Citation: [2025] NSWDC 573
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 16 July 2025
Judge(s): Neilson DCJ
Background
The offender, a man born in 1991, pleaded guilty to two substantive "rolled up" charges of recklessly dealing with proceeds of crime contrary to s 193BA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Each charge carried a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment. Additional offences were taken into account on two Form 1 schedules, including participation in a criminal group (s 93T(1)) and further proceeds of crime offences (s 193C(2)).
The offending arose from the offender's involvement in a money laundering operation run by a principal (Bao Long Truong-Phan), who had set up a business converting large quantities of cash, sourced from organised drug crime, into USD Tether, a stablecoin cryptocurrency. The principal left Australia for Vietnam in November 2022 and did not return. The offender met the principal socially in Sydney and, while experiencing financial difficulties, was recruited to assist the operation despite initially resisting.
Between late November 2022 and at least March 2023, the offender physically collected, counted, bundled, and delivered large sums of cash to undercover police operatives as part of Strike Force Enyo. The total cash the offender personally handled approached $3 million. He communicated via the encrypted messaging platform Threema and acted on directions from the principal, who used the alias "Seneca."
Legal Issues
- What was the appropriate sentence for the offender's reckless dealing with proceeds of crime, having regard to the quantity of cash handled (nearly $3 million) and the nature of the money laundering scheme?
- What weight should be given to the offender's guilty plea, cooperation, personal circumstances (including financial duress and the manner of recruitment), and assessed low risk of reoffending?
- How should the Form 1 offences (participation in a criminal group, and additional proceeds of crime dealing) be reflected in the sentence?
- What was the offender's role and moral culpability relative to the principal of the criminal organisation?
Decision
The court accepted the offender's evidence about how he came to be involved. Neilson DCJ found that the offender was recruited by the principal during a period of financial difficulty and, while he quickly became aware the activity was unlawful, he continued to participate. The court characterised the offender's role as subordinate: he acted on the principal's directions to collect, count, bundle, and deliver cash, but did not organise or control the operation.
The court noted the very large sums of money involved, with the offender personally dealing with almost $3 million across multiple exchanges. These exchanges followed a consistent pattern: the offender would receive directions via Threema, collect and count cash, transport it (often in shopping bags or cooler bags) to meetings with undercover operatives at locations including Maroubra, Coogee, and Centennial Park, and confirm the transaction on the group chat.
In assessing the offender's culpability, the court considered that the offender was assessed as being at low risk of reoffending. The judgment (noting the text is truncated) also appears to have weighed the utilitarian value of the guilty plea and the offender's personal circumstances, including his initial resistance and the financial pressure that drew him into the scheme.
The Form 1 offences (participation in a criminal group spanning November 2022 to May 2023, and two additional proceeds of crime charges) were taken into account in determining the sentence for the two substantive offences.
Orders Made
- The full sentencing orders are not reproduced in the truncated judgment text available. The offender was sentenced on the two substantive charges of recklessly dealing with proceeds of crime (s 193BA(1)), with Form 1 matters taken into account.
- Practitioners should consult the full judgment on NSW Caselaw for the precise terms of the sentence imposed.
Key Takeaways
-
The District Court treated the offender's role as a physical cash courier within a larger crypto-laundering operation as subordinate to that of the principal, assessing culpability accordingly. However, the sheer volume of cash handled (nearly $3 million) remained a significant aggravating factor in sentencing.
-
Where multiple transactions are consolidated into single "rolled up" charges under s 193BA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the sentencing judge must consider the scope and nature of each transaction encompassed within those counts when determining the appropriate sentence.
-
Financial hardship and the manner of recruitment were accepted as mitigating the offender's culpability, given that he was drawn into the scheme during a period of difficulty and had initially resisted involvement. These factors had limits, however, as sustained participation over several months involving nearly $3 million in cash could not be excused by duress alone.
-
A low assessed risk of reoffending was found to be a relevant consideration in the sentencing analysis, even in a case involving very large sums of money and serious organised criminality.
-
Strike Force Enyo's investigation, which involved undercover operatives and covert online operators infiltrating the cryptocurrency exchange scheme, was central to detecting the offending. The decision highlighted the role of these law enforcement tools, alongside analysis of Threema encrypted group chats, in prosecuting money laundering operations.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 93T(1) (participating in criminal group)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193BA(1) (dealing with proceeds of crime)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193C(2) (dealing with proceeds of crime)
Cases:
- Nil cited.