R v Wang; R v Roizman - [2013] NSWCCA 2

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wang; R v Roizman [2013] NSWCCA 2
Hearing dates: 6 September 2012
Decision date: 01 February 2013
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
McCallum J at [3]
Garling J at [118]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - money laundering - alleged disparity with sentences imposed on other offenders involved in different aspects of the same undertaking - alleged denial of procedural fairness - whether sentences manifestly excessive - whether principle in De Simoni breached - whether other matters properly taken into account
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Ansari v R [2007] NSWCCA 204; 173 A Crim R 112
Button v R [2010] NSWCCA 264
Chen v R [2009] NSWCCA 66
Hili v R; Jones v R [20120] HCA 45
Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60
Pantorno v R [1989] HCA 18; 166 CLR 466
Pham v R [2009] NSWCCA 25; 193 A Crim R 190
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; 214 CLR 1
R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; 147 CLR 383
R v Guo; R v Quian [2010] NSWCCA 170
R v Hart (NSWCCA unreported, 26 July 1999)
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
R v Ryan [2003] NSWCCA 202; 141 A Crim R 403
R v Van Dang Dran [2007] NSWDC 310
R v Wing Cheong Li; Wing Cheong Li v R [2010] NSW CCA 125; 202 A Crim R 195
Regina v Z [2006] NSWCCA 342; 167 A Crim R 436
Weir v R [2011] NSWCCA 123
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jian Ping Wang (Applicant)
Alexandre Roizman (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
L Crowley (Crown)
P Boulton SC (Wang)
M Ramage QC (Roizman)
Solicitors:
Pillip Ryan Solicitors (Applicant - Wang)
Jeffreys Lawyers (Applicant - Roizman)
Commonwealkth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2007/11073 2007/11075
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Citation:

[2010] NSWDC 170

Date of Decision:

2010-08-05 00:00:00

Before:

King SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2007/11073
2007/11075

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with the orders proposed by McCallum J and in all but one respect with her reasons.

In my opinion the applicant Roizman was not denied procedural fairness. His Honour when sentencing was entitled to have regard to all of the relevant material in relation to Roizman's capacity in the English language and was not confined in the circumstances to the opinion of Dr Westmore. The record of interview was likely to be a reliable source for his Honour's opinion. I do not believe his Honour was bound to flag during the course of submissions that he may determine from his own observation of the applicant's capacity to speak English rather than prefer the opinion of Dr Westmore.

McCALLUM J: Jian Ping Wang and Alexandr Roizman seek leave to appeal against the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Wang; R v Roizman and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWCCA 2
Decision Date: 01 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Wang and Roizman, were convicted for their involvement in a sophisticated money laundering scheme, which involved the use of cryptocurrency. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed upon the respondents were manifestly excessive and whether the principle in De Simoni was breached. Additionally, the court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were disproportionately higher than those given to other offenders involved in the same scheme and if procedural fairness was denied to the respondents.

The court found that the sentences imposed on Wang and Roizman were not manifestly excessive, nor did they breach the principle in De Simoni. The court held that the sentencing judge had properly considered the relevant factors and had taken into account the significant role played by the respondents in the money laundering scheme. Furthermore, the court found that the disparity in sentences imposed on other offenders involved in the scheme was justified, as the roles and contributions of each offender varied. The court also found that there was no denial of procedural fairness in the sentencing process.

In conclusion, the court upheld the sentences imposed on Wang and Roizman, finding that they were appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The court found that the principle in De Simoni was not breached, and procedural fairness was not denied to the respondents. The sentences were considered to be proportionate to the roles played by the respondents in the money laundering scheme.

Orders