New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tax evasion

Legal area

Court

23 Sept 2022

SAMI v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2022] NZHC 2436

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2436
Court

High Court

Leave to adduce the appellant's affidavit as fresh evidence was granted, but the extension of time to file the appeal was declined because there was no trial counsel error that created a real risk of miscarriage of justice affecting the outcome; the appellant had no realistic defence and a discharge without conviction was not a viable remedy given the gravity and duration of the tax evasion; immigration consequences were a product of the offending and for immigration decision-makers to determine, not a basis to overturn conviction on appeal.
14 Sept 2022

POME’E v INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT [2022] NZHC 2354

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2354
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court starting point of four years six months was within a defensible range given the scale, duration and nature of the offending and the amounts involved; the agreed summary of facts was binding and could not be challenged at this appeal; involuntary reparation attracts only limited reduction and voluntary reparation is a mitigation factor already applied; remorse did not justify further deduction beyond that reflected in reparation and personal factor allowances; home detention was not available because the end sentence exceeded the statutory threshold; acco…
15 Sept 2021

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v NABAWI [2021] NZHC 2413

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2413
Court

High Court

The CPA applies to tax evasion where a knowing omission to declare and pay tax results in retained disposable funds that amount to a benefit/proceeds derived directly or indirectly from significant criminal activity; accordingly ss 24 and 25 restraining orders can be made to preserve tainted property or property from which profit forfeiture may be satisfied, and on the facts there were reasonable grounds to restrain the Hilux, specified cash and the ANZ account balance.
8 Jun 2021

COLEMAN v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2021] NZHC 1324

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1324
Court

High Court

The Court found trial counsel's pre‑trial and trial conduct materially deficient and that those deficiencies created a real risk the verdicts were unsafe in respect of the grouped GST refund charges (charges 2–34). Convictions and sentences for charges 2–34 were therefore set aside and those charges remitted for retrial. The Judge's findings on the remaining charges (forgery/using forged document, trust GST evasion, failure to file returns/personal tax evasion, and dishonest AR590) were supported by the evidence and stand, so those convictions were affirmed and the existing concurrent sentenc…
26 Mar 2021

R v BRACKEN [2021] NZHC 609

Citation

[2021] NZHC 609
Court

High Court

Dishonesty for s 228 was established by proof that Bracken authorised and procured GST returns he knew were based on false information: he arranged or instructed creation of forged tax invoices, caused circular bank withdrawals and re-deposits to simulate payments, and falsely characterised exports to support zero-rating; the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that significant supplier invoices and transactions were fictitious and that BEL obtained undue GST refunds, therefore Bracken was guilty on all charges.
3 Dec 2020

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v LUDLOW [2020] NZHC 3187

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3187
Court

High Court

The Court must approve a s95 settlement if it is consistent with the Act's purposes and the overall interests of justice; here the settlement was approved because it forfeited a significant sum that furthers deterrence and the Act's purposes, saved time and cost, reflected litigation risks for both parties and addressed effective control of trust-held property, therefore vesting specified assets in the Crown.
18 Sept 2020

CHAHIL v R [2020] NZCA 436

Citation

[2020] NZCA 436
Court

Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed; sentencing judge correctly applied principles: must sentence on agreed facts, limited credit for recovery achieved by separate forfeiture given appellant was not party, a substantial uplift (nine months) for active and sophisticated laundering was warranted, and a 15% guilty plea discount for a late plea was appropriate; overall sentence was within the appropriate range.
6 Jul 2020

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v THOMAS CHENG [2020] NZHC 1861

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1861
Court

High Court

The Court granted a limited further extension because the Commissioner provided reasonable justification for delay—complex multi‑jurisdictional investigations, mutual assistance processes, non-cooperation by key witnesses/parties and COVID‑19 impacts—and demonstrated that investigative steps remained necessary and were underway; however the extension was limited in time and subject to case management and monitoring to prevent indefinite restraint and to require filing of forfeiture proceedings promptly.
28 Feb 2020

R v CHAHIL and GUPTA [2020] NZHC 317

Citation

(2020) 29 NZTC 24
Court

High Court

The Court treated the tax-evasion charges as the lead offending, set a starting point equal to co-offender Ms Jain (three years three months) then uplifted nine months for linked money laundering to reach an aggregate starting point, adjusted for prior home detention and applied a 15% guilty-plea discount for Chahil producing an end sentence of three years two months' imprisonment plus a $50,000 fine; for Gupta the Court set a two-year starting point for money laundering, allowed limited discounts for good character and remorse and a 10% guilty-plea discount, then converted the resulting shor…
13 Dec 2019

BARTON v R [2019] NZCA 644

Citation

[2019] NZCA 644
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the four‑year starting point adopted by the sentencing Judge was within range for deliberate, prolonged and repetitive failure to file returns to evade tax; a six‑month uplift for extensive prior dishonesty convictions was justified; a 20% discount for remorse, filing and partial reparation was generous and no further discount was warranted despite a subsequent $122,000 payment because a substantial portion of core tax, interest and penalties remained outstanding; applications to adjourn the appeal and to defer commencement of sentence were properly declined; appeal dismissed.