R v Karpavicius - [2013] NZHC 3095

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-004-16838 [2013] NZHC 3095

THE QUEEN

v

ROKAS KARPAVICIUS

Hearing: 22 November 2013

Appearances:

R McCoubrey and M R Walker for Crown
G Newell for Prisoner

Judgment:

22 November 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v ROKAS KARPAVICIUS [2013] NZHC 3095 [22 November 2013]

[1] Mr Karpavicius, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury on three charges of money laundering and one charge of importing the Class A controlled drug lysergide. The maximum sentence on the money laundering charges is seven years imprisonment, whilst the maximum sentence on the importing charge is life imprisonment.

The facts

[2] The police operation that led to your arrest began in or about February 2008, when the New Zealand Police became aware from their Australian counterparts of the fact that granite and stone shipments had been made to New Zealand and Australia that were likely to have contained the Class B controlled drug amphetamine. The police began surveillance on you, and this included intercepting your phone conversations.

[3] During the course of the police operation, they intercepted a package that arrived at the customs area in the postal service of New Zealand. The Customs Service opened the package and discovered that it contained a Harry Potter book written in Spanish. On closer examination, the book was found to contain a number of tabs of a chemical substance. Ten of these were found to contain the Class A controlled drug LSD.

[4] The police operation revealed that you were part of a sophisticated money laundering operation. This involved the laundering of proceeds of sale of drugs in New Zealand into foreign currencies and for transmission into foreign bank accounts. In this endeavour you were working closely with a person by the name of Ronald Brown. He pleaded guilty in October 2010 to a wide range of charges, including importing amphetamines and money laundering. He was eventually sentenced to 11 years imprisonment after the Judge took a starting point of 14 years
imprisonment.1

[5] Your role in the operation was to launder the proceeds of the sale of drugs in

New Zealand. The method that was adopted was that Mr Brown and his assistant,

1 R v Brown HC Auckland CRI-2008-004-020453, 3 February 2011.

Ms Simanu, would collect together the cash in New Zealand currency. This was kept in safety deposit boxes at Auckland banks. You then employed several methods of changing the New Zealand currency either into foreign currency or depositing it into foreign accounts. First, you would arrange for people in New Zealand, including Mr Brown and Ms Simanu, to make deposits directly into foreign bank accounts nominated by you. Secondly, you sent five separate couriers to New Zealand. They were in New Zealand between 30 August 2007 and 29 October 2007, 23 November
2007 and 17 December 2007, 21 May 2008 and 5 June 2008 and 5 August 2008 and

12 August 2008.

[6] The role of 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 Karpavicius

Details

AGLC: R v Karpavicius [2013] NZHC 3095
Case: [2013] NZHC 3095
Decision Date: 22 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant, Rokas Karpavicius, was convicted on three charges of money laundering and one charge of importing the Class A controlled drug lysergide. The maximum sentence for the money laundering charges was seven years imprisonment, while the maximum sentence for the importing charge was life imprisonment. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Karpavicius, taking into consideration the severity of the crimes, his role in the operation, and the need for deterrence.

The court identified several factors that contributed to the severity of the offending. Karpavicius was the mastermind behind a sophisticated money laundering operation, which involved laundering proceeds of drug sales in New Zealand into foreign currencies and transmitting them into foreign bank accounts. He also had a beneficial interest in the funds transported out of New Zealand. The operation was closely associated with serious drug offending, as considerable quantities of valuable drugs must have been sold to produce the sums laundered. The court also considered the sophistication of the operation and the quantities involved in determining the starting point for sentencing.

After considering the facts and the relevant authorities, the court determined that a starting point of six years and three months imprisonment was warranted for the money laundering charges. An uplift of six months was applied to the starting point to reflect the separate offending of importing LSD, resulting in an end starting point of six years and nine months imprisonment. The court considered mitigating factors, such as the hardship of serving a sentence in a foreign country away from his family, and determined that a discount of six months was appropriate. The court also imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of three years to ensure adequate deterrence, accountability, and denunciation of the offending.

In conclusion, Karpavicius was sentenced to six years and three months imprisonment for each of the money laundering charges, to be served concurrently, with a minimum term of imprisonment of three years. He was also sentenced to six months imprisonment for the charge of importing LSD, to be served concurrently with the other sentences.

Orders