R v MA

[2025] NSWSC 1076

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Ma [2025] NSWSC 1076

Hearing dates:

9 September 2025

Decision date:

19 September 2025

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Ierace J

Decision:

The application for bail is refused.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Bail — Release application — Application opposed — Where applicant charged with a serious money laundering offence — Show-cause not applicable — Unacceptable risk assessment in respect of failure to appear — Where applicant faces prospect of five years on remand — Where likely sentence if convicted would be well in excess of five years — Whether applicant has access to significant funds

Legislation Cited:

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), ss 74(1), 74(2)

Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 16A, 17(2)(a), 18(1), 18(1)(a), 18(1)(h), 19(1), 74(1), 74(3)(c)

Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.5(1), 400.3(1)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Zhaohua Ma (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
J L Glissan ESM KC; T F Woods (Applicant)
E McGinness (Respondent)
J New (Commissioner, Australian Federal Police)

Solicitors:
Jeffreys Lawyers (Applicant)
Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Australian Government Solicitor (Commissioner, Australian Federal Police)

File Number(s):

2025/306792

Publication restriction:

Paragraphs [4] and [5] redacted pursuant to non-publication orders made 9 September 2025; further redactions to remain in place until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against the applicant

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: Zhaohua Ma (the applicant) seeks bail in respect of a charge that he conspired to deal with money intending that it would become an instrument of crime in relation to an offence contrary to s 74(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (the AML/CTF Act) and at the time of the dealing the value of the property was $1,000,000 or more, contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for 25 years.

2. Section 74(2) of the AML/CTF Act relevantly provides that it is an offence for a person subject to a requirement under s 74(1) to engage in conduct that breaches that requirement. Section 74(1) states that a person must not provide a “registrable designated remittance service” where the person provides the service other than as part of a remittance network operated by a registered remittance network provider, and the person is not a registered independent remittance dealer.

3. The applicant has been held on remand since his arrest on 1 February 2023 which, as of the date of this judgment, is a period of 962 days, or two years, seven months and nineteen days.

4. [Redacted]

5. [Redacted]

6. The arrangement between the conspirators as to the applicant’s role in the [money laundering operation] was that he introduced clients, he was a guarantor for its operations and he received 40 per cent of the profits.

7. The proposal for bail is that the applicant would reside at the family home and only leave to report daily to police, attend legal conferences and court and to obtain medical services, with at least 24 hours prior notice to the officer in charge of the investigation of those appointments. Surety is offered to ensure his appearance in the sum of $1,700,000 by two cousins who are Sydney residents, with an acceptable person (a friend) to lodge cash in the sum of $100,000. He would surrender his passport, presently held by his wife, prior to his release and be subject to restrictions on access to devices enabling electronic communications.

8. The Crown opposes bail on the basis that the Court would have a bail concern that if granted bail the applicant would fail to appear, which cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level of risk by the proposed conditions. I note that the offence is not a “show cause” offence for the purposes of s 16A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW).

9. The applicant made an unsuccessful release application before Button J on 6 August 2024, so that it is necessary for him as a preliminary step to establish that there are grounds for a further release application: s 74(1) of the Bail Act. The applicant relies upon s 74(3)(c) of the Bail Act, namely, that there is a relevant change of circumstances. It is agreed by the parties that the applicant’s trial is not expected to occur until 2027. The delay is due to the examination of a witness at committal having been set down for five days in April 2026 and an agreed trial estimate of six months, so that the period on remand would be in the order of five years by the time the trial finishes. I am satisfied that the applicant has discharged the onus placed upon him by s 74.

10. I note that Button J described the prosecution case as being “by no means overwhelming, but that it has some strength”. I consider that that is a reasonable assessment of the Crown case, on the material before me.

The applicant’s circumstances and personal history

11. [Redacted]

12. [Redacted]

13. [Redacted]

The issues on the application

Whether the applicant has access to significant funds

14. A point of contention in the application is whether the applicant in fact has access to significant sums of money. Button J noted that the applicant accepted that he had overseas assets worth $160,000,000 and a claim by him that he could not access those funds to post his own surety because they were not liquid assets. Button J was sceptical of that claim.

15. The position remains the same before me. In an affidavit dated 28 July 2025, his solicitor states:

“The applicant instructs me that he has had financial interests in China but that he currently has no access to any funds in China.”

16. [Redacted]

[Redacted]

17. [Redacted]

18. [Redacted]

19. [Redacted]

[Redacted]

20. [Redacted]

21. [Redacted]

Consideration and determination

22. There are highly unusual aspects of the applicant’s case that tend in opposite directions on the question of bail. On the one hand, if bail is not granted, there is the prospect of a period in prison on remand of five years for a charge that does not involve physical violence and where there is no suggestion of a risk of the commission of a serious offence if granted bail.

23. On the other hand, that single charge is of a money laundering offence involving well over $100,000,000 in which he was a key player, and the applicant does not contest that he has overseas assets of approximately $160,000,000, although he has provided little information as to their nature or source, which is, to say the least, perplexing.

24. The submission made on behalf of the applicant that he cannot access those funds from Australia is advanced with no attempt by the applicant to explain why that is so. His accountant’s valuation of his assets as of December 2022 included a 25 per cent share of the ownership of a mine, valued at $149,075,730, and a 25 per cent share in the ownership of a hotel, valued at $12,422,977. There is no explanation of the nature of those interests, in particular, whether they are shareholdings, in which case, why some or all of the shares could not be sold. One would think that his share of the hotel could be sold in its entirety whether a shareholding or not if only to assist his family without significantly denting his overall wealth. An available inference to be drawn in the absence of an explanation, let alone evidence to the contrary, is that, in spite of his family’s predicament, he apparently chooses not to liquidate an overseas asset.

25. Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider the application for bail on the basis that, even if he cannot access some of his funds from Australia, it cannot be excluded that the applicant, if he left the jurisdiction while on bail would be able to access a significant source of wealth once overseas to reimburse any sources of assistance he might have received in Australia or elsewhere to make good his departure.

26. I turn then to consider s 18(1)(h) of the Bail Act, namely, the length of time that the applicant is likely to be on remand if bail is refused. The scale of the money laundering operation that is alleged against the applicant as a co-conspirator is very high. The non-parole period of the sentence that would follow a conviction would likely be well in excess of five years in view of the likely finding of the objective seriousness of the offence. His alleged share of the profit of the [money laundering operation] is evidence in itself of how significant his role in the enterprise was regarded by his co-conspirators. While that consideration does not negate the extraordinary likely period of remand, it does reduce the weight it would otherwise warrant.

27. I note the applicant’s absence of prior convictions and significant family ties in Australia, but also that he has community and family ties in, and citizenship of, a foreign state: s 18(1)(a) of the Bail Act. His community ties in Australia do not include credible evidence of work associations. He has not filed a tax return since residing in Australia and there is no evidence of lawful work-related activity prior to his arrest.

28. I have a bail concern pursuant to s 17(2)(a) of the Bail Act that if granted bail the applicant would fail to appear. In assessing that concern, I take into account the matters identified in s 18(1) of the Bail Act that are relevant to the particular circumstances of this application. I find that the risk that the applicant will not appear, if granted bail, is at an unacceptable level, in spite of the proposed conditions of bail. Accordingly, pursuant to s 19(1), I refuse the application for bail.

29. As to the applicant’s psychological and physical health concerns, I would be content for the applicant’s solicitor to forward a copy of this judgment together with Mr Diment’s report of 27 July 2025 to the Governor of the prison where the applicant is presently held, copied to Justice Health, conveying the Court’s concern as to the applicant’s complaint of delay in receiving health care treatment and feedback, including psychological and dental treatment.

**********

Amendments

23 September 2025 - Further redactions to remain in place until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

Decision last updated: 23 September 2025