to fail to make a cash report concerning cash intended to be moved out of New Zealand — Crimes Act 1961, s 72 — Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009, ss 68, 106, 110 & 114 — Customs and Excise Act 2018, ss 176, 188 & 389(1)(b) — Customs and Excise Act 1996, s 236 — New Zealand Customs Service v Tae [2020] NZDC 20860 — New Zealand Customs Service v Tae [2021] NZHC 612 — Wong v New Zealand Customs Service HC Auckland, AP320/97, 6 May 1998 — New Zealand Customs v Brereton HC Nelson CRI-2006-442-18, 23 November 2007 — Shakib v New Zealand Customs Service [2017] NZHC 1513. The defendant had previously been found guilty on charges relating to an unlawful export of cash. He had attempted to board a flight to Sydney when Customs discovered that he was carrying a large amount of undeclared cash. The defendant then declared $13,700, but Customs subsequently discovered that he had an extra $11,000 in cash that he had not declared. The total amount of undeclared cash was $24,835. After being found guilty the defendant was discharged without conviction and most of the cash was returned to him, except for $3000 which was forfeited. The prosecutor appealed to the High Court the decision to return the cash. The High Court set aside the decision to return the cash, and remitted the matter back to the District Court for reconsideration. The Customs and Excise Act provides a court with discretion to order a return of cash if a defendant is able to make a compelling argument for its return. The defendant argued that if the cash was not returned, it would result in disproportionate financial hardship to others. The Court found that the defendant did indeed have debts, but there was not enough evidence to show that failing to return the cash would mean that others would suffer disproportionate financial hardship. The defendant did not succeed in displacing the presumption in favour of forfeiture, and the Court declined to order the return of the cash. Judgment Date: 23 June 2022 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *