R v Scholze

Case [2024] QCA 252

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Scholze [2024] QCA 252

PARTIES:

R
v
SCHOLZE, Luke Robert
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 33 of 2024
DC No 368 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 5 February 2024 (Coker DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

13 December 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 October 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Boddice JA and Davis J

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where a jury found the appellant guilty of one count of dealing with money that was the proceeds of crime, in excess of $100,000 – where admissions were made as to the relevant cash transactions – where a significant quantity of cannabis was found at the appellant’s residence, bundled in weights which accorded with the imperial measures used in the distribution of cannabis – where the Crown led evidence of text message conversations in which the appellant said that his cannabis was underweight; that it was “full of seed”; and that he could not sell it – whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where, at trial, the appellant brought an application that there was no case to answer – where the Crown submitted there was a case to answer – where the Crown submitted that there was evidence capable of establishing, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant was supplying commercial quantities of cannabis over the relevant period, and the $270,000 in cash was proceeds from those sales –  whether a miscarriage of justice occurred because the trial judge rejected the appellant’s no case to answer application

Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Jackson for the appellant
C O’Connor for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

  1. MULLINS P:  I agree with Boddice JA.

  2. BODDICE JA:  On 5 February 2024, a jury found the appellant guilty of one count of dealing with money that was the proceeds of crime, in excess of $100,000.

  3. On 6 February 2024, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years, with a non-parole period of 18 months.

  4. The appellant appeals his conviction, relying on two grounds.  First, that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.  Second, that a miscarriage of justice occurred because the trial judge rejected an application that the appellant had no case to answer.

    Indictment

  5. The indictment alleged that between 13 April 2020 and 6 October 2020, the appellant dealt with money or other property that was, and that he believed to be, proceeds of crime and at the time the value of the money, or other…

Continue reading R v Scholze

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Scholze [2024] QCA 252
Case
[2024] QCA 252
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scholze involved the appellant who was found guilty by a jury of one count of dealing with money that was the proceeds of crime, in excess of $100,000. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence on several grounds, including that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence and that a miscarriage of justice occurred because the trial judge rejected his no case to answer application. The court was required to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the trial process.

The court considered the evidence presented at trial, including admissions made by the appellant regarding cash transactions and the discovery of a significant quantity of cannabis at his residence. The court noted that the prosecution had to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the cash was proceeds of crime from the appellant commercially supplying cannabis over a 12-month period. The court also examined text message conversations between the appellant and others, which the prosecution argued showed the appellant's involvement in dealing cannabis. The jury was directed to consider whether the appellant sent the texts, whether the content was true, and whether they related to dealing commercially with cannabis.

The court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. The court concluded that it was open to the jury to reject the appellant's evidence as untruthful, which significantly impacted his credibility. The court also determined that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial process, as the trial judge's decision to reject the appellant's no case to answer application was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial process. The appellant's arguments regarding the unreliability of the evidence and the potential for other sources of income were not sufficient to overturn the jury's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

At trial, admissions were made as to the relevant cash transactions. At issue, was whether the prosecution could establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the cash was proceeds of crime from the appellant commercially supplying cannabis over a 12-month period.EvidenceAdmissions The following facts were formally admitted by the appellant:“1.During the search of the dwelling on 18 October 2020 at [address], Oonoonba, police located the following items:a.A Cryovac bag in the master bedroom dresser drawer containing 455g of Cannabis.b.7 ATM receipts located on kitchen table and from spare bedroomc.Iphone XS located in a black sports bag in a bedroomd.Iphone X in vehicle registration ‘BLKLST’.e.A parcel addressed to ‘Mark S – [address], Oonoonba’ in the dresser drawer in children’s bedroom. It was found to contain 898g of Cannabis.f.A cryovac bag in the kitchen cupboard which contained 222g of Cannabis.g.A Westpac ATM receipt in the Lounge.h.10 used clip seal bags in the kitchen in a Waeco fridge in a top cupboard.2.The defendant performed the transaction of money contained in ‘Annexure A – Relevant Transactions’. Any reference contained in the column ‘Location of Deposit’ was provided by the defendant, at the relevant time of the deposit, on the deposit slip.3.The defendant received Bitcoin into his BTC wallet as per ‘Annexure B – Money Transferred vs Bitcoin Purchased’. The column ‘Approximate Value of Transaction’ is an approximation based on historical value of Bitcoin.4.The connection the defendant had to Modern Wall Street Pty Ltd was as a customer. He was not otherwise aware of or involved in any other way with the following statements. Financial analysis of multiple bank accounts used by Modern Wall Street Pty Ltd showed:a.between 14 October 2019 and 17 November 2020 that the company received a total of $15,277,677.03 in deposits.b.$4,018,949.47 of these deposits were sent from the accounts of AKG Investing Pty Ltd.c.$2,809,922.36 of these deposits were sent from the account of Easy Collect Pty Ltd.d.$49,480 of these deposits were sent from accounts of Easy Lend Pty Ltd.e.Once received into these accounts, $326,002.22 was withdrawn as cash at branches primarily in South Australia and NSW. $16,000 was withdrawn as cash at ATM’s.f.$11,714,134.54 was sent from Modern Wall Street Pty Ltd accounts, to the Modern Wall Street account with Independent Reserve.g.Another $209,006 was sent to the digital currency exchange ‘Bittfloww’.h.$109,959 was sent to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia accounts of Mr Sloggett. $10,000 was sent to [name omitted], Mr Sloggett’s girlfriend.i.$14,000 was seen to the account of Gabrielle Lancej.$60,000 was sent to the accounts of Alex Karagoizisk.$34,540 was sent to the accounts of Kenneth EU.5.The defendant has utilised the phone number [ABCD].6.Annexure C is a copy of records held by the Australian Taxation Office. Namely:a.A copy of the defendant’s ‘Income Tax Return’ for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020.b.The defendant’s ‘Notice of Assessment’ for the year ended 30 June 2020.c.The defendant’s ‘Business Activity Statement’ for the period 1 July 2020 to 30 September 2020d.The defendant’s ‘Business Activity Statement’ for the period 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020.”

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The jury was further directed that before they could rely on the contents of the texts and communications between the appellant and primustiling and bosscoin888, to show the real character of the appellant’s actions, they had to first be satisfied that the appellant sent the texts and second, be satisfied that what they contained was true, rather than what the appellant said was “just talking shit”. Finally, the jury had to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the texts were in relation to dealing commercially with cannabis.ConsiderationGround 1 The determination of a ground that the verdict was unreasonable and against the weight of the evidence, requires an appellate court to undertake its own independent assessment of the record as a whole, to determine whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt of the offence, beyond reasonable doubt. Due regard is to be had to the jury’s role and the advantage afforded to it in having seen and heard the witnesses. However, if the consideration of the record as a whole, reveals discrepancies, inadequacies, or other aspects of the evidence which, even allowing for those advantages, supports a conclusion that the jury ought to have had a reasonable doubt, the verdict is to be set aside as unreasonable.[9][9]Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25 at [38]. In undertaking an independent assessment of the record in the present case, particular regard must be had to the fact that satisfaction of the appellant’s guilt of the offence, was dependent upon an acceptance of circumstantial evidence as to the appellant’s involvement in the commercial sale of cannabis and the monies, the subject of the proceeds of crime count, being proceeds from that commercial sale exceeding $100,000. The jury could only be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, if a consideration of the evidence excluded a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. The appellant submits that the jury could not be so satisfied, as there was evidence before the jury that he was the recipient of cash on a regular basis from customers of his mechanical and car parts businesses. The appellant relies on his statements to police in the initial interview, his evidence and the evidence of two customers, as to the payment of cash to him for mechanical services and/or car parts. It is submitted that the jury could not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that the monies, the subject of the count, was undeclared cash from his business. Whilst there was evidence which raised for the jury that hypothesis, a consideration of the evidence as a whole supports a conclusion that it was open to the jury to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that notwithstanding that evidence, the monies the subject of the count, were proceeds of crime from the commercial sale of wholesale quantities of cannabis and were in a sum in excess of $100,000. This conclusion flows from the following considerations. First, it was open to the jury to reject the appellant’s evidence as untruthful. The appellant made statements to police about no mobile phone being in the home, about his cessation of purchasing Bitcoin and about there being no drug-related messages on his phone which, it was open to the jury to find, were untruthful. That conclusion significantly impacted on his credibility generally.