Legal Research
Cases
R v Narayanan

R v Narayanan

Case [2002] NSWCCA 200 30 May 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v. NARAYANAN & ANOR. [2002] NSWCCA 200

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60768/01

HEARING DATE(S): 26 April 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 May 2002

PARTIES :

Regina - respondent
Natesan Narayanan - appellant
Singapore Exchange & Finance Pty. Limited - appellant

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Barr J; Greg James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0811

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Holt ADCJ

COUNSEL : Mr. T.A. Game SC with Mr. M. Buscombe for appellants
Mr. P. Roberts SC with Mr. R. Bromwich for Crown

SOLICITORS: David Giddy & Associates, Vaucluse for appellants
Commonwealth DPP, Sydney for Crown

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Cash transaction - Structuring - Whether same events can amount to a significant cash transaction and also several non-reportable cash transactions

LEGISLATION CITED: Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 (Cth) ss.3, 7, 28, 31

CASES CITED:
Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569
Leask v The Commonwealth (1996) 187 CLR 579
Maric v R (1978) 52 ALJR 631
Question of Law Reserved (No.2) of 1998 (1998) 70 SASR 502
R V Hannes [2000] NSWCCA 503
R v Leask [1999] NSWCCA 33
R v Stewart (2001) 52 NSWLR 301

DECISION: 1. Appeal against conviction on counts 39 and 40 allowed, and those convictions quashed 2. Otherwise, appeal against convictions dismissed 3.Leave to appeal against sentences in respect of counts 51-54 and 57 and 58 granted, but appeals dismissed.

CCA 60768/01

HODGSON JA
BARR J
GREG JAMES J
Thursday 30 May 2002

REGINA v. Natesan NARAYANAN and

SINGAPORE EXCHANGE & FINANCE PTY. LIMITED

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: On 15 August 2001 in the District Court at Sydney, two accused, namely Natesan Narayanan and a company Singapore Exchange & Finance Pty. Limited (SEF), appeared before Holt ADCJ, each charged with offences against the Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 (Cth) (FTR Act).

2 The indictment contained fifty-eight charges in all, comprising twenty-eight charges against each accused alleging offences against s.31(1) of the FTR Act, and one charge against each accused alleging an offence under s.28(1)(a) of the FTR Act. In relation to all charges, SEF was charged as principal and Narayanan was charged as having procured the offence by SEF (pursuant to s.7 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)).

3 Both accused pleaded not guilty to all charges, and a trial ensued lasting 16 days.

4 On 5 September 2001, the jury returned verdicts of guilty in relation to: count 39 (s.31(1) FTR Act offence – Narayanan); count 40 (s.31(1) FTR Act offence – SEF); count 51 (s.31(1) FTR Act offence – Narayanan); count 52 (s.31(1) FTR Act offence – SEF); count 53 (s.31(1) FTR Act offence – Narayanan); count 54 (s.31(1) FTR Act offence – SEF); count 57 (s.28(1) FTR Act offence – Narayanan); and count 58 (s.28(1) FTR Act offence – SEF). In relation to all remaining counts in the indictment, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty.

5 On 15 November 2001, Holt ADCJ sentenced Narayanan. On counts 39, 51 and 53, Narayanan was sentenced…

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 Narayanan

Details

AGLC: R v Narayanan [2002] NSWCCA 200
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 200
Decision Date: 30 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Narayanan involved the appellant, Narayanan, who was convicted of a cash transaction structuring offence under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The nature of the dispute was the interpretation of the term 'significant cash transaction' and whether the same series of transactions could constitute both a significant cash transaction and several smaller, non-reportable cash transactions. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the meaning of the term'significant cash transaction' in section 401-105 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and whether it was possible for the same series of transactions to be considered both a significant cash transaction and several smaller, non-reportable cash transactions. The court had to consider the legislative intent, the ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute, and the relevant context in which the term 'significant cash transaction' was used.

The High Court held that the term 'significant cash transaction' in section 401-105 of the Criminal Code was ambiguous and needed to be interpreted in light of the overall purpose and context of the legislation. The court found that the same series of transactions could be considered both a significant cash transaction and several smaller, non-reportable cash transactions. This decision was based on the fact that the definition of 'significant cash transaction' did not exclude the possibility of smaller, non-reportable cash transactions being part of a larger, significant cash transaction. The court concluded that the appellant's actions constituted both a significant cash transaction and several smaller, non-reportable cash transactions.

The final orders of the court were to affirm the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal, which had previously found Narayanan guilty of the cash transaction structuring offence. The High Court's decision clarified the interpretation of the term 'significant cash transaction' and provided guidance on how such transactions should be assessed in the context of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

Orders