R v Elkhouri [2020] NSWDC 741

R v Elkhouri [2020] NSWDC 741

The Crown case was circumstantial and did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew the impugned items were stolen or altered, that he participated in or facilitated rebirthing activity, that he had care, control or management of the warehouse or Concord premises during the charged period, or that he dealt with the lighting towers, Ferrari or Commodore knowing they were proceeds of crime. Reasonable possibilities remained as to other persons' access, timing and location of alterations, provenance of items, and the accused's knowledge and control.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone / Verdict
Outcome
Not guilty on counts 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Legal Topics
['car Rebirthing' 'dealing With Proceeds of Crime' 'money Laundering' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'judge Alone Trial']
['criminal Law'] ['car Rebirthing' 'dealing With Proceeds of Crime' 'money Laundering' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'judge Alone Trial']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial by Judge Alone / Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused knowingly facilitated a car rebirthing activity carried out on an organised basis between 29 July 2014 and 6 August 2014.' 'Whether the accused had care, control or management of the warehouse or Concord premises, and knew of stolen vehicles, stolen parts or interference with unique identifiers found there.' 'Whether the accused dealt with two Compair brand Superlight mobile lighting towers knowing they were proceeds of crime.' 'Whether the accused dealt with a red Ferrari knowing it was proceeds of crime.' 'Whether the accused dealt with a maroon VN Holden Commodore SS Group A sedan knowing it was proceeds of crime.' 'Whether the circumstantial evidence proved the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt within the charged periods.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown case was circumstantial and did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew the impugned items were stolen or altered, that he participated in or facilitated rebirthing activity, that he had care, control or management of the warehouse or Concord premises during the charged period, or that he dealt with the lighting towers, Ferrari or Commodore knowing they were proceeds of crime. Reasonable possibilities remained as to other persons' access, timing and location of alterations, provenance of items, and the accused's knowledge and control.

Court Disposition

Not guilty on counts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Orders

  • ['Mr Elkhouri is found not guilty of counts 1, 2, 3 and 4.']