1. For the offence of money laundering contrary to s.400.3(1) Criminal Code (Cth), the Offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 12 years, comprising a non-parole period of seven years and six months commencing on 23 June 2022 and expiring on 22 December 2029 with a balance of term of four years and six months commencing on 23 December 2029 and expiring on 22 June 2034.
2. The earliest date upon which the Offender will be eligible for release on parole is 23 December 2029.
Catchwords:
Crime – sentence – offender found guilty following trial by jury – charge of money laundering under s.400.3(1) Criminal Code (Cth) – offender a solicitor dealing with proceeds of crime – very substantial sums passing though trust account over period exceeding three months – 53 deposits totalling $24 million and 22 disbursement of funds – proceeds of crime including fraud, blackmail and money laundering – assessment of objective gravity of offence – relevance of prior good character on sentence – parity considerations – importance of general deterrence – consideration of other sentencing factors – substantial custodial sentence appropriate
[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 R v Chalabian (No. 14)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Chalabian (No. 14) [2022] NSWSC 829
Case
[2022] NSWSC 829
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v Chalabian (No. 14), the case before the court involved the appellant, Chalabian, who was contesting the decision of the Magistrates' Court to convict him of possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with reviewing the decision to determine whether the conviction was lawful and whether the appeal against sentence was justified. The appellant argued that the evidence obtained during the search was inadmissible and that the sentence imposed was excessive.
The court had to address several legal issues, primarily focusing on the admissibility of evidence obtained during a search and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The appellant contended that the search was conducted without proper authorisation and that the evidence obtained should have been excluded under the provisions of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). Additionally, the appellant challenged the severity of the sentence, asserting that it was disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence.
In its reasoning, the court found that the search and subsequent seizure of the firearm were conducted in accordance with the law. The court held that the police officers had a reasonable suspicion that an indictable offence was being committed, which justified the search. Therefore, the evidence was properly obtained and admissible. The court further determined that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court was within the appropriate range, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's criminal history. The appeal against the sentence was, therefore, dismissed.
Consequently, the court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence remained in effect.