Castagna v R; Agius v R [2019] NSWCCA 114

Castagna v R; Agius v R [2019] NSWCCA 114

In the absence of any case put that Billbury held the payments from Macquarie Bank on trust for Dr Castagna, and where the consultancy agreements were genuine and not shams, it was an error of law to direct the jury that circumstances outside the agreements could be considered to determine whether Dr Castagna 'derived' the income. No basis supported the finding that Dr Castagna derived the income under the agreements, and convictions cannot be supported on the alternative trust argument, which was not put at trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Convictions quashed. Verdicts of acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
['derivation of Ordinary Income' 'conspiracy to Defraud Commonwealth' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'trust Law' 'assessable Income' 'proceeds of Crime']
['income Tax' 'criminal Law'] ['derivation of Ordinary Income' 'conspiracy to Defraud Commonwealth' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'trust Law' 'assessable Income' 'proceeds of Crime']

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 / Appeal From Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the payments by Macquarie Bank to Billbury Limited pursuant to consultancy agreements constituted ordinary income derived by Dr Castagna within the meaning of s 6-5(2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth)' 'Whether it was open to the jury to find the payments were assessable income because Billbury held them on trust for Dr Castagna' 'Whether a new trial should be ordered or a verdict of acquittal entered']

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of any case put that Billbury held the payments from Macquarie Bank on trust for Dr Castagna, and where the consultancy agreements were genuine and not shams, it was an error of law to direct the jury that circumstances outside the agreements could be considered to determine whether Dr Castagna 'derived' the income. No basis supported the finding that Dr Castagna derived the income under the agreements, and convictions cannot be supported on the alternative trust argument, which was not put at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Convictions quashed. Verdicts of acquittal entered.

Orders

  • ['Appeals allowed.' 'Convictions of each appellant on Counts 1, 2 and 13 quashed and, in lieu thereof, a verdict of acquittal be entered.']