R v Rana - [2023] SADC 67

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v RANA
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2023] SADC 67
Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Barklay
6 June 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - MONEY LAUNDERING
The accused, Mr Hassan Zia Rana, is charged with 20 counts of money laundering. It is alleged that the accused was intimately involved in a scheme involving the fraudulent ordering of new Apple iPhones through an online shopping system operated by Telstra Corporation Limited ACN 051 775 556. The scheme was designed to subvert the security features of Telstra’s online shopping system and used the accounts of unwitting Telstra customers to order Apple iPhones, with a nominated delivery address linked to the accused.
Verdict. Guilty of all counts.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 130, 138; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7(1), referred to.
Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALIR 1086; Kanaan v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 109; Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619; Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234; R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82; R v C, CA [2013] SASCFC 137; R v Tran [2017] SASCFC 99; Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573; Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234, considered.

R v RANA
[2023] SADC 67
Introduction

The accused, Mr Hassan Zia Rana (Mr Rana), is charged on an Information dated 9 July 2021 with 20 counts of money laundering.[1] The charges relate to the accused knowingly taking possession of mobile phones that had been illegally obtained from Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra) (counts 1 to 15 (inclusive)), or by directly or indirectly causing illegally obtained mobile phones to be brought into the State (counts 16 and 17), and in the case of counts 18 to 20 (inclusive) by possessing cash totalling $65,435 which he knew to have been obtained by unlawful activity.
[1] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘CLCA’) s 138(1).
Mr Rana has elected to be tried by a judge alone.[2] He pleaded not guilty to all charges. For reasons which follow, I find the accused guilty of all counts.
[2] Juries Act1927 (SA) s 7(1)(a).
The charge
I set out the charges:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Money Laundering.[3]
[3] CLCA (n 1) s 138(1).
Particulars of Offence
Hassan Zia Rana on the 27^th day of April 2020 at Mawson Lakes, directly or indirectly engaged in a transaction involving property, namely four Apple iPhone mobile phones, by receiving the property, knowing that the property was tainted.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Money Laundering.[4]
[4] Ibid.
Particulars of Offence
Hassan Zia Rana on the 29^th day of April 2020 at Mawson Lakes, directly or indirectly engaged in a transaction involving property, namely four Apple iPhone mobile phones, by receiving the property, knowing that the property was tainted.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Money…

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 Rana

Details

AGLC: R v Rana [2023] SADC 67
Case: [2023] SADC 67
Decision Date: 6 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Rana and others, were charged with offences relating to money laundering and conspiracy. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The respondents challenged the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) under which they were charged, contending that they were beyond the Commonwealth's legislative power. The court had to decide whether the provisions were supported by a head of Commonwealth power, specifically whether they were incidental to the execution of an underlying power.

The court considered the arguments advanced by the respondents and found that the challenged provisions were supported by the Commonwealth's power to make laws with respect to 'foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth.' The court held that the challenged provisions were reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to achieve the lawful purpose of preventing and punishing the international movement of the proceeds of crime. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the provisions were not sufficiently connected to the execution of the underlying power. The court held that the provisions were incidental to the execution of that power and therefore valid. The respondents' challenge to the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions was dismissed. The court made no orders as to costs.

Orders