Ungureanu v The Queen

Case [2012] WASCA 11

UNGUREANU -v- THE QUEEN [2012] WASCA 11



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2012] WASCA 11
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACR:41/20113 OCTOBER 2011
Coram:McLURE P
BUSS JA
MURPHY JA		27/01/12
29Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
A
PDF Version
Parties:ION UNGUREANU
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:
Criminal law
'Money laundering' offences
Sentencing
Meaning of 'co­operation'
Voluntariness
Whether co­operation by participating in a compulsory statutory examination
Whether co­operation by giving evidence at trial of issues
Inference of knowledge or belief from surrounding circumstances

Legislation:
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AA(1)
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), s 53(1)
Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth), s 24A, s 25A, s 28, s 30, s 31(6), s 34A, s 34B
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 3, s 16A, s 21E
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 31(4)(a), s 40(1)(e)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 400.4(1)
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth), s 5, s 6

Case References:
A Child v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 285
Alchikh v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 345
Ansari v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 204; (2007) 70 NSWLR 89
Assafiri v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 159
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Bazzi v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 195
Hayes v The Queen [1981] WAR 252
Hladin v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 50; (2005) 156 A Crim R 176
Law v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 193
MA v The Queen [2001] WASCA 325; (2001) 125 A Crim R 349
McPhee v S Bennett Ltd (1934) 52 WN (NSW) 8
MXP v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 215; (2010) 41 WAR 149
Nannup v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 257
Pereira v Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] HCA 57; (1988) 63 ALJR 1
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Huang [2007] NSWCCA 259; 174 A Crim R 370
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA 55
Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254; (2001) 162 FLR 313
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : UNGUREANU -v- THE QUEEN [2012] WASCA 11 CORAM : McLURE P
    BUSS JA
    MURPHY JA
HEARD : 3 OCTOBER 2011 DELIVERED : 27 JANUARY 2012 FILE NO/S : CACR 41 of 2011 BETWEEN : ION UNGUREANU
    Appellant

    AND

    THE QUEEN
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : FENBURY DCJ

File No : IND 1063 of 2010


Catchwords:

Criminal law - 'Money laundering' offences - Sentencing - Meaning of 'co­operation'…

Continue reading Ungureanu v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ungureanu v The Queen [2012] WASCA 11
Case
[2012] WASCA 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ungureanu v The Queen involved the appellant, Ungureanu, who was convicted of various money laundering offences. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the decisions made by the lower courts. The primary issue before the court was whether Ungureanu's participation in a compulsory statutory examination and his giving of evidence at trial constituted "cooperation" with the authorities under the relevant legislation. The court was also required to determine whether Ungureanu's cooperation was voluntary and if his knowledge or belief about the illegal nature of his actions could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

The High Court examined the statutory definition of "cooperation" and the criteria for determining its voluntariness. The court held that while Ungureanu's participation in the statutory examination was compelled by law, it did not automatically disqualify it from being considered as cooperation. The court also found that Ungureanu's decision to give evidence at trial was voluntary and constituted cooperation. The surrounding circumstances, including his involvement in a sophisticated money laundering scheme, supported the inference that Ungureanu knew or believed his actions were illegal. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower court's findings and affirming Ungureanu's conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.