Money Laundering and Tax Reporting Requirements
In the recent decision of R v Guo; R v Qian [2010] NSWCCA 170, the Court of Criminal Appeal reiterated money laundering is a serious criminal activity, warranting severe punishment reflecting general deterrence of a very significant degree.
Co-offenders were involved in an elaborate tax-evasion scheme which included cash payments to workers in a chicken factory.
G drew $716, 394.73 worth of cheques from one shell company into the account of another shell company. After pleading guilty to recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime under s 400.4(2) of the Criminal Code, he was sentenced at the District Court to 2 years 6 months and 18 days periodic detention (weekend gaol).
Q used a false identity to facilitate his criminal activity, elevating the level of objective criminality of his offence. After pleading guilty to conducting transactions to avoid reporting requirements under s 31(1) of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988, he was sentenced to 1 year 8 months periodic detention at the District Court. Although Q’s monetary rewards were not very substantial, he was key to the operation and was aware of his wrongful actions.
On appeal (to the NSWCCA), His Honour Johnson J confirmed the minimum value of money or property and the state of mind of the offender are the principle differentiating factors in determining the seriousness of money laundering. Other considerations in sentencing included the belief of the offender as to the source and destination (of the funds), what the offender did, the actions performed, the planning leading to the commission of the offence and its ramifications.
Offences relating to tax reporting are difficult to detect, warranting a significant degree of general deterrence.
G and Q were resentenced to: 3 years 10 months and 2 years 7 months gaol, respectively.
