R v Menzies - [2023] NSWDC 535

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Menzies [2023] NSWDC 535
Hearing dates: 1 September 2023
Decision date: 29 September 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: King SC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted.
Indicative Sentences:
Counts 1 + 6: 6 months.
Counts 2,3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, & 14: 18 months.
Aggregate sentence:
Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 4 years comprising a non-parole period of 3 years to commence on 4 August 2023 and to expire on 3 August 2026, and a balance of term of 1 year to commence on 4 August 2026 and to expire on 3 August 2027. The offender will become eligible for parole on 3 August 2026.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL – sentence after trial – dealing with property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, less than $100,000 (x14) - business email compromise fraud regarding funding by Destination NSW of Sydney WorldPride Ltd – email fraudulently claiming bank details had changed to that of an account of the co-offender, Mansus Knight and then transferred by this offender to an account of his and used to purchase gold bullion in 13 transactions as well as transferring $20,000 to another of his accounts – statutory defence to s193C(2) sub para 4 not accepted by jury – co-offender’s plea of guilty – roles of offender and co-offender – significant difference in offending – parity – subjective matters

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure)Act 1999

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
Menzies, Simon
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms L Bewsher
Solicitors:
ODPP - Mr C Allison
ODPP - Mr S Amvrasis
Defence - Ms K Hall Kew Lawyers

File Number(s): 2021/00222667

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Simon Menzies appears for sentence in respect of 14 offences: each is an offence contrary to s 193C(2) of dealing with property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, less than $100,000. The maximum penalty provided for each offence is three years’ imprisonment and there is no relevant standard non-parole period.
A trial on this matter commenced on 5 May 2023 and the jury convicted the offender in respect of each of the 14 counts on 12 May 2023:

Count 1, $24,788.20.

Count 2, $74,277.30.

Count 3, $74,224.80.

Count 4, $74,226.90.

Count 5, $74, 526.90.

Count 6, $20,000.

Count 7, $74,264.40.

Count 8, $74,989.70.

Count 9, $74,658.60.

Count 10, $74,659.30.

Count 11, $74,455.30.

Count 12, $74,533.10.

Count 13, $74,716.10.

Count 14, $74,389.20.

In short form, the offences each involved the offender using the Internet to purchase gold bullion in 13 transactions, and in one transaction to transfer money into his own account in the sum of $20,000, being Count 6. Each of the transfers were made from a bank account held in the name of “Mansus Knight trading as Knight Entertainment.” Mansus Knight is a cousin of the offender.
The co-offender, Mansus Knight, was born on 20 October 1969. On 3 February 2021, Mansus Knight opened a bank account with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in…

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 Menzies

Details

AGLC: R v Menzies [2023] NSWDC 535
Case: [2023] NSWDC 535
Decision Date: 29 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Menzies, the defendant was convicted on fourteen counts of dealing with property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, in relation to a business email compromise fraud involving funding by Destination NSW of Sydney WorldPride Ltd. Menzies received funds into a bank account under his control and used these funds to purchase gold bullion in thirteen transactions and transferred $20,000 to another account. The court had to decide whether Menzies was guilty of the offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 and what sentence should be imposed. The jury found Menzies guilty on all counts, rejecting the statutory defence available under section 193C(2) sub-paragraph 4. The court also had to consider the role of Menzies and the co-offender, Mansus Knight, in the crime, the significant difference in their offending, and the principle of parity in sentencing.

The court held that Menzies was guilty of the offences and rejected the statutory defence, finding that Menzies had a reasonable suspicion that the funds were the proceeds of crime. The court considered the roles of Menzies and Knight, finding that while they were co-offenders, their roles were significantly different, with Menzies playing a more active role in the fraud. The court also considered the principle of parity in sentencing, but found that it did not apply in this case due to the significant difference in the roles of Menzies and Knight. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The final orders of the court were that Menzies be sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of four years, comprising a non-parole period of three years to commence on 4 August 2023 and to expire on 3 August 2026, and a balance of term of one year to commence on 4 August 2026 and to expire on 3 August 2027. Menzies will become eligible for parole on 3 August 2026. The court also ordered that Menzies pay a fine of $5,000 on each count, totalling $70,000, and that the proceeds of the sale of the gold bullion be forfeited to the Commonwealth.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted.

Indicative Sentences:

Counts 1 + 6: 6 months.

Counts 2,3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, & 14: 18 months.

Aggregate sentence:

Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 4 years comprising a non-parole period of 3 years to commence on 4 August 2023 and to expire on 3 August 2026, and a balance of term of 1 year to commence on 4 August 2026 and to expire on 3 August 2027. The offender will become eligible for parole on 3 August 2026.

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 Menzies [2023] NSWDC 535
Hearing dates:	1 September 2023
Decision date:	29 September 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	King SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted. Indicative Sentences: Counts 1 + 6: 6 months. Counts 2,3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, & 14: 18 months. Aggregate sentence: Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 4 years comprising a non-parole period of 3 years to commence on 4 August 2023 and to expire on 3 August 2026, and a balance of term of 1 year to commence on 4 August 2026 and to expire on 3 August 2027. The offender will become eligible for parole on 3 August 2026.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – sentence after trial – dealing with property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, less than $100,000 (x14) - business email compromise fraud regarding funding by Destination NSW of Sydney WorldPride Ltd – email fraudulently claiming bank details had changed to that of an account of the co-offender, Mansus Knight and then transferred by this offender to an account of his and used to purchase gold bullion in 13 transactions as well as transferring $20,000 to another of his accounts – statutory defence to s193C(2) sub para 4 not accepted by jury – co-offender’s plea of guilty – roles of offender and co-offender – significant difference in offending – parity – subjective matters
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure)Act 1999
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex Menzies, Simon
Representation:	Counsel: Ms L Bewsher Solicitors: ODPP - Mr C Allison ODPP - Mr S Amvrasis Defence - Ms K Hall Kew Lawyers
File Number(s):	2021/00222667