AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 23 June 2003

Regina v Matsumura

[2003] NSWCCA 170

Fraud & dishonesty
CRIMINAL LAW TRANSFERRING FOREIGN CURRENCY FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS REPORTS ACT 1988 APPEAL DISMISSED.

Citation: Regina v Matsumura [2003] NSWCCA 170
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 23 June 2003
Judge(s): Ipp JA; Buddin J; Shaw J

Background

The respondent, a 28-year-old Japanese national employed as a personal security companion, flew into Australia on 6 January 2003 carrying currency totalling approximately AUD $520,195.90. On his incoming passenger card, he ticked "No" to every question, including the question asking whether he was carrying AUD $10,000 or more in currency. He pleaded guilty to an offence under the Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 for failing to make the required report.

The offence was detected after a customs officer, prompted by an unrelated query about a Swiss Army knife, noticed wallets in the respondent's open suitcase containing the undeclared funds. The respondent told customs officers he had not read the questions on the card properly, and that the money had been won gambling at casinos around the world while accompanying his client.

The District Court judge accepted the respondent's evidence in full, found the gambling explanation credible, and exercised a discretion under s 19B(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to discharge the respondent without recording a conviction. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against that disposition.

  • Whether the trial judge erred in exercising the discretion under s 19B(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to discharge the respondent without entering a conviction
  • Whether the highly unusual factual circumstances of the offence and the offender placed the case within the range of appropriate outcomes for a no-conviction discharge

Decision

Ipp JA, with whom Buddin J and Shaw J agreed, acknowledged that the Crown's grounds for appeal appeared strong at first impression, given the extraordinary amount of currency involved. After examining the material before the District Court, however, his Honour concluded that the trial judge's disposition fell within the proper exercise of his discretion.

Central to that conclusion was the District Court's uncontested findings of fact: the respondent was of the highest good character, had no prior convictions, had genuinely failed to read the card rather than deliberately concealing the funds, and the money had legitimately been won through gambling. The respondent's employment circumstances, including his role accompanying a wealthy client at casinos worldwide, provided documented support for those findings.

Ipp JA nonetheless emphasised that the outcome should not be treated as a general precedent. He stated that, ordinarily, a person bringing in such a large sum without making the required report would face a severe penalty, and that accurate answers on passenger cards are essential to the proper running and security of Australia. The discharge without conviction was available only because of what the Court described as extraordinary circumstances.

Buddin J characterised the case as "quite exceptional," and Shaw J found no real or substantial grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised below.

Orders Made

  • Appeal dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • A no-conviction discharge under s 19B(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) remains available as a sentencing outcome even for offences involving very large sums of undeclared currency, provided sufficiently extraordinary circumstances exist.
  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that the discretion under s 19B(1) was properly exercised where the trial judge's unchallenged findings established genuine good character, no criminal origin of funds, and an absence of deliberate deception.
  • The decision carries an explicit caveat: the Court stressed it should not stand as a ready precedent, and that ordinarily a person who fails to declare such a substantial sum at the border would face a severe penalty.
  • Appellate courts will be slow to interfere with a sentencing discretion properly exercised at first instance, particularly where the factual findings underpinning that discretion are not challenged on appeal.
  • Under the Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988, the currency reporting offence is one of strict liability; the respondent's guilty plea was not in issue, and the appeal turned solely on the appropriateness of the sentencing disposition.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 (Cth), s 15(1)(a)(ii)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19B(1)
- Justices Act 1902 (NSW), s 51A

Cases: No cases were cited in the provided text of the judgment.