AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 20 October 2023

R v Chintagunta

[2023] NSWDC 439

Fraud & dishonesty
CRME SENTENCE

Citation: R v Chintagunta [2023] NSWDC 439
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 October 2023
Judge(s): Mahony SC DCJ

Background

The offender, an Indian national in Australia on a student visa, responded in 2021 to what appeared to be a job advertisement for courier work. He was directed by a co-offender to act as a cash courier in a sophisticated telecommunications scam, collecting cash and bank cards from victims who had been deceived by scam-call operators posing as government and law enforcement officials.

The scheme targeted vulnerable individuals by convincing them their identities had been compromised and that they needed to hand over cash, bank cards, and personal identification numbers to a "courier" for safekeeping. The offender collected these proceeds, made withdrawals, purchased gift cards, photographed the card details, and transferred the bulk of the funds to his controller, retaining a small commission for himself.

The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court to two charges of dealing with money that was the proceeds of indictable crime (where the value was $10,000 or more), and admitted a third charge of attempting to deal with proceeds of crime (where he was reckless as to their criminal origin), which was taken into account on sentence. The offending spanned approximately six weeks in late 2021.

  • What was the appropriate sentence for two offences of dealing with proceeds of indictable crime under s 400.6(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code (Cth), each involving amounts of $10,000 or more?
  • How should the offender's role as a low-level courier, his guilty pleas, and his personal circumstances (including his immigration status, mental health, and rehabilitation) bear on the sentencing exercise?
  • Whether a recognizance release order (a form of suspended custodial sentence served in the community) was appropriate in lieu of full-time custody.

Decision

His Honour accepted that the offending was serious, forming part of a telecommunications scam that caused real harm to multiple victims. The total amount dealt with across Sequence 8 reached $34,257.80, spread across three victims. The offender's role, however, was characterised as that of a relatively low-level participant: he acted at the direction of others, was not the architect of the scheme, and retained only a modest commission.

The court gave weight to the offender's early guilty pleas, his cooperation, and the absence of prior criminal history. The offender had spent 12 days in presentence custody following his arrest in April 2022, a period that the court found was particularly onerous, having triggered suicidal ideation and a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder. These matters, along with his youth, his status as a foreign student, and evidence of remorse and insight, all bore on the sentencing outcome.

The court also accepted the psychiatric and psychological evidence that the offender was at low risk of reoffending and had made genuine rehabilitative progress. Balancing the seriousness of the offending against the substantial mitigating factors, Mahony SC DCJ imposed an aggregate sentence of 18 months' imprisonment but ordered immediate release on a recognizance release order, meaning the sentence would be served in the community subject to supervision and conditions.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of Sequence 8 and Sequence 9, each an offence under s 400.6(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (dealing with proceeds of indictable crime valued at $10,000 or more).
  • An aggregate sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was imposed.
  • A recognizance release order was made under s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) for immediate release, on the offender entering a recognizance (a formal undertaking, without surety) in the sum of $500.
  • Conditions attached to the recognizance release order include:
  • Good behaviour for 18 months
  • Supervision by a Community Corrections probation officer
  • Compliance with all reasonable directions from the probation officer
  • No interstate or overseas travel without the probation officer's written permission
  • The offender's passport is not to be returned without the consent of the probation officer and police.
  • The offender was directed to report to City Community Corrections within 7 days of the date of sentence.
  • The scheduled offence (Sequence 5, attempted dealing with proceeds of crime under s 400.7(1)(b)(i) and s 11.1(1) of the Criminal Code) was taken into account on sentence under s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

Key Takeaways

  • A relatively junior participant in a telecommunications scam can still attract a custodial sentence for dealing with proceeds of indictable crime, even where their role was limited to acting as a courier under direction.
  • Under s 400.6(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code (Cth), dealing with money or property believed to be proceeds of indictable crime carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment or 600 penalty units; the attempted form of the offence under s 400.7 carries a maximum of 5 years.
  • The District Court treated the offender's youth, foreign student status, absence of prior criminal history, early guilty pleas, genuine remorse, low reoffending risk, and the particular hardship of presentence custody as significant mitigating factors collectively justifying a recognizance release order.
  • A recognizance release order under s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) allows a court to impose a full custodial sentence while ordering immediate release into community supervision; breach of conditions can result in the offender serving the balance of the term in custody.
  • Where a co-offender remains to be sentenced, the court proceeds to sentence without reference to that future outcome, as occurred here with the unresolved matter involving co-offender Durga Thota.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Criminal Code (Cth), ss 400.6(1)(b)(i), 400.7(1)(b)(i), 11.1(1)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16BA, 20(1)(b)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases
- Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
- R v Ansari (2007) 173 A Crim R 112; [2007] NSWCCA 204
- R v Huang; R v Siu (2007) 174 A Crim R 370
- Kim v The Queen [2016] VSCA 238