Chahil v The Queen - [2020] NZCA 436

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA168/2020
[2020] NZCA 436

BETWEEN	RUPINDER SINGH CHAHIL Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	26 August 2020
Court:	Gilbert, Thomas and Dunningham JJ
Counsel:	N Levy QC and A J D Bamford for Appellant B H Dickey for Respondent
Judgment:	18 September 2020 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Gilbert J)

Introduction

Mr Chahil appeals against his sentence of three years and two months’ imprisonment for tax evasion and money laundering.[1] He says he should have been sentenced to home detention.
[1]R v Chahil [2020] NZHC 317, (2020) 29 NZTC 24-061 [High Court judgment].
During the six-year period from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2014 (the audit period), Mr Chahil controlled 17 companies that operated various restaurants known as the Masala Restaurants. With only a few exceptions, the Masala companies did not file any income tax returns during the audit period despite receiving at least 55 reminder letters requesting these returns.[2]
[2]One company filed tax returns for 2009 and 2010, a second company filed a tax return for 2010 and a third company filed a tax return for 2012. No other tax returns were filed by any Masala company for the six years of the audit period.
On an approximately weekly basis, Mr Chahil and a co-offender instructed restaurant managers to bring the cash takings to his home (or some other location as directed) where it would be counted. Mr Chahil determined how much cash (described in the summary of facts as “[o]nly a small amount of the cash”) would be recorded in the relevant company’s accounts and instructed the respective managers to prepare false sales reports to reflect this. As well, Mr Chahil sometimes collected cash directly from the restaurant tills. In this way, Mr Chahil caused the Masala companies to file 115 GST returns which contained false sales figures.
Between 1 January 2012 and 23 April 2013, Mr Chahil delivered the cash collected from the restaurants to Vijay Gupta, an accountant and business associate. Mr Gupta laundered the cash through various foreign exchange transactions and made it available to Mr Chahil through various bank accounts.
The extent of the income tax shortfall is not known. The tax shortfall resulting from the false GST returns was $702,667. The total amount of funds the subject of the money laundering charges was stated in the summary of facts to be at least $524,185.
Mr Chahil was charged with tax evasion and money laundering in March 2017. On 8 October 2019, one day after his trial was scheduled to commence in the High Court before a Judge sitting alone, Mr Chahil pleaded guilty to 43 charges as follows:
(a)17 charges of knowingly not providing information to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (the Commissioner) when required to do so contrary to ss 148 and 143B(1)(b) and (f) of the Tax Administration Act…

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 Chahil v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Chahil v The Queen [2020] NZCA 436
Case: [2020] NZCA 436
Decision Date: 18 September 2020 at 2 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rupinder Singh Chahil appealed against his sentence of three years and two months' imprisonment for tax evasion and money laundering, arguing he should have been sentenced to home detention. The court considered three grounds for the appeal: the starting point for tax evasion was too high, the uplift for money laundering was excessive, and the guilty plea discount should have been 20 per cent. The Court found no error in the starting point for tax evasion, as the Judge had correctly accepted the amount of GST evaded as stated in the summary of facts to which Chahil had pleaded guilty. The nine-month uplift for money laundering was considered appropriate given the serious and separate money laundering offending. Lastly, the 15 per cent discount for Chahil's guilty plea was deemed adequate, considering the strength of the Crown's case and the late timing of the guilty pleas. Overall, the Court was satisfied that the sentence was within the appropriate range, taking into account the duration and extent of the offending, as well as Chahil's high level of culpability. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders