R v McRae [2022] NSWDC 751

R v McRae [2022] NSWDC 751

Each offence was a serious example of its kind. The offender deliberately flew from the Gold Coast to Sydney, used a recently registered dummy company and multiple bank accounts, made numerous cash deposits, and participated in a sophisticated organised scheme converting large amounts of cash into Bitcoin. Although she had no prior convictions, was young, pregnant and assessed as a low risk of re-offending, the objective seriousness of the offending and the need for general deterrence meant the s 5 threshold was clearly passed and full-time imprisonment was required. A 25% discount was allowed for the utility of the pleas, and special circumstances justified a 50% non-parole period...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence Following Committal for Sentence and Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Convicted of each count and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months.
Legal Topics
['recklessly Dealing With Proceeds of Crime' 'dealing With Property Suspected of Being Proceeds of Crime' 'money Laundering' 'cryptocurrency Conversion' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'special Circumstances' 'aggregate Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'proceeds of Crime'] ['recklessly Dealing With Proceeds of Crime' 'dealing With Property Suspected of Being Proceeds of Crime' 'money Laundering' 'cryptocurrency Conversion' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'special Circumstances' 'aggregate Sentence']

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 Sentence / Sentence Following Committal for Sentence and Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for recklessly dealing with proceeds of crime in the amount of $188,000 contrary to s 193B(3) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'What sentence should be imposed for dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime in the amount of $883,500 contrary to s 193C(1) of the Crimes Act.' 'Whether the objective seriousness of the offending, committed as part of a well-established, organised and ongoing money-laundering group, required full-time imprisonment.' "Whether the offender's youth, lack of prior convictions, mental health, pregnancy, plea of guilty and prospects of rehabilitation affected the sentence and non-parole period." 'Whether special circumstances justified reducing the statutory relationship between the non-parole period and the balance of term.']

Ratio Decidendi

Each offence was a serious example of its kind. The offender deliberately flew from the Gold Coast to Sydney, used a recently registered dummy company and multiple bank accounts, made numerous cash deposits, and participated in a sophisticated organised scheme converting large amounts of cash into Bitcoin. Although she had no prior convictions, was young, pregnant and assessed as a low risk of re-offending, the objective seriousness of the offending and the need for general deterrence meant the s 5 threshold was clearly passed and full-time imprisonment was required. A 25% discount was allowed for the utility of the pleas, and special circumstances justified a 50% non-parole period...

Court Disposition

Convicted of each count and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months.

Orders

  • ['Indicative sentence for recklessly deal with proceeds of crime in the amount of $188,000 contrary to s 193B(3): imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months.' 'Indicative sentence for deal with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime in the amount of $883,500 contrary to s 193C(1): imprisonment for 3 years.'...