New Zealand: Money Laundering. R v Liava'a
| Pages | 365-366 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb027252 |
| Published date | 01 February 2000 |
| Date | 01 February 2000 |
| Author | James Rapley |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal
of
Money Laundering Control
—
Vol.
3 No. 4
New Zealand: Money Laundering
R v Liava'a
James Rapley
On
1st
September,
1995 New
Zealand acquired
a
specific money-laundering provision
in its
criminal
code:
s.
257A Crimes
Act
1961.1
As is
often
the
case
with
new
legislation,
s.
257A made
its way
onto
the
statute books without fanfare
and has
been relatively
unused
by
Crown prosecutors.
The
recently reported
decision of R
v
Liava'a2 will hopefully generate inter-
est among
New
Zealand
law
enforcement authorities
and Crown prosecutors.
FACTS
Three accused were charged under
s.
257A(2) Crimes
Act
1961. The
Crown case
was
that they
and
others
had been involved
in the
importation of cocaine pur-
chased
in
Hawaii
and
imported into
New
Zealand
via
Tonga.
The
Crown alleged that Liava'a
and
another
person visited
a
number
of
banks
and
changed
New
Zealand dollars
to US
dollars. False names were
given
by the
accused when they visited
the
banks.
Liava'a then went
to
Hawaii
and
purchased further
cocaine with
the US
dollars
and
arranged
for
that
to
be
imported
via
Tonga.
The
Crown alleged
(and
this
was not
disputed) that
the
accused were aware
that
the New
Zealand money
was the
proceeds
of
serious offences.
In
the
Auckland High Court
the
accused sought
to
be discharged under
s. 347
Crimes
Act 1961. The
accused argued that their actions
did not
amount
to
concealing
or
disguising
the
property because,
in
terms
of the
definition
of
'conceal' contained
in s.
257A(1),
to
simply exchange
New
Zealand dollars
to
US
dollars
did not
amount
to
conversion
of
property from
one
form
to
another.
When addressing
the
question
of the
purpose
of
those transactions
it
could
not be
said that there
was
any attempt
to
conceal
or
disguise
the New
Zealand
dollars. Rather,
the
intention
was
simply
to
procure
US dollars
to
enable
an
illegal transaction
to
proceed.
Thus,
in the
absence
of any
intention
to
conceal
or
disguise, while
the
transaction might have been part
of
an
overall plan
to
import cocaine,
the
transaction
was
not, of itself,
such that
the
accused could
be
prosecuted under
s.
257A.
SECTION 257A CRIMES
ACT 1961 AND
THE DECISION
IN
LIAVA'A
Section 257A(2)
and (3)
create
the
offence. These
subsections state that:
'(2)
...
every
one is
liable
to
imprisonment
for a
term
not
exceeding
7
years
who, in
respect
of
any property that
is the
proceeds
of a
serious
offence, engages
in a
money-laundering trans-
action, knowing
or
believing that
all or
part
of
the property
is the
proceeds
of
a serious offence.3
(3)
...
every
one is
liable
to
imprisonment
for a
term
not
exceeding
5
years
who
obtains
or has in
his
or her
possession
any
property (being property
that
is the
proceeds
of
a
serious offence committed
by another person)
—
With intent
to
engage
in a
money-laundering
transaction
in
respect
of
that property;
and
Knowing
or
believing that
all or
part
of the
property
is the
proceeds
of any
serious offence.'
Justice Laurenson noted that 'pursuant
to s.
257A(2)
conduct only amounts
to a
criminal offence
if the
person charged knows
or
believes that
all or
part
of
the property
is the
proceeds
of a
serious offence.
If
the Crown
is
able
to
surmount that initial hurdle
then,
by
definition, transactions which would
otherwise
be
unexceptional assume
a
quite different,
criminal complexion.'4
His Honour held that
'in order
to
prosecute
an
accused pursuant
to
s.
257A
the
following ingredients require
proof:
The accused engaged
in a
money-laundering
transaction.
That
it was in
respect
of
property that
was the
proceeds
of a
serious offence.
The accused knew
or
believed that
all or
part of the
property
was the
proceeds
of a
serious offence.'5
Journal
of
Money Laundering Control
Vol-
3,
No.
4,
2000.
pp 365-366
©Henry Stewart Publications
ISSN 1368-5201
Page
365
To continue reading
Request your trial