Lin v R [2015] NSWCCA 204
Section 400.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) provides that proof of any of the enumerated circumstances is sufficient to satisfy the 'reasonable to suspect' element in s 400.9(1)(b), making it unnecessary for the prosecution to particularise or identify a predicate indictable offence; therefore, the indictment is not defective for lack of such particularisation.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 August 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Interlocutory Decision
- Outcome
- Leave granted to appeal; appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['money Laundering' 'proceeds of Crime' 'particularisation of Indictable Offence' 'reasonable Suspicion' 'interlocutory Appeal']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Interlocutory Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the prosecution is required to particularise the class of indictable offences from which the money is suspected of being proceeds under s 400.9 of the Criminal Code (Cth)' 'Whether the indictment is defective without such particularisation']
Ratio Decidendi
Section 400.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) provides that proof of any of the enumerated circumstances is sufficient to satisfy the 'reasonable to suspect' element in s 400.9(1)(b), making it unnecessary for the prosecution to particularise or identify a predicate indictable offence; therefore, the indictment is not defective for lack of such particularisation.
Court Disposition
Leave granted to appeal; appeal dismissed.
Orders
- ['Leave granted to appeal' 'Appeal dismissed']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment