appeal against sentence — dealing with money in excess of $1,000,000 with intention it would become instrument of crime offence contrary to s 400.3(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — two other related offences taken into account pursuant to s 16BA — original sentence imposed 6 years’ and 4 months imprisonment with 4 year 6 month non-parole period — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — sentencing judge erred by failing to taking into account utilitarian value of guilty plea — resentencing — as specific error identified, Court’s duty to re-sentence “…unless in the separate and independent exercise of its discretion it concludes that no different sentence should be passed” (Kentwell v R) — other than maximum penalty, important considerations include offender’s belief that money or property was the proceeds of crime; precisely what offender did; the period of time over which transactions constituting offence were carried out; amount involved and offender’s role; whether money or property was beneficially the offender’s and if not, the value of any intended reward — objective seriousness — offence contrary to s 400.3(1) is serious and general deterrence is of particular importance — offender engaged in a deliberate planned course of conduct over period of more than a month with full awareness that conduct was criminal and having at least strong suspicion that money may have been derived from particularly nefarious criminal conduct — occupied highly valued role in well organised and sophisticated international money laundering syndicate — offender’s participation integral to success of syndicate’s money laundering — antecedents — s 16A(2)(m) — offender’s prior criminal history does not entitle him to leniency, but not regarded aggravating factor — considering all relevant factors no different sentence than sentence imposed should have been passed — leave to appeal granted — appeal dismissed
