Kor v The King - [2025] NZHC 3316

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000471

[2025] NZHC 3316

BETWEEN
CHAMROEUN KOR

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 3 November 2025

Counsel:

CHB Megala for Appellant KDJ Robinson for Respondent

Judgment:

3 November 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland.
Public Defence Service, Auckland.

KOR v R [2025] NZHC 3316 [3 November 2025]

The appeal

[1] Chamroeun Kor received a sentence of six months’ home detention for twice money laundering.1 Mr Kor appeals that sentence.

[2] The appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different one should be imposed.2 The overarching concern is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive.3

Background

[3] This is best explained by adopting the sentencing remarks of Judge S J Bonnar KC:4
[1] Mr Kor, you are for sentencing today on two charges of engaging recklessly in money laundering transactions. The offences were committed by you on 14 and 17 February 2023. They involve two separate victims, whom I will refer to as “victim one” and “victim two”. The offence of engaging in a money laundering transaction carries a maximum available penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

[2] In short, you received into a bank account controlled by you the proceeds of two fraudulent scams. Unknown offshore criminals set up a fake web page, purporting to be a broker for long-term deposits. They used the fake web page to extract money from victims who believed they were dealing with a legitimate deposit taking businesses and who were wanting to invest savings in a term deposit.

[3] There is no suggestion that you were involved in the overseas criminals’ scam as such. You were what is colloquially referred to as a “money mule”, in that you permitted the proceeds to be deposited into an account controlled by you and you then transferred a portion of those proceeds overseas, to Singapore.

[4] Victim one was looking online for term deposits. She entered her contact details into the fraudulent web page. In January 2023 a person called her, posing as someone named “Rupert Smith”. The caller claimed that he was an agent for HSBC bank in Auckland, specialising in term deposits. After engaging with victim one the scammers sent an email to her, instructing her how to make the investment payments. Believing that the proposal was legitimate, victim one completed the application form and was instructed to pay the investment funds to your bank account. Between 14 February and 21 February 2023 victim one made four transfers totalling $135,000 to your account.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 243(2); maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
3      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482.
4      R v Kor [2025] NZDC 18768.

[5] Similarly, victim two was looking online for term deposits and entered her contact details into the fraudulent web page on 9 February 2023. On 10 February…

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 Kor v The King

Details

AGLC: Kor v The King [2025] NZHC 3316
Case: [2025] NZHC 3316
Decision Date: 3 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chamroeun Kor appealed against a sentence of six months’ home detention imposed for twice money laundering. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature of the offending, which involved permitting proceeds from fraudulent scams to be deposited into a bank account controlled by Mr Kor, who then transferred a portion of those proceeds overseas. The maximum penalty for the offence is seven years’ imprisonment. The court noted the significant impact on the victims, including severe emotional distress and financial loss, which led the sentencing judge to describe the offending as a moderately grave example of money laundering. The court rejected the argument that money laundering in a financial context is inherently less serious than that related to drug dealing. Instead, it found the offending to be more serious in this case due to the victim impact. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders