R v Wing Cheong Li, Wing Cheong Li v R [2010] NSWCCA 125

R v Wing Cheong Li, Wing Cheong Li v R [2010] NSWCCA 125

The 12-year head sentence and 8-year non-parole period for dealing with about $2.6 million believed to be proceeds of crime under s 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) did not fall outside the proper range of sentencing discretion. The cited cases gave only broad assistance and did not demonstrate manifest inadequacy or manifest excess. Li had no justifiable sense of grievance by comparison with Viana because Viana was charged with recklessness, faced a lower maximum penalty and had different circumstances. The sentencing judge did not reason impermissibly from the quantity of money to a serious indictable offence and did consider the bail conditions and subjective matters.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
The Crown appeal was dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted to Wing Cheong Li. The sentence appeal was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['money Laundering' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'manifest Excess of Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'parity Principle' 'conditional Liberty' 'subjective Sentencing Factors']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['money Laundering' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'manifest Excess of Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'parity Principle' 'conditional Liberty' 'subjective Sentencing Factors']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence of imprisonment for 12 years with a non-parole period of 8 years was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentence was unduly harsh, severe or manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the applicant had a legitimate sense of grievance by comparison with the sentence imposed on Viana.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by proceeding on the basis that the applicant believed the money was the fruit of a serious indictable offence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account conditional liberty and subjective matters.']

Ratio Decidendi

The 12-year head sentence and 8-year non-parole period for dealing with about $2.6 million believed to be proceeds of crime under s 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) did not fall outside the proper range of sentencing discretion. The cited cases gave only broad assistance and did not demonstrate manifest inadequacy or manifest excess. Li had no justifiable sense of grievance by comparison with Viana because Viana was charged with recklessness, faced a lower maximum penalty and had different circumstances. The sentencing judge did not reason impermissibly from the quantity of money to a serious indictable offence and did consider the bail conditions and subjective matters.

Court Disposition

The Crown appeal was dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted to Wing Cheong Li. The sentence appeal was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Crown appeal is dismissed.' 'Grant leave to the applicant Wing Cheong Li to appeal against the sentence.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']