Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Li

[2024] VCC 503

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-22-01670

COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

FUHAI LI

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE WRAIGHT
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 April 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 April 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP (Cth) v Li
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 503

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing.

Catchwords:              Plea of guilty – Deal with money, being $100,000 or more, reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime – Aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence – Producing a false document to a reporting entity – No prior criminal history – Genuine remorse – Delay – Very good prospects of rehabilitation – Parity – General deterrence.

Legislation Cited:      Criminal Code (Cth) ss 11.2(1), 11.2A, 400.9(1); Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) s 137(1); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 1B, 3E, 16A(1), 16A(2), 16AC, 17A(1), 20(1)(b); Sentencing Act 1991 s 6AAA.

Cases Cited:DPP (Cth) v Meng [2023] VCC 439; Samarakoon v The Queen [2018] VSCA 119; Arthars v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 613; Queen v Jiao [2015] NSWCCA 95.

Sentence:                  Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and 8 months, to be released after serving 16 months and upon giving a recognizance in the amount of $3,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the CDPP	Mr A Sprague	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr I Hill KC with Mr M Allen	Lawren Legal

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1Fuhai Li, you have pleaded guilty to:

(a) one charge of dealing with money, being $100,000 or more reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime, contrary to subsection 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (‘Criminal Code’) by virtue of section 11.2A of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment  (Charge 1);

(b) two charges of dealing with money, being $100,000 or more, reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to subsection 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment   (Charges 2 and 5);

(c) one charge of aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence, namely dealing with money, being $100,000 or more, reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to subsection 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code by virtue of subsection 11.2(1) of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment (Charge 3); and

(d) one charge of aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence, namely produce false document to a reporting entity contrary to subsection 137(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) by virtue of subsection 11.2(1) of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment (Charge 4).

2You have no prior criminal history.

Circumstances of the offending

3A prosecution opening was tendered on plea and may be summarised as follows:

4You were 34 years old at the time of offending. You are an Australian citizen and at the time of offending you lived at an address in Blackburn North, Victoria.

5The co-accused in this matter is Fanwei Meng, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China who was 36 years old at the time of offending and lived in Box Hill, Victoria.

Charge 1 - 3

6Between 8 April 2020 and 14 July 2020, you and Mr Meng operated together to launder money reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime, through 10 bank accounts for which Mr Meng was signatory, held in the following names:

(a)   Fanwei Meng – six accounts;

(b)   Dongbeiren Plastering Pty Ltd – two accounts (Dongbeiren Plastering Pty Ltd was a company registered on 28 April 2020, with Mr Meng listed as sole director and secretary. Mr Meng was the sole signatory on the Dongbeiren bank accounts); and

(c)   Shengwei Gong – two accounts (opened by Mr Meng using a false passport in the name of Shengwei Gong, which is the subject of Charge 4).

7You and Mr Meng deposited large amounts of Australian currency into the bank accounts over the relevant period, in 303 separate transactions totalling deposits of $1,881,950.

8These deposits were captured on CCTV at the banks. Some deposits were made by you alone (Charge 2), some jointly with both you and Mr Meng in attendance (Charge 1), and others by Mr Meng when you were also in the vicinity (Charge 3).

9The money deposited was then debited or transferred out of the 10 accounts over the same period.

10Charges 1 to 3 are rolled-up charges of dealing with money reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, put on the following bases:

Charge 1:	Dealing with money by joint commission, by you and Mr Meng attending banks together to deposit cash on 223 separate occasions into 9 bank accounts, between 8 April 2020 and 13 July 2020, totalling $1,188,000.
Charge 2:	Dealing with money by you, by depositing cash alone on 65 separate occasions into 6 bank accounts, between 13 April 2020 and 14 July 2020, totalling $418,950.
Charge 3:	Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the dealing with money by Mr Meng, in relation to Mr Meng depositing cash on 15 separate occasions into 44 bank accounts while you were also in attendance or in the vicinity, between 17 April 2020 and 6 July 2020, totalling $275,000.

11The 10 relevant bank accounts and CCTV-capture cash deposits are summarised in a table at paragraph 9 of the prosecution opening.

12Australian Federal Police (‘AFP’) officers obtained bank statements and extensive CCTV footage from the banks, revealing the extent of the enterprise and the individual and joint involvement of you and Mr Meng.

13Physical surveillance of you and Mr Meng was also conducted by the AFP, which included observing you and Mr Meng traveling together to a number of bank branches in Tarneit and Moonee Ponds on 10 July 2020, and in Kensington and Moonee Ponds on 15 July 2020.

14Using the WeChat messaging platform, between 9 April and 15 July 2020, you and Mr Meng extensively discussed the arrangement in relation to the money laundering enterprise. These messages were in a WeChat group conversation located on an iPhone later seized from you on 15 July 2020, which were then translated from Chinese to English.

15Extracts from the WeChat conversation are set out at Appendix A of the prosecution opening. The two participants in the message conversation were you, using the WeChat name ‘Melbourne Andy Li’, and Mr Meng using ‘Meng Xiao Dou’. The messages include discussions of:

(a)   receiving and depositing cash;

(b)   asking for exchange rates and ordering amounts of money in other group chats. For example:

(i)on 17 April 2020, you told Mr Meng, ‘Ask for the exchange rate in the group chat… You say it in the group chat. Order 100 thousand’; and

(ii)on 25 May 2020, Mr Meng provided the exchange rate of ‘4.6’, and you stated ‘order 130 thousand’.

(c)   discussing the exchange rate, profit margin and earnings. For example:

(i)on 15 June 2020, Mr Meng said, ‘I get it. He’s transferring me 38640 and I give him 37234. 1405 is what I earn’.

(d)   opening multiple bank accounts, including you telling Mr Meng to open accounts with ‘all the banks’ immediately after the company was registered on 28 April 2020. On 27 April 2020, Mr Meng asked ‘the company name, the activities the company does, what to put in, you reckon?’, you replied, ‘I’ll sort that out for you’.

16Numerous attachments and photographs were also shared on the WeChat conversation, including bank and visa documents in the name of Fangwei Meng and Dongbeiren Plastering, and identity documents and bank cards for Shengwei Gong and Fangwei Meng.

17The WeChat messages reveal that you and Mr Meng were working closely together, with you playing a more senior and directing role. Specifically, you gave instructions or information to Mr Meng about what he should do, including ordering money through another group chat, transferring or depositing money, whether to open new bank accounts and the information to provide to banks. Mr Meng often asked questions or checked details before acting.

Charge 4

18As set out above, two of the accounts used to launder money were in the name of Shengwei Gong. In order to open those accounts, Mr Meng produced a counterfeit People’s Republic of China passport (number G52294683) in the name of Shengwei Gong (DOB 25/03/1984). The address provided for both accounts was Mr Meng’s residence in Box Hill.

19You aided, abetted, counselled or procured the production of the false document to the banks to open the Shengwei Gong accounts, by assisting and encouraging Mr Meng to obtain and use the passport, and providing Mr Meng with the false visitor visa in the name of Shengwei Gong to present with the passport.

20The Gong passport was a false document bearing a photograph of Mr Meng, and it was produced to the banks for the customer identification requirements in the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth).

21You and Mr Meng also produced the Gong passport to bank staff on 2 July 2020 when you deposited cash into the ANZ Shengwei Gong account at Carlton. You spoke with the teller, Mr Meng provided the bank card and the Gong passport, and then you handed a bundle of cash to Mr Meng for the deposit.

22The Gong passport was also produced by Mr Meng on 22 June 2020 to open a third bank account in the name of Shengwei Gong with Bank of Melbourne. While opening that account, Mr Meng sent messages to you via WeChat, to check the email address and mobile phone number to be provided for the account. This account was not used for any of the money laundering transactions in charges 1 to 3.

23The Gong passport was later seized from Mr Meng’s bedroom at his Box Hill residence after you and Mr Meng were arrested on 15 July 2020. The passport bore a photo of Mr Meng and was assessed to be counterfeit.

24The obtaining and use of the false passport to open bank accounts was discussed in the WeChat conversation between you and Mr Meng, extracts of which are set out in Appendix B of the prosecution opening. The conversations included discussion of the following matters:

(a)   27 May 2020: Discussion of ‘people’ making passports – you stated, ‘Looks like most people dare not make passports’;

(b)   5 June 2020: Mr Meng sent you an image of a passport with a blank identification page, telling you it was the ‘old version’ and asking ‘can this be used?’ You replied, ‘Sure can. The bank staff is not going to care’;

(c)   7 June 2020: Mr Meng sent you a photograph of the identity page of the Gong passport, and you said ‘that’s alright.’ Mr Meng replied, ‘Just got the first page made. Got sent to me to check whether it’s good enough or not. I’ll let you know when arrived’;

(d)   10 June 2020: You provided instructions to Mr Meng about which courier company to use to get the passport sent, and which address and name to use;

(e)   13 June 2020: Mr Meng said to you, ‘seems like next Monday or Tuesday, the passport will arrive then…You make a visa.’

(f)    13 June 2020: Discussion about needing a visa to go along with the passport. You said that you thought it was ‘only NAB that requires it?’, Mr Meng replied ‘NAB requires the visa expiration date. With the other banks, all they require is that you have a visa, doesn’t really need to date’; and

(g)   19 June 2020: You sent Mr Meng a copy of a document purporting to be an Australian Government Visitor (subclass 600) visa grant document, in the name of Shengwei Gong. 

Arrest

25On 15 July 2020, AFP officers attended near the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (‘CBA’) located at Puckle Street in Moonee Ponds where Mr Meng was using an ATM and you were nearby. You were both arrested.

Charge 5

26Police searched you, your vehicle (Lexus IS300, registration ‘ANDYLI’) and Mr Meng pursuant to s 3E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (‘Crimes Act’). Police located and seized:

(a)   from you:

(i)$72,350 cash in grey backpack;

(ii)one white and pink iPhone; and

(iii)one CBA bank deposit receipt for a $10,000 ATM deposit at Knox City on 14 July 2020.

(b)   from your vehicle with registration ‘ANDYLI’:

(i)$28,000 cash in the boot of the vehicle; and

(ii)banking documents related to Shengwei Gong of 7 Skipton Street in Box Hill.

(c)   from Mr Meng:

(i)$7,955 cash in Mr Meng’s windcheater pocket; and

(ii)A wallet containing 10 bank cards in the name of Fangwei Meng, Dongbeiren Plastering Pty Ltd and Shengwei Gong.

27On the day you were arrested, 15 July 2020, the AFP executed a search warrant at your residence in Blackburn North and seized $170,000 cash located in a plastic bag in the walk-in wardrobe of a bedroom, in front of an open safe.

28In relation to Charge 5, you dealt with a total of $530,305 in cash, reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, by being in possession of the following amounts on 15 July 2020:

(a)   $280,000 in the boot of your vehicle;

(b)   $72,350 in your backpack;

(c)   $7,955 in Mr Meng’s pocket, jointly possessed; and

(d)   $170,000 at your residence at Blackburn North.

29A further quantity of cash was also seized from Mr Meng’s residence in Box Hill along with the Gong passport and documents for the Shengwei Gong Bank of Melbourne account.

Interview

30You were transported to AFP Melbourne headquarters for interview with the assistance of an interpreter. A detailed summary of the statements you made in your interview is provided at paragraph 28 of the prosecution opening. You made the following statements, among others:

(a)   you would collect Australian cash from a variety of persons – some you knew, others you did not;

(b)   you would not be involved in the exchange business if you thought it was illegal – but you do not actually know if the business is legal or not;

(c)   all the money in the backpack and the vehicle with registration ‘ANDYLI’ was yours – this was money you had saved over the years from various jobs;

(d)   you first met Mr Meng in April 2020. You would meet Mr Meng about once a week, for a meal, cards or Mr Meng would accompany you when purchasing baby formula;

(e)   you did not pay Mr Meng, only sometimes you paid for food. Mr Meng did not assist you with your banking; and

(f)    when told about police surveillance on three dates showing yourself and Mr Meng attending banks together, you said Mr Meng ‘sometimes’ helped you.

31Mr Meng was also interviewed by police on 15 July 2020 and later provided a statement to police in relation to his involvement.

32You and Mr Meng were subsequently charged and released on bail.

Nature and gravity of offending

33I will deal first with the charges related to money laundering, charges 1, 2, 3, and 5.

34As noted in my sentencing remarks of your co offender Fanwei Meng,[1] in assessing the gravity of your conduct, the total quantum, in your case relating to  charges 1, 2, 3 and 5, being $2,412,255, is a matter of paramount consideration.[2] As is self-evident, the amount of money dealt with in relation to each individual charge is many times the statutory threshold of the charge, being $100,000 or more. That said, it was submitted on your behalf that the total quantum in relation to Mr Meng was $3,169,655 and thus the lower amount in relation to you is a matter that is able to be taken into account in assessing the seriousness of your conduct.

[1] [2023] VCC 439.

[2] Samarakoon v The Queen [2018] VSCA 119, [68].

35Charge 4 relates to your involvement with the false passport in that you assisted or encouraged Mr Meng to obtain and use the passport and that you provided Mr Meng with the false visitor visa in the name of Shengwei Gong.

36It was submitted by the prosecution that you played a higher role than that of Mr Meng in that you provided some direction and instructions to Mr Meng. However the prosecution also submit that you were both involved in the regular depositing of cash. In these circumstances it could not be said that you were acting as a principal. Further, Mr Meng stated that he was introduced to the scheme not by you but by another person. While the total quantum varies between the two of you and to some extent you did provide some directions, in my view the evidence reveals that you were each playing a role on behalf of others and in all the circumstances I am unable to distinguish your role as being different to that of Mr Meng.

37Nonetheless, as I found in relation to Mr Meng, although your roles varied to some degree, your conduct is undoubtedly serious. As to parity of sentence I will deal with that further below.

Personal circumstances

38You are now 38 years old. You were born in the province of Liaoning in China. You have an older brother. He and your parents reside in China, and you are on good terms with them. Your early years passed without incident, and by your own account your parents had a ‘good relationship’, free of any notable conflict. Your parents emphasised discipline and hard work and were ‘relatively strict’ with you.

39In about 2000, when you were in your early teens, you tested positive for the Hepatitis B virus (‘HBV’). As a result of this condition, you experienced issues with your sleep, as well as a reduction in your concentration and judgement. The antiretroviral medication you take for your HBV has significant adverse side effects which have disrupted the management of your condition, as evidenced by a medical report from your gastroenterologist Dr Ken Tan, dated 31 July 2023, which was tendered on the plea. In China, you experienced discrimination as a result of being HBV-positive, and you also continue to suffer from significant anxiety regarding your health prospects.

40You completed all your primary and secondary schooling in China and completed a bachelor’s degree in management before moving to Australia in 2009. In Australia, you completed a Bachelor of Commerce from Deakin University while also working part time for an import-export business. You then moved to a full-time administrative manager role until you left the role in 2015 to pursue work as a labourer in construction.

41You met your ex-wife in 2013 and married her in 2014. Together, you have two children, aged 4 and 7. Following the birth of your second child in 2020, and within the context of pandemic-related restrictions and financial setbacks, your marriage became strained. The added pressure of the criminal charges and these legal proceedings saw your relationship end in 2021. The divorce was finalised in 2022.

42Notwithstanding the demise of your relationship, your ex-wife, Ms Yang, wrote a letter of support which was tendered on the plea. She states in the letter that she required time to recover from the pressure of the charges and asked you to take care of the children while she resided away from the family home. Because of this, you have been mainly responsible for the daily care and financial support of the children. Ms Yang notes that you have demonstrated an ‘unwavering dedication to your children’ and that you have ‘always been hardworking to make ends meet and to ensure the family’s needs are met.’ Her fear is that she will not be able to adequately support herself and the children while you are incarcerated, especially as you have been the sole financial provider in your family until now, and with her assets being restrained as a result of your offending. She believes your remorse is genuine, that you will not reoffend and she remains willing to work with you to provide a stable and nurturing environment for the children once this matter is concluded.

43You do not report to use illicit drugs and you use alcohol sparingly. You have no formal history of mental health problems. However, it is reported that you have been reluctant to consult mental-health professionals for cultural and personal reasons. In his report dated 16 March 2024, Mr Newton states that you ‘feel pessimistic about the future and uncertain about your self-esteem’ and that each source of your anxiety ‘reinforces and intensifies the others’. He concludes that you suffer from a mild somatic symptom disorder which signifies you have a ‘genuinely physical condition’ – that being your HBV – to which you are responding with ‘elevated distress and anxiety’.

44Also tendered on the plea was a referral letter for a mental health plan from your general practitioner Dr James Kueh, dated 15 August 2023. As noted by Mr Newton, this letter, together with what you reported to Mr Newton, tends to support ‘the chronic nature of [your] medical problems, the magnitude of the financial and marital stressors [you were] facing, and the general imposts of the coronavirus pandemic which were then prevalent’ at the time of your offending. 

45Notwithstanding these stressors, and the clinically significant anxiety and distress you experience in relation to your chronic illness, Mr Newton opines that your judgement would have only been affected to a ‘mild’ degree, and you would have still been able to make ‘reasonable’ judgements about matters relating to the management of your property, personal circumstances or relationships with orders. Mr Newton also notes that your symptoms of anxiety have been exacerbated in relation to the lengthy delay as this matter has progressed through the courts.

46Whilst on bail in relation to this matter, you have remained employed, working as plasterer and volunteering at your son’s soccer club. I note your employer and the owner of the soccer club each provided character references, tendered on the plea. They describe you as a ‘compassionate’ and ‘reliable’ individual and express that you will have the benefit of their support upon your release. 

Sentencing considerations

47As the charges to which you have pleaded guilty to are Commonwealth charges, I am required to sentence you in accordance with Part 1B of the Crimes Act. Pursuant to s 16A(1) of the Crimes Act, the overarching principle is that any sentence I impose must be of ‘a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence’. As part of the sentencing exercise, I must take into account the non-exhaustive list of matters pursuant to s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act that are relevant and known to the court.

48Mr Hill KC who appeared with Mr Allen on your behalf, highlighted a number of matters in mitigation. First is your plea of guilty. The prosecution submit that while there were multiple offers to resolve the matter on the current charges in October 2021, the matter did not ultimately resolve until November 2023 prior to trial in this court. Nonetheless your plea of guilty demonstrates your acceptance of responsibility and has avoided the need for a trial, thereby facilitating the course of justice.

49Over and above your plea of guilty it was submitted that you have demonstrated genuine remorse. While often an offender might convey to others that they are remorseful – as is indicated in the references tendered on your behalf – in my view you have demonstrated genuine remorse and insight in relation to your conduct particularly when consideration is given to your comments to Mr Newton as follows:

I didn’t think it was big illegal stuff. It’s only when I got busted that I did the research and realised what harm it could do to the country and the economy. It seemed like a small thing at the time, but now I know that it was wrong, and I am very remorseful for what I have done. 

50Mr Hill submitted that the delay in this matter is significant in that you fall to be sentenced 3 years and 8 months after the offending ended in July 2020. In this case, Mr Sprague, who appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, acknowledged delay is relevant but that the Court should also take into account the degree to which you had control over the delay.[3] Nevertheless, it is submitted that the two limbs of the delay principle have application – that during the period of delay there has been a lengthy process of rehabilitation, and that you have had to experience the exacerbation of your anxiety as the matter remained unresolved for a substantial period, as noted by Mr Newton. I accept that delay should be given weight in the sentencing synthesis.

[3] Arthars v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 613, [28].

51It was submitted that as you will be imprisoned, there will be an adverse impact on your family. Since separating from your wife you have been primarily responsible for the ongoing care of your children. You provide for them financially and are actively involved in their day to day activities, ensuring that they remained engaged in education and healthcare. The prosecution submit that the impact of imprisonment is able to be taken into account to a degree, noting however that the circumstances are relatively common where one parent is imprisoned and the other remains to take on the burden of children. In the circumstances, in my view, given your significant role both financially and practically with your children, I do give some weight to family hardship. I also take into account that you personally will face additional hardship in custody taking in to account the anguish you will experience as you will be unable to offer care and financial support to your family.

52As this will be your first time in custody, it was submitted that given your poor state of health, your age and background circumstances, you are likely to find prison more difficult than the typical prisoner when adjusting to the custodial environment. I accept that to some degree these factors are able to be taken into account.

53As to your prospects of rehabilitation, you come before the court with no prior criminal history and you have not reoffended over the long period of delay. You have demonstrated remorse and insight, and in my view in all the circumstances, you have very good prospects of rehabilitation.

54I turn now to the principle of parity. As I have noted above, in terms of your role in the offending compared with that of Mr Meng, I am unable to make a meaningful distinction. However, parity in this instance must also take in account a consideration of the matters personal to each offender. A matter that carried considerable weight in the sentence of Mr Meng was his undertaking to give evidence at your trial giving rise to discount pursuant to s 16AC of the Crimes Act in relation to his future cooperation. The s 16AC declaration was that but for Mr Meng’s undertaking, the sentence that would have been imposed was 3 years with a release after serving 18 months. However, when it comes to sentencing a co-offender, the Court’s discretion is not displaced and if all things were equal, the court is not required to impose the ‘but for’ sentence in a mathematical way. Rather the general discretion must also take into account the other matters in mitigation, together with the fact that the co-offender gave the s 16AC undertaking and received a discount as part of the instinctive synthesis when sentencing the co-offender.

55Turning to general and specific deterrence, as I noted in Mr Meng’s case, in relation to charges 1, 2, 3 and 5, as highlighted in The Queen v Jiao,[4] money laundering offences are regarded as very serious offences in respect of which the need for general deterrence is of particular significance. Specific deterrence in my view should carry little weight given your lack of criminal history and your good prospects of rehabilitation.

[4] [2015] NSWCCA 95, [31].

56To assist the Court, the prosecution provided a table of comparative recent cases. While each case must turn on its own facts, I have taken those cases into account.

57Finally, having weighed the applicable sentencing considerations, pursuant to s 17A(1) of the Crimes Act, I am satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate other than a term of imprisonment. 

Sentence

58Mr Li, would you please stand.

59Fuhai Li, on Charge 1, dealing with money suspected of being the proceeds of crime, and Charge 4, aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of an offence, namely produce false document, you are convicted and sentenced to 24 months imprisonment on each charge. On Charge 2, dealing with money suspected of being the proceeds of crime, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. On Charge 3, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence, namely dealing with money suspected of being the proceeds of crime, and Charge 5, dealing with money suspected of being the proceeds of crime, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment on each charge.

60The sentence on Charge 1 commences today. The sentence on Charge 4 commences 2 months after the commencement of the sentence on Charge 1. The sentence on Charge 2 commences 8 months after the commencement of the sentence on Charge 4. The sentence on Charge 3 commences 6 months after the commencement of the sentence on Charge 2. The sentence on Charge 5 commences 2 months after the commencement of the sentence on Charge 3.

61The intended cumulation is that 2 months of the sentence on Charges 2, 3, 4 and 5, be served cumulatively on each other and on Charge 1, making for a total effective sentence of 2 years and 8 months imprisonment.

62Pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, I direct that you be released after serving 16 months of that sentence and upon giving a recognizance in the amount of $3,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years.

63I am required to explain to you that if you breach the conditions of the order you may be brought back before the court to be dealt with for that breach, which could include being ordered to serve the remaining prison component of the order, and you may be required to forfeit the $3,000.

64Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, if not for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to 3 years and 6 months with a non parole period of 2 years and 3 months.

65I declare that 15 days be reckoned as the period of imprisonment already served under the sentence I have imposed. That does not include today.

Charge	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Commencement/cumulation
1	Dealing with money or property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, $100,000 or more (s 400.9(1), ss 11.2A of the Criminal Code (Cth))	3 years	24 months	19 April 2024
4	Aid, abet, counsel or procure the production of a false or misleading document (s11.2(1) Criminal Code (Cth) and s 137(1) Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth))	10 years	24 months	Commences 2 months after commencement of Charge 1
2	Dealing with money or property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, $100,000 or more (400.9(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth))	3 years	18 months	Commences 8 months after commencement of Charge 4
3	Aid, abet, counsel or procure, dealing with money or property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, $100,000 or more (ss 11.2(1), 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth))	3 years	14 months	Commences 6 months after commencement of Charge 2
5	Dealing with money or property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, $100,000 or more (s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth))	3 years	14 months	Commences 2 months after commencement of Charge 3