Legal Research
Cases
Majeed v The Queen

Majeed v The Queen

Case [2013] VSCA 40 7 March 2013

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0168

MOHAMED THOUFEEQ ABDUL MAJEED	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NEAVE JA, KAYE and LASRY AJJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	27 February 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	7 March 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 40
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	The Queen v Majeed (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Montgomery, 11 April 2012)

---

CRIMINAL LAW − Sentencing − Appeal − Money laundering − Guilty plea − Dealing with money, of the value of $1,000,000 or more, being the proceeds of crime, and being reckless that the money was the proceeds of crime − Appellant performing role of ‘middle management’ in sophisticated money laundering scheme − Twelve transactions totalling $5.2 million over five year period – No previous convictions − Appellant’s family overseas − Appellant isolated in jail − Whether sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with 5 years non‑parole period manifestly excessive − Appeal dismissed − Criminal Code1995 (Cth) s 400.3(2).

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P F Tehan QC	C Marshall & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr D D Gurvich	Office of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

NEAVE JA:

For the reasons given by Kaye AJA, I agree that the appeal against sentence should be dismissed.

KAYE AJA:

On 30 March 2012, the appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of dealing with money that was the proceeds of crime, being reckless as to the fact that the money was the proceeds of crime, pursuant to s 400.3(2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. After hearing the plea made on his behalf in mitigation of sentence, the County Court judge sentenced the appellant to 7 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years. His Honour declared, pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), that the period of time, that the appellant had already spent in custody, was 584 days. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, his Honour declared that, but for the plea of guilty, he would have sentenced the appellant to a period of 9 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 7 years.

The appellant appeals, by leave, against the sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive.

The appellant’s offending

The charge, to which the appellant pleaded guilty, was that between 1 March 2008 and 7 August 2008 he dealt with money, of the value of $1,000,000 or more, being the proceeds of crime, and being reckless as to the fact that that money was the proceeds of crime.

The criminal conduct, alleged against the appellant by the prosecution, was that the money, dealt with by the appellant, was the proceeds of trafficking of the illicit drug MDMA, also known as ‘Ecstasy’, by an organised criminal syndicate

under the leadership of Pasquale Barbaro. The Barbaro syndicate had taken delivery of large quantities of tablets containing a commercial quantity of MDMA in Melbourne in February, March and May 2008. In…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Majeed v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Majeed v The Queen [2013] VSCA 40
Case: [2013] VSCA 40
Decision Date: 7 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, Majeed, was found guilty of multiple counts of dealing with money that was the proceeds of crime, specifically transactions totalling over $5 million over a five-year period. The trial judge sentenced Majeed to a term of imprisonment of 7 years, with a non-parole period of 5 years, following a guilty plea. Majeed appealed the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive, particularly considering his role as 'middle management' in a sophisticated money laundering scheme, the absence of previous convictions, and the fact that his family was overseas and he was isolated in jail.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence could be considered grossly disproportionate to the crime and the offender, taking into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The court considered the totality of the appellant’s conduct, his role in the money laundering scheme, and the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive given his limited role and the absence of prior criminal history.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the appellant played a significant role in the money laundering scheme, even if he was not the mastermind. The court also considered the seriousness of the offence, the need for general deterrence, and the appellant's limited prospects of rehabilitation due to his isolation in jail and family circumstances. The court noted that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the crime, and that the appellant's role, while not the highest, was still substantial. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence upheld.

The court did not make any additional orders beyond dismissing the appeal and upholding the original sentence. The appellant’s sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years remains in place.

Orders