R v Davis (Pre-trial ruling) [2024] NSWDC 5

R v Davis (Pre-trial ruling) [2024] NSWDC 5

Establishing a bank account can amount to 'dealing with' proceeds of crime if the Crown proves beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of establishment, the accused knew or was aware the account was to be used for proceeds of the superannuation fraud. Actual knowledge of deposit occurrences is not required. For s193C(1), it suffices that objectively there are reasonable grounds for suspicion; subjective knowledge is not required for the alternative charge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling
Outcome
Ruling on disputed directions: Crown not required to prove actual knowledge of deposits; jury direction to focus on awareness or knowledge at time of account establishment. Strict liability rejected. Draft jury directions specified.
Legal Topics
['money Laundering' 'proceeds of Crime' 'mens Rea' 'directions to Jury' 'bank Accounts' 'fraud']
['criminal Law'] ['money Laundering' 'proceeds of Crime' 'mens Rea' 'directions to Jury' 'bank Accounts' 'fraud']

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 / Pre Trial Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What state of mind is required for the offences of dealing with proceeds of crime under s193B(3) and the alternative offence under s193C(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)?' 'Does the accused need to have actual knowledge of deposits of proceeds of crime being made into accounts established by the accused?' "What is the appropriate direction to be given to the jury regarding 'deals with' under s193B(3) and s193C(1)?"]

Ratio Decidendi

Establishing a bank account can amount to 'dealing with' proceeds of crime if the Crown proves beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of establishment, the accused knew or was aware the account was to be used for proceeds of the superannuation fraud. Actual knowledge of deposit occurrences is not required. For s193C(1), it suffices that objectively there are reasonable grounds for suspicion; subjective knowledge is not required for the alternative charge.

Court Disposition

Ruling on disputed directions: Crown not required to prove actual knowledge of deposits; jury direction to focus on awareness or knowledge at time of account establishment. Strict liability rejected. Draft jury directions specified.

Orders

  • ['The direction to be given to the jury at trial in relation to the first element of each relevant charge to be consistent with the findings of this ruling as summarised at [39],[41],[49]-[55].' 'Either party may apply to further ventilate issues as to the directions by 25 January 2024.']