District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Nguyen [2020] NSWDC 367 Hearing dates: 2 July 2020 Decision date: 16 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [64]
Catchwords: Money laundering; single offence of possession of money, reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Ansari v R [2007] NSWCCA 204
R v Jiao [2015] NSWCCA 95
R v Kneebone (1999) 47 NSWLR 450; [1999] NSWCCA 279
R v Lin [2014] NSWCCA 254
Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116
Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Yen Phi Nguyen (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
B Stevens (Crown)
B Levet (Offender)
D Monieson
E Hirst (Cth Crown)
File Number(s): 19/60556 Publication restriction: Nil
remarks on sentence
-
On 11 March 2020 the offender pleaded not guilty to one count on an Indictment as follows:
That she on or about 23 February 2019 at Bankstown in New South Wales, dealt with money or other property, it being reasonable to suspect that such money or other property was proceeds of crime and at the time of dealing the value of the money or property was $100,000.00 or more.
-
On 17 March 2020, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on that count. The matter was then stood over to 21 May 2020 for sentence hearing, and subsequently was adjourned to 2 July 2020.
-
The offence is pursuant to s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty proscribed is a period of imprisonment for 3 years, or 180 penalty units, or both.
The sentence hearing
-
The sentence hearing took place on 2 July 2020. The Commonwealth Sentence Summary became Ex A on the sentence hearing. It included a Statement of Agreed Facts pursuant to s 191 of the Evidence Act 1995. A fair summary of facts to be derived from the jury verdict is as follows.
-
On 23 February 2019, the offender returned from Vietnam to Sydney on Flight JQ 62. She returned to her home at Unit 14/17-19 xx Avenue, Bankstown, where she lived as a tenant, at approximately 12.30pm that day.
-
The owner of the premises, Minh Kha Le, was not at home when she arrived. He returned home at approximately 1.45pm and parked his car in the garage and went upstairs into unit 14. Upon entering the unit he observed the offender standing over the coffee table in the living room where there was a light brown coloured box containing Australian currency. Mr Le observed $50 notes in the box as the notes were yellow. He went to the bathroom on the ground floor of the unit. He remained in the bathroom for between eight and 10 minutes, listening to music on his phone with earphones.
-
On emerging from the bathroom, and whilst he was in the laundry, Mr Le heard a noise at the rear of…
Continue reading R v Nguyen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Nguyen [2020] NSWDC 367
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 367
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered various factors in determining the appropriate sentence. These included the defendant's role in the money laundering scheme, the amount of money involved, and the potential harm caused by the offence. The court also examined the defendant's background, including his prior criminal history and personal circumstances. In assessing the seriousness of the offence, the court noted that money laundering can have significant social and economic impacts, and that it often involves complex criminal networks. The court determined that the offence warranted a custodial sentence, given its seriousness and the need to deter future offending.
The court ultimately decided on a full-time custodial sentence, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The specific details of the sentence, including the length of the custodial term, were outlined in the court's judgment. The court emphasised the importance of addressing money laundering as a serious crime with significant consequences for individuals and society. The final orders, including the exact details of the custodial sentence, were provided in the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [64]
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.