[1] Esteban Blanco Gaviria, you have pleaded guilty to representative charges of importing a Class A controlled drug,1 namely cocaine, and money laundering,2 together with a charge of having participated in an organised criminal group.3

[2] Taking your counsel’s lead, I will refer to you in my sentencing remarks as Mr Blanco, in accordance, as I understand it, with Spanish custom.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a)—maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 243—maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A—maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

R v BLANCO GAVIRIA [2024] NZHC 1916 [12 July 2024]

The offending

[3] Your offending was detected as a result of a significant police and Customs investigation into the importation of cocaine into this country from South America that involved a number of overseas drug enforcement authorities. The transnational drug syndicate with which you were involved operated from at least January 2018 to December 2021. It is estimated that over that period 42.5 kilograms of cocaine with a street price of over $19 million was imported into New Zealand. A further 59.1 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of more than $26 million was successfully intercepted.

[4] Mr Blanco, you arrived in New Zealand in 2013, and you did not become involved in this drug operation until some seven years later, in 2020. In doing so, you shared with your co-defendants a common objective of obtaining material benefits from the importation of cocaine into New Zealand. Over that period, at least 51 consignments that comprised over 100 kg of cocaine were either imported or attempted to be imported into this country.

Money laundering

[5] Your initial involvement in the organised criminal group centred on the laundering of New Zealand dollars that were to be remitted to a Colombian drug cartel from which the drug was being sourced. In April 2021, you arranged to launder
$102,500 and remit the money back to the drug cartel in South America. That sum represented profits from the supply of cocaine. Plans were made for a co-defendant to travel to Auckland to launder the money and you arranged for the money “drop” to occur in Central Auckland — unbeknownst to you and your associates, an undercover United States Drug Enforcement Agent (DEA agent) had picked up the laundering contract. You gave your associates the details of the car to approach with the money. The deal was completed with your associate handing to a local undercover officer a suitcase containing the money, which was exchanged with the agreed $5 token with a specific serial number to confirm the transaction.

[6] In September 2021, you arranged to launder $100,000…

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 Gaviria

Details

AGLC: R v Gaviria [2024] NZHC 1916
Case: [2024] NZHC 1916
Decision Date: 12 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The King v Esteban Blanco Gaviria involved the sentencing of Gaviria on charges of importing a Class A controlled drug, participating in an organised criminal group, and money laundering. The court had to decide on the appropriate starting point and ultimate sentence for Gaviria, taking into account his involvement in a transnational drug syndicate that operated from January 2018 to December 2021. The syndicate was responsible for importing over 42.5 kilograms of cocaine into New Zealand, with a street value of over $19 million, and successfully intercepting 59.1 kilograms worth more than $26 million. Gaviria became involved in 2020, engaging in activities such as laundering money for the syndicate and facilitating the importation of cocaine. The court assessed the gravity of Gaviria’s offending, his culpability, and the seriousness of the offending. The Crown argued for a starting point of 13–14 years’ imprisonment, considering the significant role Gaviria played in the syndicate, while the defence countered with a proposed starting point of 12 years, citing mitigating factors such as coercion and the timing of his guilty plea. After evaluating the arguments and evidence presented, the court determined that Gaviria’s role was significant but not leading, leading to a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment for the importation charges. An additional 18 months were added for the money laundering charge, resulting in a global starting point of 13 years and six months’ imprisonment. Various mitigating factors, including Gaviria’s late guilty plea, his foreign national status, and his remorse, were considered, leading to a total reduction of 25 per cent. Consequently, Gaviria was sentenced to 10 years and one month’s imprisonment on each charge, to be served concurrently, with an additional order for the forfeiture of his seized cell phones.

Orders