Section 400.3(2)(b)(i) (proceeds of crime) and s 400.3(2)(b)(ii) (instrument of crime) of the Criminal Code (Cth) create distinct offences criminalising distinct criminal activity, notwithstanding that they carry the same maximum penalty; a sentencing judge cannot make findings consistent with guilt of one offence when the offender is charged with the other. Where a charge is downgraded through plea negotiations and a new indictment is filed, the utilitarian value of the guilty plea should be assessed by reference to the date the revised charge was laid, not the date of the original charge. The question whether an offender's belief about the source of funds is always relevant to sentencing regardless of which limb of s 400.3(2)(b) is charged was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.