R v PERREAU [2011] NSWDC 234

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v PERREAU [2011] NSWDC 234 Hearing dates: 18 November 2011 Decision date: 18 November 2011 Before: Berman SC DCJ Decision: Sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 months. Order that the execution of that sentence be suspended under s20(1)(b) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. Direct that the offender is to be released upon giving self security in the amount of $1000 without surety. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Disposed of money which it was reasonable to suspect was the proceeds of crime - Delay Legislation Cited: Commonwealth Crimes Act Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown - Commonwealth Ian Clifton Perreau Representation: Mr Nield - Commonwealth Crown Mr G Brady - Offender Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Nyman Gibson Stewart - Offender File Number(s): 2010/22022; 2010/22026

SENTENCE 1HIS HONOUR: Ian Perreau has pleaded guilty to one offence that between 6 February 2003 and 8 September 2004 he disposed of money which was it reasonable to suspect was the proceeds of crime. In fact what he did was on eighty-five separate occasions receive cash, sometimes in quite large amounts, and deposit that cash into nominated bank accounts, sometimes using a false name. 2He was working in the finance industry when he was spoken to by his father's cousin. He was then contacted by a man he knew as "Dean" who arranged for these transactions to take place, saying that he had been referred to the offender by his cousin. The offender trusted his cousin and, thus, at least initially, trusted Dean. 3The offender gave evidence that whilst he initially believed that things were above board and that handling large sums of cash was consistent with the behaviour he had seen other parts of Asia, eventually he realised that things were not above board. The amounts of money had increased and he was being contacted by strangers. Despite that, for a time he continued to accept cash and deposit it into nominated bank accounts. Eventually however he and his wife, his wife being aware of what had been happening, spoke about the position they had got themselves in and decided that they would voluntarily cease this activity. 4It is apparent that the offender and his wife kept meticulous records of what they had done and, indeed, the police were able to access those records when they eventually searched the offender's premises. I gather that there is no dispute between the parties that those records demonstrate that Mr Perreau did voluntarily cease his illegal activity. Although the records show that there used to be transactions many times a month, in the month before the police arrived there were no transactions at all. 5The offender was born in Singapore. He came to Australia some time ago. He had a good upbringing in Singapore and has a good relationship with his parents and his siblings. They did not know about this offence until relatively recently. Mr Perreau completed the HSC in Australia and has since then worked in various aspects of finance. He is currently working for Westpac. His resume was tendered today which shows that he has done well for himself and his employers over the years. He needs a licence to conduct his current work and I have no doubt that it is a condition of his employment with Westpac that he not have criminal convictions. The conviction which must inevitably follow his plea of guilty to this offence will therefore necessarily have a significant impact upon his ability to work in his chosen field. 6I will note that the offender has pleaded guilty at a late stage and so his willingness to facilitate the course of justice is to be rewarded by a discounted sentence of a relatively modest amount in the order of ten per cent. The plea of guilty is also one other fact which has led to me imposing a different form of penalty from that which might otherwise have been imposed. 7The offender is of otherwise good character. There is evidence of this aspect in both a negative and positive sense, negative in the sense that he has no other criminal convictions and positive in the sense that he has done good work as the references attest. The offender told police, and there is nothing to contradict him in this area, that he received a relatively modest amount, in the order of half a per cent to one per cent of each transaction. Given that there was something in the order of $3million in total over the period of his offending he received something between $15,000 and $30,000. In terms of his moral culpability I do find as the offender said, that whilst initially he thought that these transactions were above board he later came to realise that they were not. 8The Crown referred to the offender using the name "John Jacobsen". The offender explained that he wished to use a false name when depositing the money in order to prevent perhaps corrupt bank tellers accessing his records, he banking at the same bank, in order to protect himself from robbery or other offences because of the large amounts of cash which the tellers would know he was carrying. It is not a case where he created a false bank account or anything of that kind, he simply put on the deposit slip the name "John Jacobsen" rather than the name Ian Perreau. 9So in terms of moral culpability the offender has continued to engage in these transactions even after he became suspicious and, indeed, probably confident, that things were not above board. But as I have found and as there is no real challenge to this from the Crown, he did voluntarily cease his illegal activity about a month before the police turned up on his door. 10He gave evidence that he is now ashamed and embarrassed for what he has done and that he knows that he has let people down. I watched him in the witness box and I am satisfied that he is remorseful for what he has done, and in particular he is very conscious of the affect that his offending has had on his family. 11I now wish to speak about, as the cliché suggests, "the elephant in the room". That is, the delay which has been apparent in the prosecution of this matter by the authorities. These offences ended in September 2004 and the police turned up on Mr Perreau's doorstep in late 2004. He was not charged until five years later. Indeed, in the meantime he had contacted the police when he needed to go overseas on a conference and got his passport back. So over that five years the offender has been left in a state of great suspense. Initially of course he would have expected that this day would come fairly soon, but as time went on, and given that his passport was returned, it appears to be the case that he began to believe that this might be behind him. He gave evidence that he and his wife had just decided, for example, to put in a pool, shortly before the police again turned up on his doorstep telling him he had been charged and presenting him with the Court Attendance Notice. 12Over the five years the offender did not do things easily either. The stress of what might one day occur was part of what led to the breakdown of the relationship with his wife, although they reconciled. After the Court Attendance Notices were served (on his wife's birthday) their relationship has deteriorated again. It is not going too far to say that the offender has paid a high price already for his offending behaviour. Part of that has come about because of the delay, and he will continue to pay an even higher price once he discloses to Westpac that he has been convicted of this offence. 13Of course the delay has also been relevant in this sense. It has enabled Mr Perreau to demonstrate that he is not going to re-offend, that this is very much an isolated breach of the criminal law on his part. The authorities speak about the need for understanding and flexibility of approach where delay of this kind is a feature of matters that come for sentence. I am not sure what I would have done to Mr Perreau if I was dealing with him soon after these offences had been committed, but I am sure that the delay in this case is a very significant matter which has had a large impact on the sentence that I am going to impose on Mr Perreau. 14The Crown refers to general deterrence. Of course general deterrence is important in cases of this kind. It is one of the weapons that the authorities have in an effort to deter crime by reducing the opportunities for criminals to have access to their ill-gotten gains. But it is at least ironic that the Crown now seeks to suggest the seriousness of this conduct when the matter does not appear to have been treated at all seriously by the authorities for five years. 15The prosecution referred to three comparative cases, two of which led to comparatively short periods of imprisonment. While such sentences may, and I say only may, have been appropriate in this case if I was sentencing Mr Perreau five years ago, the impact of the delay on the sentence that I will now impose is such that I propose to accede to Mr Brady's submission and impose upon Mr Perreau a suspended sentence of imprisonment of twelve months. 16I impose a sentence of imprisonment of twelve months, I order that it be suspended under 20(1)(b) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act on condition the offender giving self security without a surety in the sum of $1000. It is a condition of the bond that thereby results that the offender is to be of good behaviour for the period of the bond. He is to appear before this Court if called upon to do so at any time. He is to advise the Registrar of this Court of any change in his residential address.