DPP (Cth) v CHENG [2015] NSWDC 326

DPP (Cth) v CHENG [2015] NSWDC 326

The Court held that an offence against s 140(1) of the Anti-Money and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) was a relevant indictable offence for s 400.3 of the Criminal Code. On the Crown case, the accused's possession and handing over of money in each remittance transaction was capable of constituting a use of the money in the commission of, or to facilitate the commission of, the s 140 offence, with the required temporal separation and instrumental connection. The purpose for which the funds were sent to China and the recipients' intentions were irrelevant to the nominated offence. Whether sufficient incidents satisfied s 140(1) and the $1,000,000 threshold were matters for the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial for One Offence Against S 400.3 Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / No Case to Answer Application at the Conclusion of the Crown Case
Outcome
Application declined
Legal Topics
['dealing With Money Intending It Will Become an Instrument of Crime' 'directed Verdict of Not Guilty' 'no Case to Answer' 'provision of Designated Service Using a False Customer Name' 'registered Money Remitters' 'instrument of Crime']
['criminal Law' 'anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing' 'commonwealth Criminal Offences'] ['dealing With Money Intending It Will Become an Instrument of Crime' 'directed Verdict of Not Guilty' 'no Case to Answer' 'provision of Designated Service Using a False Customer Name' 'registered Money Remitters' 'instrument of Crime']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial for One Offence Against S 400.3 Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / No Case to Answer Application at the Conclusion of the Crown Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was evidence upon which a properly directed jury could convict the accused of an offence against s 400.3(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether money possessed and handed over for remittance using a false customer name could be an instrument of crime in relation to an offence against s 140 of the Anti-Money and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth).' 'Whether the Crown case established the required temporal separation and instrumental connection between the dealing with the money and the alleged intended offence.' 'Whether sufficient incidents were capable of satisfying s 140(1) of the Anti-Money and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) so that the amount dealt with exceeded $1,000,000.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that an offence against s 140(1) of the Anti-Money and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) was a relevant indictable offence for s 400.3 of the Criminal Code. On the Crown case, the accused's possession and handing over of money in each remittance transaction was capable of constituting a use of the money in the commission of, or to facilitate the commission of, the s 140 offence, with the required temporal separation and instrumental connection. The purpose for which the funds were sent to China and the recipients' intentions were irrelevant to the nominated offence. Whether sufficient incidents satisfied s 140(1) and the $1,000,000 threshold were matters for the...

Court Disposition

Application declined

Orders

  • ['The Court declined to direct a verdict of not guilty.']