R v Long - [2021] NZHC 3522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-004-10728

[2021] NZHC 3522

THE QUEEN

v

JIAN LONG WEN TING ZHANG

Hearing: 17 December 2021

Appearances:

S O’Connor for the Crown

R Butler and M Beattie for Jian Long
M Corlett QC and J Ding for Wen Ting Zhang

Judgment:

17 December 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Anderson Creagh Lai Ltd, Auckland K3 Legal, Auckland

Counsel: R Butler, Auckland
M Corlett QC, Auckland

R v LONG AND ZHANG [2021] NZHC 3522 [17 December 2021]

Introduction

[1] Wenting Zhang and Jian Long, you are both before me for sentence, having pleaded guilty to a large number of dishonesty charges arising out of a fraudulent scheme the two of you and your co-offender, Peng Pian,1 perpetrated against Zhaoyi Li and his wife, Hongmei Wang. In short, as a result of your actions, Mr Li was deceived into paying approximately $6 million that he would not otherwise have been required to pay in relation to a property investment between 2015 and 2017.

The offending

[2] In entering your guilty pleas, you accepted the contents of the summary of facts. A brief background is that Mr Li and Ms Wang wished to emigrate from China to New Zealand under an investor category of immigrants. Mr Long you were the immigration consultant in New Zealand for Mr Li and Ms Wang and you, Ms Zhang, acted as an investment broker. You induced Mr Li and Ms Wang to contribute funds for the purchase of some land to be developed.

[3] You and Mr Pian provided false information about the purchase price, the deposit for the project and the payment said to be required by Mr Pian’s “boss”. You also falsified the details of an “under the table” payment to another prospective purchaser, when in fact there was no such payment. You deceived Mr Li into thinking other people were contributing to the purchase price. The reality was that Mr Li was the only contributor. You obtained a loan to fund the rest of the purchase, using documents purporting to be signed by Ms Wang, when in fact she had not signed the documents.

[4] You set up a company, WOW Development Ltd (WOW), to facilitate the development venture and told Mr Li he was not eligible to be a director of the company. That was untrue. You deceived Mr Li into making payments for the purchase of shares. You both took steps to conceal the true position, providing Mr Li with false bank statements and a false LINZ title document.

1 Mr Pian was sentenced by Moore J on 16 October 2020: R v Pian [2020] NZHC 2724.

[5] In late 2016, Mr Li became aware that he had been deceived. You both allowed Mr Li to have a greater role in the company and to access its bank accounts. However, you continued to deceive him in other ways. He…

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 Long

Details

AGLC: R v Long [2021] NZHC 3522
Case: [2021] NZHC 3522
Decision Date: 17 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Long involves Wen Ting Zhang and Jian Long, who have pleaded guilty to multiple charges of dishonesty related to a fraudulent scheme that targeted Zhaoyi Li and his wife, Hongmei Wang. The court heard that the defendants, along with a co-offender, deceived the victims into contributing funds for a property investment between 2015 and 2017. The fraudulent scheme resulted in Mr Li paying approximately $6 million unnecessarily. The legal issues the court had to decide included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the mitigating and aggravating factors, and deciding on the final sentence for each defendant. The court considered the nature and sophistication of the offending, the degree of culpability, and the effect of the offending on the victims. The court also took into account the defendants' guilty pleas, remorse, and reparation efforts. The final sentence for both Wen Ting Zhang and Jian Long was two years and ten months' imprisonment.

Orders