Citation: R v Le Phan; R v Matanagh; R v Nguyen [2025] NSWDC 589
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 10 July 2025
Judge: Neilson DCJ
Background
The three offenders were each involved in a money laundering operation run by a principal who fled Australia in November 2022 and is believed to be residing in Vietnam. The operation collected cash on behalf of organised crime gangs (understood to be connected to the illicit drug trade) and converted it into USD Tether (USDT), a cryptocurrency stablecoin pegged to the US dollar. Law enforcement established Strikeforce ENYO, which deployed an Australian Federal Police Online Covert Operative (OCO) posing as a currency exchange facilitator charging a 2.5% commission.
The first offender, Le Phan, is the principal's 66-year-old mother. The second offender, Matanagh, and third offender, Nguyen, each became involved through their personal circumstances. Their roles included collecting cash from criminal groups, counting and packaging it, and physically delivering it to the OCO's driver in exchange for USDT transferred to a nominated digital wallet.
Each offender pleaded guilty. The court sentenced all three on the same day, with the principal himself yet to face justice.
Legal Issues
- What sentences were appropriate for offenders whose roles were at the lower end of involvement in a money laundering enterprise, where the principal had not been brought to justice?
- How should the three distinct mental states (knowledge, recklessness, and reasonable grounds to suspect) under Part 4AC of the Crimes Act 1900 be distinguished and applied at sentencing?
- What weight should be given to pre-sentence custody, early guilty pleas, and personal circumstances in fixing the final penalty?
- Whether the offending warranted full-time imprisonment, an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO), or a lesser penalty such as a Community Corrections Order (CCO)?
Decision
Neilson DCJ characterised the offending for all three as falling towards the bottom of the range for money laundering offences. The court drew a careful distinction between the three mental states available under Part 4AC of the Crimes Act 1900 (knowledge, recklessness, and reasonable grounds to suspect), cautioning against conflating them. Each offender's role was essentially logistical: moving, counting, packaging, or delivering cash rather than directing or organising the enterprise.
Statistical data from the Judicial Commission was considered. In the Local Court, the majority of comparable offenders received CCOs or ICOs rather than full-time imprisonment. In the District Court, of nine first-time offenders sentenced for offences under s 193C(1), six received ICOs and only three received full-time custody. A comparable co-offender involved in the same enterprise (but not the same transactions) received a CCO of two years on appeal.
Each offender had served a period of pre-sentence custody. Neilson DCJ treated that custody as satisfying the punitive component, and imposed further sentences to be served by way of ICO in the community. Conditions included no contact with the principal, supervision by a Community Corrections officer, and completion of community service hours.
The court imposed aggregate sentences structured so that no further time in custody was required beyond what had already been served.
Orders Made
Le Phan:
- Convicted on each offence.
- Fixed term of imprisonment for pre-sentence custody already served (exact period not reproduced in provided text).
- Aggregate ICO for remaining offences, including conditions: no offending, supervision, community service hours, and no association with the principal.
Matanagh:
- Convicted on each offence.
- Fixed term for pre-sentence custody already served.
- Aggregate ICO for remaining offences with equivalent conditions.
Nguyen:
- Convicted on each offence.
- Sequence 6 (including a Form 1 matter): fixed term of six months and 12 days, commencing 20 October 2023 and expiring 1 May 2024 (pre-sentence custody, already served), with a 25% reduction for early guilty plea.
- Sequences 7 and 9: aggregate sentence of one year's imprisonment commencing 10 July 2025, to be served by way of ICO.
- ICO conditions: no offending; supervision by a Community Corrections officer; 150 hours of community service work; no association with the principal (Bao Long Truong Phan); report to Bankstown Community Corrections Office within seven days.
- Indicative sentences: six months for Sequence 9 and six months for Sequence 7.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that Part 4AC of the Crimes Act 1900 contains three distinct mental states (knowledge, recklessness, and reasonable grounds to suspect), and that care must be taken not to conflate them in sentencing.
- Offending at the lower end of the money laundering range, involving logistical rather than organising roles, does not automatically attract full-time imprisonment, particularly where the offender has no prior criminal history and has entered an early guilty plea.
- Statistical sentencing data from the Judicial Commission played a meaningful role in the court's analysis, with the majority of comparable first-time offenders in the District Court receiving ICOs rather than custodial sentences.
- Pre-sentence custody served a punitive function and was credited against the overall sentence, enabling the court to impose ICOs in place of further imprisonment for the additional offences.
- Where an enterprise principal has not been brought to justice, that fact forms part of the sentencing context but does not, of itself, alter the appropriate sentence for offenders whose roles were peripheral and logistical.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), Part 4AC; ss 93T(1), 193A, 193BA, 193C(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 37
Cases:
- Attorney-General's Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002, Re (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518
- R v NT [2022] NSWCCA 53