Citation: R v Menzies [2023] NSWDC 535
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 September 2023
Judge: King SC DCJ
Background
The offender was convicted after trial of 14 counts of dealing with property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime (each under $100,000), contrary to s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offences arose from a business email compromise fraud (BECF) in which an unknown person intercepted communications between a NSW government agency, Destination NSW, and Sydney WorldPride Limited, then fraudulently redirected a payment of $942,700 into a bank account held by the offender's cousin, Mansus Knight.
Once the funds arrived in Knight's account, the offender used his own ABC Bullion account to purchase gold bullion in 13 separate online transactions totalling approximately $918,709, each transfer kept below $75,000. A further $20,000 was transferred directly to the offender's own bank account. All 14 transactions occurred overnight on 23 to 24 July 2021.
The offender and Knight advanced a common explanation at trial: that the funds were an unexpected gambling or lottery win belonging to Knight, and that the offender simply assisted by routing purchases through his ABC Bullion account when Knight's own account could not be activated. The jury rejected this account and convicted on all 14 counts. Knight, the co-offender, had separately pleaded guilty.
Legal Issues
- Whether the statutory defence under s 193C(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 was made out, requiring the offender to satisfy the jury on the balance of probabilities that he had no reasonable grounds for suspecting the property was proceeds of crime
- The appropriate sentence, including the application of the totality principle across 14 counts arising from a single overnight sequence of transactions
- Parity between the offender's sentence and that imposed on the co-offender Knight, given their significantly different roles
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify a variation from the standard ratio between the non-parole period and total sentence
Decision
The jury rejected the statutory defence, having heard evidence from a witness, Ms Victoria Rupp, that the offender had described to her in April or May 2021 his intended involvement in a business email compromise fraud scheme. He had told her that Nigerian associates would intercept business email systems to divert payments, that he would arrange the receiving bank account, and that he would then retrieve the funds. This evidence, which pre-dated the actual fraud, was communicated by Ms Rupp to police in June 2021 and documented in Facebook messages tendered at trial.
The court found a significant difference between the roles of the offender and Knight. While Knight opened and operated the receiving account, the offender was found to have been centrally involved in the mechanism for converting the fraudulently obtained funds, and was the one who actually purchased the gold and attempted to collect it. His attempt to attend the ABC Bullion premises on 4 August 2021 to collect the gold, carrying documentation of the purchase receipts, was a significant feature of the offending.
On sentencing, the court recognised that all 14 transactions formed a continuing sequence of events on a single night, and imposed an aggregate sentence rather than cumulative individual terms. The court considered parity with Knight's sentence but concluded the offender's conduct was meaningfully more serious, particularly given the evidence of his prior knowledge of and planning for the fraud scheme. The court found no special circumstances to justify reducing the non-parole period below the standard proportion.
Orders Made
- Convicted on all 14 counts
- Indicative sentence of 6 months' imprisonment for each of Counts 1 and 6
- Indicative sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for each of Counts 2 to 5 and 7 to 14
- Aggregate sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years
- Sentence backdated to 4 August 2023 (accounting for 28 days of pre-trial custody from 4 to 31 August 2021)
- First eligible for parole: 3 August 2026; total term expires: 3 August 2027
Key Takeaways
-
The statutory defence under s 193C(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 places the burden on the defendant to satisfy the jury on the balance of probabilities that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect the property was proceeds of crime. Evidence of the defendant's own prior statements about his planned involvement in exactly such a scheme proved fatal to this defence.
-
Where multiple offences form a single, continuous sequence of transactions on the same occasion, a court may impose an aggregate sentence under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 rather than individual cumulative terms, provided it records indicative sentences for each count.
-
Parity between co-offenders is not a mathematical exercise. The District Court found that materially different roles within the same fraud can justify a meaningfully more severe sentence for one participant, even where the other has pleaded guilty.
-
A co-offender's guilty plea does not automatically produce a pronounced disparity warranting reduction of the trial offender's sentence. The court assessed the difference in culpability as sufficiently significant to stand independently of the plea discount.
-
Under s 193C(2), the maximum penalty is 3 years' imprisonment per count, with no standard non-parole period. In cases involving multiple counts arising from a single fraudulent scheme, the totality principle operates to moderate what would otherwise be a substantial cumulative total.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193C(2) and s 193C(4)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 5 (threshold for imprisonment)
Cases:
No cases were cited in the text provided.