R v Zhang

[2023] NSWDC 229

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Zhang [2023] NSWDC 229

Hearing dates:

14 June 2023

Date of orders:

14 June 2023

Decision date:

14 June 2023

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Newlinds DCJ

Decision:

Appeal dismissed

Catchwords:

Appeal from Local Court

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Appeal and Review Act 2001 (s 18)

Criminal Code Act (1995) (Cth), s 400.4(2)

Crimes Act NSW 1900, s 192(e)

s 400.4 of the Criminal Code

s 400.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995

Cases Cited:

Chen v Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] NSWCCA 205

Xue v R [2021] NSWCCA 270

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Hongjian Zhang (Applicant)
NSW Police (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:

J Park (Applicant)
M Phillipson (NSW Police)

Solicitors:
Sunsolis Legal (Applicant)
NSW Police (Defendant)

File Number(s):

2022/311588

Publication restriction:

None

JUDGMENT – EX TEMPORE

1. HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from a decision of a Local Court magistrate brought under s 18 of the Crimes Appeal and Review Act [2001].

2. The matter was heard before Magistrate Guy on 10 August 2022 at the conclusion of which the Applicant was found guilty of the offence of dealing with money in circumstances where there is a “risk that the money is an instrument of crime value less than $100,000 pursuant to s 400.4(2) Criminal Code Act [1995]”.

3. The primary facts are largely agreed, it is what inferences can be drawn from those primary facts which divides the parties and for reasons that I will come to, there is perhaps a question of the proper construction of s 400.4(2) that I may need to resolve.

4. The proved facts are as follows and I take this from the Offender’s own explanation of his conduct.

5. The Offender at the time of the offence was a 28 year old man who was out of work as at June 2020. He was apparently at a casino where he met an older Chinese man. That older man asked the Offender whether he knew English and whether he was able to deposit money into ATM machines at banks. The Offender told him that he was. The older man contacted the applicant thereafter from time to time, offering him jobs which involved the Offender being given cheques by the older man which he would then deposit into accounts as per the older man’s instruction. For this service the Offender received between $100 to $300 cash for each deposit.

6. The Offender gave evidence and said that he believed the man operated a construction business and that he did not know depositing a cheque or series of cheques was an offence and said that he did know that the ATM’s were monitored by security cameras. Finally, he said that the reason he carried out the tasks for the older man was because he liked to help other people as well as needing the money.

7. In short, it is common ground that the appellant took money from a stranger and deposited that money on behalf of that other person into various…