AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 5 August 2010

R v Wang & Roizman

[2010] NSWDC 170

Fraud & dishonestyTheft & property
CRIMINAL LAW PARTICULAR OFFENCES PROPERTY OFFENCES SENTENCE

Citation: R v Wang & Roizman [2010] NSWDC 170
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 5 August 2010
Judge(s): King SC DCJ

Background

A sophisticated fraud was perpetrated on the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme on 24 December 2003. False banking directions were sent to the scheme's custodian, JP Morgan, causing approximately AUD $150 million to be transferred to accounts around the world. Of that amount, roughly AUD $30.5 million was sent to a Hong Kong account held in the name of Hong Kong Power Limited.

The first offender (Wang) was found to have been involved in obtaining the account details used to receive the fraudulent transfer. The second offender (Roizman) aided and abetted Wang's conduct. Both were connected through telephone records, fax machine evidence, and their presence on the vessel Omar III in Hong Kong, where the proceeds were used for Baccarat gaming on 29 December 2003 in an apparent attempt to launder the funds.

The jury convicted both offenders following a trial in February 2010. Critically, the Crown accepted that neither offender had any involvement in, or knowledge of, the underlying fraud itself. Their culpability arose solely from dealing with money they were reckless about being the proceeds of crime.

  • What sentence was appropriate for each offender convicted of dealing with proceeds of crime valued at $1,000,000 or more under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)?
  • What weight should be given to each offender's role within the broader criminal enterprise when assessing moral culpability?
  • How should personal circumstances, criminal history, and pre-trial custody be taken into account in fixing the non-parole period?

Decision

The court found that both offenders played significant roles in a highly organised and sophisticated criminal scheme, even though neither was involved in perpetrating the underlying fraud. Wang's involvement included sourcing the Hong Kong Power account details used to receive the stolen funds, maintaining regular contact with key organisers, and participating in the gaming on the Omar III. Roizman's role was as an aider and abettor of Wang's conduct, and he also received a gaming receipt for approximately AUD $16.7 million redeemable in Macau.

The court assessed the offences as objectively very serious, attracting a high degree of moral culpability. The maximum penalty for each offender was 12 years' imprisonment. The court considered a comparable sentencing decision by Marien DCJ as a reference point but concluded that the gravity of these offences warranted a more significant sentence than that earlier starting point implied.

In differentiating between the two offenders, the court imposed a sentence six months shorter on Roizman than on Wang. That reduction reflected Roizman's lack of relevant criminal history and the correspondingly lesser need for specific deterrence. The court also varied the standard ratio between the total term and the non-parole period in Roizman's favour, acknowledging that his health may make imprisonment more burdensome than it would otherwise be.

Pre-trial custody was factored into the commencement dates of each sentence. Wang had served 37 days' pre-trial custody referable to this matter, and Roizman had served one day.

Orders Made

Wang:
- Convicted of dealing with proceeds of crime (s 400.3(2), Criminal Code Act 1995)
- Total term of imprisonment: 10 years, commencing 17 January 2010, expiring 16 January 2020
- Non-parole period: 6 years and 6 months, expiring 16 July 2016
- Eligible for parole release: 16 July 2016

Roizman:
- Convicted of aiding and abetting the dealing with proceeds of crime (ss 400.3(2) and 11.2(1), Criminal Code Act 1995)
- Total term of imprisonment: 9 years and 6 months, commencing 22 February 2010, expiring 21 August 2019
- Non-parole period: 5 years and 6 months, expiring 21 August 2015
- Eligible for parole release: 21 August 2015

Key Takeaways

  • A conviction for dealing with proceeds of crime under s 400.3(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 does not require proof that the offender was involved in the underlying criminal conduct generating those proceeds; recklessness as to the funds' criminal origin is sufficient.
  • The District Court confirmed that an offender's level within the criminal organisation is a central consideration in assessing culpability at sentencing, consistent with the approach in R v Raz.
  • Where co-offenders have different criminal histories, a sentencing court may differentiate total terms and non-parole periods to reflect varying needs for specific deterrence.
  • Health circumstances capable of making imprisonment more onerous can justify a more favourable ratio between the non-parole period and the total sentence term.
  • Existing comparable sentencing decisions provide a reference point, but the particular facts of an offence may warrant a departure upward if the objective seriousness and moral culpability are sufficiently high.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 400.3(2), 11.2(1)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A

Cases:
- R v Raz (NSWCCA, unreported, 17 December 1990)
- Ansari v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 204
- Chen [2009] NSWCCA 66
- R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
- R v Hart (NSWCCA, unreported, 26 July 1999)
- R v Sopher (1993) 70 A Crim R 570
- R v Price (NSWCCA, unreported, 2 September 1993)