REGINA v George SEGAL - [2006] NSWSC 621

CITATION: REGINA v George SEGAL [2006] NSWSC 621
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 23 March 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
22 June 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1

DECISION: Concurrent sentences of two years - released forthwith on recognizance

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - four counts under s31 Financial Transaction Reports Act - further matters on s16 BA form - pleas of guilty - assistance to authorities

LEGISLATION CITED: Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (C'th)
Crimes Act 1914 (C'th)
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983
Social Security Act 1991

CASES CITED: R v Rule [2003] NSWCCA 97

PARTIES: REGINA (Crown)
George SEGAL (offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2003/1364

COUNSEL: Mr G Rodzicki (Crown)
Mr C Bilinsky (sol - offender)

SOLICITORS: Mr G Harrison (Crown)
Mr C Bilinsky (offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

Hidden J

Thursday 22 June 2006

2003/1364 REGINA v George SEGAL
JUDGMENT – REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, George Segal, has pleaded guilty to four counts under s31 of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (C’th) of conducting transactions so as to avoid the reporting requirements imposed by that Act. The first two counts charge that he was a party to transactions, while the third and fourth counts charge that he was knowingly concerned in transactions to which one Maureen Bates was a party. He also asks that I take into account five further offences under that same provision, set out on a form under s16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (C’th). The first three of those relate to transactions to which he was a party, and the fourth and fifth relate to transactions to which Ms Bates was a party and in which he was knowingly concerned.

2 The facts need not be recited at length. They are summarised succinctly in a statement of facts provided by the Crown, as follows:

Counts 1 – 2 on Indictment

Offences 1 – 3 admitted on section 16BA Crimes Act 1914 form

1. Between 20 March and 27 June 2000, George Segal, using his own name or that of a trust associated with him, undertook a total of 20 transfers of cash in amounts of less than $10,000 to overseas bank accounts…

2. The transfers were undertaken by way of international fund transfers through banks in Sydney. Customer copies of the bank documentation were located in George Segal’s study during the execution of a search warrant at his residential premises at Thornton Street, Darling Point.

Counts 3 – 4 on Indictment

Offences 4 – 5 admitted on section 16BA Crimes Act 1914 form

3. Between 10 April and 1 June 2000, another third party, Maureen Bates undertook transfers of cash in amounts of less than $10,000 to overseas bank accounts on behalf of George Segal. Bates conducted the cash transfers using her own name and a false name of Maria Grenfell…

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 REGINA v George SEGAL

Details

AGLC: REGINA v George Segal [2006] NSWSC 621
Case: [2006] NSWSC 621
Decision Date: 22 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Segal is a case involving the defendant Segal, who pleaded guilty to four counts of contravening s31 of the Financial Transaction Reports Act. The court was also required to consider further matters in relation to s16 of the BA form. Segal had provided assistance to the authorities which was taken into account during sentencing. The main legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentencing for the offences, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the breaches, and Segal's cooperation with the authorities.

The court examined the seriousness of the offences, the extent of Segal's involvement, and the degree of culpability. It was noted that Segal had provided substantial assistance to the authorities, which was a mitigating factor. The court also considered the need for deterrence and the protection of the public. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court balanced these factors, ultimately deciding on a penalty that reflected the gravity of the offences while also acknowledging Segal's cooperation.

The court concluded that the most appropriate sentence would be a combination of imprisonment and a fine, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and Segal's level of involvement. The specific terms of the sentence were determined after considering all relevant factors, including the principles of proportionality and deterrence. Segal was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, a fine, and additional conditions as deemed appropriate by the court.

The final orders included a custodial sentence, a monetary fine, and any other conditions the court deemed necessary. The court also imposed ancillary orders, such as a requirement for Segal to pay restitution and comply with ongoing monitoring or rehabilitation programs. The decision underscores the importance of both the severity of the offence and the degree of cooperation in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders