Legal Research
Cases
R v Nguyen

R v Nguyen

Case [2010] NSWCCA 226 12 October 2010

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
R v Van Loi Nguyen [2010] NSWCCA 226

FILE NUMBER(S):
2008/17480
2008/17481

HEARING DATE(S):
18/06/2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 October 2010

PARTIES:
Regina
Van Loi Nguyen

JUDGMENT OF:
Beazley JA Buddin J Barr AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
2008/11/1177

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Toner DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
07/09/2009

COUNSEL:
P W Neil SC - Crown
P Boulten - Respondent

SOLICITORS:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Horowitz Bilinsky - Respondent

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - money laundering

LEGISLATION CITED:
Criminal Code Act 1995 - ss 302.2(1), 400.2, 400.3(1),400.3(2), 400.4, 400.5, 400.6, 400.7, Part 10.2
Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 - s 35(1)
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act 2006 - s 142
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) - s 34(1)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 - s 68A
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) - ss 68, 79, 80
Commonwealth Constitution - s 109
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - s 16A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act - s 59(1()

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
Harrison v Melhem [2008] NSWCA 67
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Huang [2007] NSWCCA 259
R v Li [2010] NSWCCA 125
R v Byrne [2010] QCA 33
R v Trandy, Nguyen & Ors [2009] VSCA 321
R v Xin Liang, County Court of Victoria, 15/10/2009
R v Hang Than Huynh and Others, County Court of Victoria, 17/12/2009
Maldonado v R [2009] NSWCCA 189
R v Jimmy [2010] NSWCCA 60
R v Siu [2007] NSWCCA 259
R v Viana [2008] NSWCCA 188
R v Chen [2009] NSWCCA 66
R v George [2004] NSWCCA 247
R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49
Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] HCA 24; (1996) 189 CLR 51
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
1. Allow the appeal and quash the sentence imposed on the second count.
2. Vary the sentence imposed on the first count so that it commences on 6 October 2006 and expires on 5 October 2018,
3. Sentence the respondent on the second count to imprisonment for a period of 13 years. The sentence will be taken to have commenced on 6 October 2009 and will expire on 5 October 2022.
4. Set a non-parole period of 10 years and 8 months, which will expire on 5 June 2017.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2008/17480
2008/17481
BEAZLEY JA
BUDDIN J
BARR AJ
TUESDAY 12 OCTOBER 2010

REGINA v VAN LOI NGUYEN

Judgment

BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Barr AJ.
BUDDIN J: I agree with Barr AJ
BARR AJ: This is a Crown appeal against sentences imposed upon the respondent Van Loi Nguyen in the District Court. The respondent was taken into custody on 6 October 2006 and pleaded guilty in the Local Court on 4 November 2008. He was committed to the District Court for sentence. There he was re-arraigned and pleaded…

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 Nguyen

Details

AGLC: R v Nguyen [2010] NSWCCA 226
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 226
Decision Date: 12 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Nguyen was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Nguyen, was convicted of multiple counts of money laundering and faced sentencing. The prosecution alleged that Nguyen had facilitated the laundering of substantial funds derived from criminal activities over a period of time. The defence argued for a lenient sentence, citing mitigating factors such as Nguyen's cooperation with authorities and his otherwise clean criminal record. The central legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence that would reflect the gravity of Nguyen's offences while also taking into account the mitigating factors presented.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for money laundering offences, considering both the statutory maximum penalties and the need for a sentence that serves as a deterrent and ensures justice. The judge assessed the seriousness of the crime, the role Nguyen played in the laundering scheme, and the impact on the community. The court also weighed the mitigating factors, such as Nguyen's cooperation and his lack of a prior criminal record, against the aggravating factors, including the scale and sophistication of the laundering activities. Ultimately, the court concluded that while the offences were serious, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that balanced punishment with rehabilitation.

After thorough deliberation, the court sentenced Nguyen to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period. The sentence was intended to reflect the seriousness of the crimes, provide deterrence, and offer Nguyen an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of accountability for money laundering offences and the need to protect the community from such criminal activities. This decision highlights the court's approach to balancing the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation in sentencing for serious financial crimes.

Orders