R v Chu - [2025] NSWDC 309

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chu [2025] NSWDC 309
Hearing dates: 29 November 2024, 28 March 2025
Date of orders: 28 March 2025
Decision date: 28 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
See pars [53]-[56].

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE
Commonwealth offences – 4 counts of money laundering – Taking cash from undercover operatives to be converted into cryptocurrency – “Frontline” worker – Remunerated by 1% of each transaction – Syndicate collecting 6% of each transaction – Genuine remorse – Prior good character – Re-offending unlikely – Aggregate sentence of 3 years to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order.
State offence – Crimes Act 1900 s192K, possession of identification information to deal with proceeds of crime – Fixed term of imprisonment for time served before being bailed.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 ss 192K, 193BA.
Criminal Code Act 1995 ss 11.1(1), 400.4(2), 400.5(2), 400.9(1A).

Cases Cited:
Vamadevan v R [2024] NSWCCA 223
Kim v R; Fang v R [2016] VSCA 238

Texts Cited:
Nil.

Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown – R (Cth)
Offender – Dong Sun Chu
Representation: Counsel:
Crown – Mr Ng, K.
Offender – Mr Park, J.

File Number(s): 2022/00281556
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Dong Sun Chu appears before me today for sentence. The substantive sentencing hearing was held on 28 November 2024, but the matter needed to be adjourned to await the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Vamadevan v R [2024] NSWCCA 223 (‘Vamadevan v R’) which was given on 6 December 2024. The circumstances in which Mr Chu stands for sentence are somewhat unusual.
On 29 July 2024, the offender was arraigned before his Honour, Judge Coleman SC, and a jury panel. An indictment was presented containing six counts. The offender pleaded guilty to counts numbered 1, 3, 5 and 6, but pleaded not guilty to counts 2 and 4. The offender’s pleas of guilty were not accepted by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth in discharge of the entire indictment. Accordingly, a trial commenced in respect of counts 2 and 4.
On 1 August 2024, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty in respect of counts 2 and 4. Not before the jury was an offence contained on a s 16 certificate, an offence contrary to s 192K of the Crimes Act 1900. That offence was formally pleaded in a Court Attendance Notice in this fashion:

“On 20 September 2022 at Rhodes in the State of New South Wales, Dong Sun Chu, did possess identification information, to wit five bank cards with the intention of committing an indictable offence, to wit dealing with the proceeds of general crime intending to disguise features of the property contrary to s 193BA of the Crimes Act 1900.”

That is an offence which is punishable by imprisonment for seven years, but, when it is contained on a s 166 certificate, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for two years.

Facts

Count…

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 Chu

Details

AGLC: R v Chu [2025] NSWDC 309
Case: [2025] NSWDC 309
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Chu, was charged with four counts of money laundering under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 and one count of possession of identification information to deal with the proceeds of crime under the Crimes Act 1900. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant took cash from undercover operatives and converted it into cryptocurrency for a syndicate, acting as a "frontline" worker and earning 1% of each transaction, with the syndicate taking 6%. The syndicate’s operations were extensive, and Chu played a pivotal role in facilitating the transactions.

The central legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate sentence for the appellant's Commonwealth offences and the applicability of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) given the circumstances of the case. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate sentence for the state offence, considering the time Chu had already served while on bail. The court also had to weigh the factors of genuine remorse, prior good character, and the likelihood of re-offending against the gravity of the crimes committed.

The High Court held that Chu's actions were serious, but his role was less central than that of others in the syndicate. The court acknowledged Chu's genuine remorse and good character, and assessed the low likelihood of re-offending. Consequently, the court decided to impose an aggregate sentence of three years for the Commonwealth offences, to be served by way of an ICO. For the state offence, the court imposed a fixed term of imprisonment equal to the time Chu had already served while on bail. This approach balanced the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

The court ordered that Chu serve a three-year sentence for the Commonwealth offences through an ICO, and a fixed term of imprisonment for the state offence, equal to the time served before being bailed. The specific details of the ICO and the fixed term were outlined in paragraphs [53] to [56] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See pars [53]-[56].

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 Chu [2025] NSWDC 309
Hearing dates:	29 November 2024, 28 March 2025
Date of orders:	28 March 2025
Decision date:	28 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	See pars [53]-[56].
Catchwords:	CRIME – SENTENCE Commonwealth offences – 4 counts of money laundering – Taking cash from undercover operatives to be converted into cryptocurrency – “Frontline” worker – Remunerated by 1% of each transaction – Syndicate collecting 6% of each transaction – Genuine remorse – Prior good character – Re-offending unlikely – Aggregate sentence of 3 years to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order. State offence – Crimes Act 1900 s192K, possession of identification information to deal with proceeds of crime – Fixed term of imprisonment for time served before being bailed.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 ss 192K, 193BA. Criminal Code Act 1995 ss 11.1(1), 400.4(2), 400.5(2), 400.9(1A).
Cases Cited:	Vamadevan v R [2024] NSWCCA 223 Kim v R; Fang v R [2016] VSCA 238
Texts Cited:	Nil.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown – R (Cth) Offender – Dong Sun Chu
Representation:	Counsel: Crown – Mr Ng, K. Offender – Mr Park, J.
File Number(s):	2022/00281556
Publication restriction:	Nil.