R v Hua

[2013] NSWDC 115

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hua [2013] NSWDC 115
Hearing dates:	7 June 2013
Decision date:	07 June 2013
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months. Released on recognisance release order at the expiry of 9 months upon entering into a self recognisance of $100 to be of good behaviour
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Dealing with the proceeds of crime
Legislation Cited:	Commonwealth Criminal Code
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Dai Huy HUA
Representation:	Mr T Muir - Crown S Wilkinson - Offender Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown Borak and Co - Offender
File Number(s):	2013/7775

SENTENCE

1. The offender Mr Hua, Dai Huy Hua pleaded guilty at an early stage to one offence against s 400.9(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, an offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime, sometimes described as an offence of money laundering.

1. The amount involved in Mr Hua's offending was very large indeed, more than $3 million. Anyone wanting to know how much space $3 million takes up need only look at exhibit 2 in this case. It is a significant amount, not only in terms of the dollar amounts but also in terms of the volume that such a sum of money occupies.

1. How did Mr Hua get involved in this offence? His de facto wife Maggie Quan gave evidence to the court which was not challenged in cross-examination. She and the offender came with their two sons to Australia for a holiday. When they came to Sydney at first they stayed with a friend of Mr Hua's called Ms Lee, however Ms Quan was uncomfortable. One of the reasons she was uncomfortable was that there were large sums of cash being dealt with by Ms Lee. The family therefore moved to a hotel. However when the time came to return to Hong Kong Mr Hua told Ms Quan that he was going to stay. He said that Ms Lee had asked him to stay to look after the money because she had to go overseas to visit her daughter.

1. Despite Ms Quan's sensible wishes that her husband not do what he was planning to do, he remained in Australia when she and their two sons returned to Hong Kong. It was after that, until the offender's arrest on 9 January 2013, that the offender committed the offence. It seems to be accepted that Ms Lee was involved in an enormous money laundering operation and that Mr Hua's involvement was to step into the breach when Ms Lee was unable to do what she had been doing because she was overseas. In other words it seems to be accepted that Mr Hua's involvement was for a closed period and that he was doing so at the request of someone much more significantly involved in crime than he was.

1. On the other hand he was told that he was going to be paid $10,000 for a little over a month's work. He clearly was aware at least of the possibility that what he was doing was wrong, but obviously the money was too much of an attraction. It was probably the money that overcame what should have been his proper response to his wife's objections. His wife also gave evidence that he was a trustworthy person and had known Ms Lee for a long time and trusted her.

1. In terms of assessing the objective criminality, the amount of money is enormous but balanced against that is the circumstance of the offender's limited involvement. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for three years. Mr Hua pleaded guilty at an early stage so I will reflect his willingness to assist in the administration of justice by imposing a sentence which is twenty-five percent less than it would otherwise have been. Mr Hua is not a man of unblemished character, he has served time in prison in Canada, a country of which he is a citizen, for offences involving ecstasy.

1. When not in custody in Australia he lives with his de facto wife in Hong Kong. That relationship has been in place for about twelve years and the relationship is clearly a positive one and ongoing, Ms Quan returning to Australia from Hong Kong to support her husband including giving evidence in his sentencing proceedings.

1. Because he is not a Hong Kong citizen he is unable to work there at least not officially. He works as a tennis coach apparently but he has been unemployed and financially dependent on Ms Quan despite that work.

1. Both Mr Crown and Mr Wilkinson for the offender rely on a number of other cases in order to assist me in determining the appropriate sentence in this case. It is clear that offences such as these are serious. The authorities seek to deal with illegal behaviour not only by taking steps to prevent it occurring in the first place but also by taking steps to ensure that the proceeds of crime are not available to those criminals. We do not know where this money came from but it was unlikely to be regular lotto winnings, it was clearly the proceeds of crime. The amounts involved demonstrate just how lucrative the crimes were, whatever the criminal behaviour turned out to be. For those reasons a sentence of imprisonment is required, Mr Hua has been in custody for almost five months. There is not a great deal of difference between the sentence suggested by Mr Wilkinson and the sentence suggested by Mr Crown.

1. I have taken into account in formulating the appropriate sentence that Mr Hua will be serving his sentence in a foreign country away from regular visits by his family in a country where the language most often spoken, English, is not his first language. Of course not too much can be made of this as it was Mr Hua's decision to commit his crime in a foreign country and he can scarcely complain if he is required to serve a sentence there.

1. The offender is sentenced to imprisonment, I set a head sentence of eighteen months to date from 9 January 2013. Mr Hua is to be released on a recognisance release order self in the sum of $100 after serving a period of imprisonment of nine months. That means that the earliest date on which Mr Hua will be released is 8 October this year.. The recognisance release order will run for a further nine months.

1. Mr Hua do you understand what I've done?

1. OFFENDER: Yes.

1. HIS HONOUR: You must serve nine months in gaol but that starts from when you first went into custody, so you've got about four months to go before you will be released. It is not a matter for me but I expect that once you are released you will be deported.

**********

Decision last updated: 24 July 2013