Legal Research
Cases
R v Chahil

R v Chahil

Case [2020] NZHC 317 28 February 2020

Aggravating and Mitigating Features

Prior Good Character

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

THIS IS A REDACTED VERSION, GIVEN PERMANENT NAME SUPPRESSION ORDERS PURSUANT TO S 202 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-004-2998

[2020] NZHC 317

THE QUEEN

v

RUPINDER SINGH CHAHIL and VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA

Hearing: 28 February 2020

Appearances:

B H Dickey and N B Goodger for the Crown

AJD Bamford, E J Riddell and S G Lukey for Mr Chahil J R Billington QC and HMZ Lanham for Mr Gupta

Sentencing:

28 February 2020

SENTENCE OF GAULT J

Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr B H Dickey, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Mr N B Goodger, Inland Revenue, Takapuna
Mr AJD Bamford, Bamford Law Ltd, Nelson Ms E J Riddell, Barrister, Nelson
Mr S G Lukey, Barrister, Christchurch
Mr J R Billington QC and Ms HMZ Lanham, Barristers, Auckland

R v CHAHIL and GUPTA [2020] NZHC 317 [28 February 2020]

[1]Mr Chahil and Mr Gupta, you appear for sentence following guilty pleas.

[2] Mr Chahil, you have pleaded guilty to 43 charges relating to tax evasion and money laundering. They are:

(a)17 charges of knowingly not providing information to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (the Commissioner) when required to do so;1

(b)17 charges of providing false information to the Commissioner to evade GST;2 and

(c)nine charges of money laundering.3

[3]Mr Gupta, you have pleaded guilty to nine charges of money laundering.4

[4] Following the guilty pleas at trial on 7 October 2019 I now enter the convictions as follows, according to the charge notice:

(a)Mr Chahil: charges 1 to 17 as amended, 18 to 36, 39 and 41 to 46.

(b)Mr Gupta: charges 35, 36, 39 and 41 to 46.

[5]The Crown withdraws the remaining charges 37, 38 and 40.

Facts

[6]I turn to the facts of your offending.

[7] The charges against Mr Chahil arise out of his involvement with the large-scale tax evasion scheme undertaken by various companies connected with the Masala

1      Tax Administration Act 1994, ss 148 and 143A(1)(b). Maximum penalty is a $25,000 fine.
2      Sections 148 and 143B(1)(c) and (f). Maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment and/or a
$50,000 fine.
3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 66 and 243. Maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 66 and 243. Maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.

restaurants. Mr Chahil and Mr Gupta were both involved with the corresponding money laundering, which in essence was designed to conceal the tax evasion.

[8] Mr Chahil has been involved in property development and hospitality businesses since 2000. Mr Gupta was an accountant but did not hold a public practising certificate. They knew each other through community and business associations and activities.

[9] Mr Chahil controlled 17 companies (the Masala related companies) with the assistance of an employee, Ms Jain. The Masala related companies operated 13 restaurants between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2014 (the audit period). In broad terms, Mr Chahil and Ms Jain caused the…

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 R v Chahil

Details

AGLC: R v Chahil [2020] NZHC 317
Case: [2020] NZHC 317
Decision Date: 28 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rupinder Chahil and Vijay Gupta appeared for sentencing following their guilty pleas to charges of tax evasion, money laundering, and related offences. Chahil faced 43 charges, while Gupta faced nine. The charges stemmed from their involvement in a tax evasion scheme associated with a chain of restaurants, where they concealed cash sales and provided false information to the tax authorities to evade GST and income tax. The scheme also involved significant money laundering to conceal the proceeds of the tax evasion. The court adopted a sentencing approach that considered the nature and circumstances of the offending, personal circumstances of the offenders, and their guilty pleas. For Chahil, the court set a starting point of three years and three months’ imprisonment for the tax evasion charges, reflecting the seriousness and scale of the offending. An additional uplift of nine months was applied for the money laundering charges, resulting in a combined starting point of four years’ imprisonment. After applying discounts for totality and a guilty plea, Chahil's final sentence was three years and two months’ imprisonment, along with a fine. Gupta, who played a secondary role in the money laundering, received a starting point of two years’ imprisonment. Considering his prior good character, remorse, and health issues, a discount led to a final sentence of one year and eight months’ imprisonment, which was commuted to ten months’ home detention due to his age and health.

In summary, Chahil was sentenced to three years and two months’ imprisonment and a fine, while Gupta received a sentence of ten months’ home detention and was ordered to pay $5,000 in reparation. The sentences reflect the court's consideration of the gravity of the offences, the roles of the offenders, and the principles of deterrence and denunciation.

Orders