Milne v R [2012] NSWCCA 24

Milne v R [2012] NSWCCA 24

The Court held that there was evidence capable of allowing the jury to find Barat Advisory had retained beneficial ownership of the Admerex shares, and that the appellant intended the shares be used to facilitate the commission of a s 134.2 offence. The disposal by share swap in February 2005 constituted a CGT event in the relevant financial year. The trial judge's directions were adequate, and although criminality overlapped, significant additional elements justified separate sentences. The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Michael John Milne; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Money Laundering, Tax Fraud, Sentencing, Double Punishment, Totality Principles, General and Special Deterrence
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Money Laundering Tax Fraud Sentencing Double Punishment Totality Principles General and Special Deterrence

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 4 Authorities cited 43 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 19
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael John Milne

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was evidence to support the first charge of money laundering under s 400.3(1) Criminal Code (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether trial judge correctly refused verdict by direction
  3. 3 Whether shares involved in the transaction were intended by the offender to facilitate the commission of an offence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that there was evidence capable of allowing the jury to find Barat Advisory had retained beneficial ownership of the Admerex shares, and that the appellant intended the shares be used to facilitate the commission of a s 134.2 offence. The disposal by share swap in February 2005 constituted a CGT event in the relevant financial year. The trial judge's directions were adequate, and although criminality overlapped, significant additional elements justified separate sentences. The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction is dismissed.
  • Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.