R v Chintagunta - [2023] NSWDC 439

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chintagunta [2023] NSWDC 439
Hearing dates: 14 September 2023
Date of orders: 20 October 2023
Decision date: 20 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Custodial sentence. For orders see [144].

Catchwords:
CRME – sentence - deal with money proceeds of indictable crime – attempt to deal with money proceeds of indictable crime.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Code (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Cahyadi v R (2007)168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
Kim v The Queen [2016] VSCA 238
R v Ansari (2007) 173 A Crim R 112; [2007] NSWCCA 204
R v Huang; R v Siu (2007) 174 A Crim R 370

Category: Sentence
Parties: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Uday Chintagunta (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms C Akthar (Crown)
Ms K Hogan (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/93669
Publication restriction: Nil.

REMarkS ON SENTENCE

The offender is to be sentenced in respect of the following two offences pursuant to s 400.6(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (“the Code”) to which he entered pleas of guilty in the Local Court.
The offences are:-

Sequence 8 – between about 17 September 2021 and about 16 November 2021 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, he dealt with money or other property that was, and that he believed to be, proceeds of indictable crime and at the time of the dealing the value of the money or other property was $10,000 or more.

Sequence 9 – between about 22 September 2021 and about 26 October 2021 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, he dealt with money or other property that was, and that he believed to be, proceeds of indictable crime and at the time of the dealing the value of the money or other property was $10,000 or more.

The maximum penalty proscribed for the offences was imprisonment for 10 years, or 600 penalty units, or both.

The following charge attached to Sequence 8 is to be dealt with on a schedule pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth):-

Sequence 5 – offence pursuant to s 400.7(1)(b)(i) and s 11.1(1) of the Code.
Between about 8 October 2021 and 11 October 2021 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales he attempted to deal with money or other property which was proceeds of indictable crime and he was reckless as to the fact that the money or other property was proceeds of indictable crime and at the time of the attempted dealing the value of the money or other property was $1,000 or more.
1. The maximum penalty proscribed for this offence is imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both. The offender admitted his guilt in respect of this offence, and asked that it be taken into account on sentence.
2. The offending therefore occurred between 17 September 2021 and 26 October 2021. The offender was arrested on…

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 R v Chintagunta

Details

AGLC: R v Chintagunta [2023] NSWDC 439
Case: [2023] NSWDC 439
Decision Date: 20 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was charged with the attempted dealing of money proceeds of an indictable crime. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by his Honour Judge McDonald. The appellant sought to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to give proper weight to the substantial cooperation provided by the appellant with the authorities and had not adequately considered the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. The appellant further contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in relation to the offending and the appellant's personal circumstances.

The Court found that the trial judge had considered the appellant's cooperation and prospects of rehabilitation but had balanced these factors against the seriousness of the offending. The Court held that the trial judge had not erred in his assessment of the appropriate sentence and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court emphasised the importance of dealing with crime that involves the dealing of money proceeds of an indictable crime and the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of such offending. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Custodial sentence. For orders see [144].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Chintagunta [2023] NSWDC 439
Hearing dates:	14 September 2023
Date of orders:	20 October 2023
Decision date:	20 October 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Custodial sentence. For orders see [144].
Catchwords:	CRME – sentence - deal with money proceeds of indictable crime – attempt to deal with money proceeds of indictable crime.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Criminal Code (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Cahyadi v R (2007)168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 Kim v The Queen [2016] VSCA 238 R v Ansari (2007) 173 A Crim R 112; [2007] NSWCCA 204 R v Huang; R v Siu (2007) 174 A Crim R 370
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Uday Chintagunta (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms C Akthar (Crown) Ms K Hogan (Offender)
File Number(s):	2022/93669
Publication restriction:	Nil.