R v Jiao [2014] NSWDC 352

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jiao [2014] NSWDC 352 Decision date: 03 December 2014 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Cogswell SC DCJ Decision: The evidence is relevant and admissible. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - admissibility and relevancy - evidence regarding processes involved in money laundering - evidence goes to prove element of offence - evidence admissible Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 400.9(1) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Yi Hua Jiao (accused) Representation: Counsel: B Neild (Crown) F Santisi (accused)

Solicitors: Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Goh Lawyers (accused) File Number(s): 2013/23304

Judgment 1. Counsel for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in this case is wanting to lead evidence from a Federal Agent regarding processes involved in money laundering. Counsel wants to do that because he is prosecuting the accused for an offence against s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 of the Commonwealth. An element of that offence, and therefore one necessary for the prosecution to prove, is that "it is reasonable to suspect that the money…is proceeds of crime." 2. Counsel for the accused objects to that evidence being led. He points to the record of interview between his client and the police. His client agreed to a record of interview and gave extensive answers to the questions she was asked. She provided an explanation for the more than $600,000 in cash which she had received at a casino in Sydney the day before and had attempted to remit part of to another account. Her explanation is consistent with her being innocent of any wrongdoing. 3. The evidence which the Crown Prosecutor seeks to lead is from a Federal Agent of the Australian Federal Police to the effect that "money laundering syndicates regularly use casinos to engage in a form of money laundering." I am quoting from particulars supplied on behalf of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to the solicitors for the accused on 25 June this year. The evidence, it is anticipated, will also be consistent with criminal syndicates depositing "cash into casino gaming accounts", then moving "that money from gaming accounts into other accounts, the intention being to create the impression that the cash originally deposited was one at the casino." The money was deposited into an account at the casino in this case. The accused person asked the casino to remit all or, I think, part of it to another account. 4. Defence counsel's point is that once one looks at the answers given in the record of interview, the money loses its suspicious character. That may well be right. But that is not the prosecution case, that is a statement of the defence case. The prosecution case is and must be that "it is reasonable to suspect that the money…is proceeds of crime". 5. To my mind it is relevant to the proof of that component of the alleged crime that the prosecution through a witness should be able to give evidence to the effect that I have summarised. 6. Defence counsel objected to the use of a particular expression - "layering" - which, he complained, was not defined. He points out, probably correctly, that it was not his responsibility to ascertain the definition, given that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the expertise of its witnesses. However, the Crown Prosecutor has indicated that he does not propose to lead evidence by reference to that term. 7. I regard the evidence as relevant and admissible in that it tends to prove that "it is reasonable to suspect that the money…is proceeds of crime". I therefore propose to allow the witness to give evidence to that effect