R v Wang and Roizman - [2010] NSWDC 170

CITATION: R v Wang & Roizman [2010] NSWDC 170
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 8 to 23/2/10

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 August 2010

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: King SC DCJ

DECISION: WANG:
Convicted.
Sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 10 years to commence on 17/1/10 and expire on 16/1/20, with a NPP of 6 years and 6 months, to commence on 17/1/10 and to expire on 16/7/16.
Eligible for release to parole on 16/7/16.
ROIZMAN:
Convicted.
Sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 9 years and 6 months to commence on 22/2/10 and to expire on 21/8/19, with a NPP of 5 years and 6 months, to commence on 22/2/10 and to expire on 21/8/15..
Eligible for release to parole on 21/8/15.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - particular offences - property offences - dealing with money the proceeds of crime - Sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Code Act 1995

CASES CITED: R v Raz NSWCCA unreported, 17 December 1990
Ansari v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 204
Chen [2009] NSWCCA 66
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Hart INSWCCA unreported, 26 July 1999)
R v Sopher (1993) 70 A Crim R 570
R v Price ( NSWCCA unreported, 2 September 1993)

PARTIES: Regina
Jian Ping Wang
Alexandr Roizman

FILE NUMBER(S): 2007/11073; 2007/11075

COUNSEL: Mr P G Hastings QC with Mr A N Williams for Crown
Mr C J Watson for Wang, Jian Ping
Mr J C Spencer for Roizman, Alaxandr

SOLICITORS: Mr T Nicholl for Crown
Mr P Ryan for Wang, Jian Ping
Mr P Green for Roizman, Alexandr

JUDGMENT

1. On 23 February 2010 Jian Ping WANG (WANG) and Alexandr ROIZMAN (ROIZMAN) were found guilty by jury verdict after trial commencing 8 February 2010

2. WANG was found guilty of an offence contrary to s 400.3(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 in the following terms:

“Between about 1 December 2003 and about 6 January 2004 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere did deal with money to the value of $1,000,000 or more which was the proceed of crime, being reckless as to the fact that the money was the proceeds of crime.”

3. ROIZMAN was found was found guilty of aiding and abetting WANG in commission of the offence contrary to s 400.3(2) and s 11.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 in the following terms:

“Between about 1 December 2003 and about 6 January 2004 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere did aid and abet the commission of an offence by Jian Ping WANG in that Jian Ping WANG did deal with money to the value of $1,000,000 or more which was the proceed of crime, when he was reckless as to the fact that the money was the proceeds of crime.”

4. The maximum penalty applicable to the each of the offenders is imprisonment for 12 years, a fine of 720…

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 Wang and Roizman

Details

AGLC: R v Wang and Roizman [2010] NSWDC 170
Case: [2010] NSWDC 170
Decision Date: 5 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wang and Roizman, the defendants were convicted and sentenced in relation to their involvement in dealing with money that was the proceeds of crime. The dispute was heard in the relevant criminal court, where both Wang and Roizman faced charges under the criminal law, specifically concerning property offences. The defendants were found guilty, and the court was required to determine their respective sentences.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was the appropriate punishment for each defendant, considering the nature and severity of their involvement in the crime. The court also had to decide on the non-parole periods (NPP) for each defendant, which would determine the minimum time they must serve before becoming eligible for parole. The court needed to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation when determining the sentences and non-parole periods.

The court, in its reasoning, took into account various factors, such as the extent of the defendants' involvement in the crime, their criminal history, and the impact of their actions on the victims and the community. The court considered the principles of sentencing and the objectives of the criminal justice system in arriving at the final sentences and non-parole periods. Wang was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 10 years, with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months, while Roizman received a sentence of 9 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months. Both defendants became eligible for release to parole at the end of their respective non-parole periods.

Orders

Orders of the court

WANG:

Convicted.

Sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 10 years to commence on 17/1/10 and expire on 16/1/20, with a NPP of 6 years and 6 months, to commence on 17/1/10 and to expire on 16/7/16.

Eligible for release to parole on 16/7/16.

ROIZMAN:

Convicted.

Sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 9 years and 6 months to commence on 22/2/10 and to expire on 21/8/19, with a NPP of 5 years and 6 months, to commence on 22/2/10 and to expire on 21/8/15..

Eligible for release to parole on 21/8/15.

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.

CITATION:	R v Wang & Roizman [2010] NSWDC 170 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	8 to 23/2/10
JUDGMENT DATE:	5 August 2010
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	King SC DCJ
DECISION:	WANG: Convicted. Sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 10 years to commence on 17/1/10 and expire on 16/1/20, with a NPP of 6 years and 6 months, to commence on 17/1/10 and to expire on 16/7/16. Eligible for release to parole on 16/7/16. ROIZMAN: Convicted. Sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 9 years and 6 months to commence on 22/2/10 and to expire on 21/8/19, with a NPP of 5 years and 6 months, to commence on 22/2/10 and to expire on 21/8/15.. Eligible for release to parole on 21/8/15.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - particular offences - property offences - dealing with money the proceeds of crime - Sentence
LEGISLATION CITED:	Criminal Code Act 1995
CASES CITED:	R v Raz NSWCCA unreported, 17 December 1990 Ansari v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 204 Chen [2009] NSWCCA 66 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Hart INSWCCA unreported, 26 July 1999) R v Sopher (1993) 70 A Crim R 570 R v Price ( NSWCCA unreported, 2 September 1993)
PARTIES:	Regina Jian Ping Wang Alexandr Roizman
FILE NUMBER(S):	2007/11073; 2007/11075
COUNSEL:	Mr P G Hastings QC with Mr A N Williams for Crown Mr C J Watson for Wang, Jian Ping Mr J C Spencer for Roizman, Alaxandr
SOLICITORS:	Mr T Nicholl for Crown Mr P Ryan for Wang, Jian Ping Mr P Green for Roizman, Alexandr