R v Wang; R v Roizman [2013] NSWCCA 2

R v Wang; R v Roizman [2013] NSWCCA 2

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeals were dismissed. The sentences, although stern, were within the judge's discretion given the substantial sums involved, the applicants' high moral culpability, and loss from laundering. No error was established regarding procedural fairness, parity, or assessment of criminality and disability. The sentencing judge distinguished roles and properly applied relevant legal principles. Comparison with co-offenders did not demonstrate a justifiable sense of grievance, and sentences imposed reflected the seriousness and circumstances of the offences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'money Laundering' 'procedural Fairness' 'disparity' 'manifest Excess' 'aiding and Abetting']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'money Laundering' 'procedural Fairness' 'disparity' 'manifest Excess' 'aiding and Abetting']

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 Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sentences imposed for money laundering were manifestly excessive' 'Whether there was procedural fairness' 'Whether sentencing principles relating to parity, manifest excess, and De Simoni were correctly applied' 'Whether individual culpability between principal and accessory was adequately distinguished' 'Whether physical and mental disabilities were properly considered on sentence']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeals were dismissed. The sentences, although stern, were within the judge's discretion given the substantial sums involved, the applicants' high moral culpability, and loss from laundering. No error was established regarding procedural fairness, parity, or assessment of criminality and disability. The sentencing judge distinguished roles and properly applied relevant legal principles. Comparison with co-offenders did not demonstrate a justifiable sense of grievance, and sentences imposed reflected the seriousness and circumstances of the offences.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeals dismissed

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted' 'Appeals dismissed']