In each of these conspiracy charges the Crown alleges that the three accused agreed with each other and [Z.] and others to deal with money to the value of one million dollars or more where there was a risk that the money would become an instrument of crime. That's not all that's alleged. But amongst the allegations is, firstly, in late 2003, secondly around mid-2004, [there was] a conspiracy to deal with money to the value of a million dollars or more where there was a risk that the money would become an instrument of crime. It sounds complicated, and I'll endeavour to make it less so. But just on what is the Crown really setting out to prove about this dealing with money of a million dollars or more where there was a risk it would become an instrument of crime. The Crown alleges that the circumstances in particulars in which money of a million dollars or more was in fact delivered to two of the Ansaris, that's Azees and Haja, at a money exchange business in Sussex Street Sydney which they ran called Exchange Point. The circumstances of the delivery of that money objectively are enough that there's more to place (sic) the largest question mark over the transaction that was going on, whatever it was, in terms of what was the intended use of that money. I will be coming in a little more detail to that. But that part of the Crown case importantly involves evidence from [Z.] who presently is in prison in custody in New South Wales in relation to, amongst other things, to that matter.
What occurred in the period of about 10 days or so leading up to the middle of October 2003 was that [Z.] handed over to Azees and Haja at the money exchange business, Exchange Point in Sussex Street Sydney, large amounts of cash. The Crown expects he will tell you that his estimation was that it was over two million dollars, somewhere around 2 to 2.2 million dollars. And the circumstances in which he came to Australia, got his hands on the money, met Azees and Haja and handed the money over, alone are enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt that, however it would come about, there was a risk that that money once in the hands of Azees and Haja would become an instrument of crime.
The evidence is somewhat more specific on the Crown case about what did happen to some or all of that money. [Z.] came to Sydney from Israel for a short period of time in October 2003. Got cash money, handed it over to Azees and Haja, and flew out of Australia on 14 October 2003 going back to Israel via Hong Kong. The Crown says that the next day, 15 October 2003, in effect Azees and Haja commenced a series of structured cash deposits at various branches of various banks in Sydney and these went on for a period of months. In order to physically get the parcels of cash, which were the subject of the structured deposits into the bank branches they used a friend, Sadiq Habiburahman, who is not on trial, to go to the bank with bank deposit slips with account names and numbers on them, and amounts written on them all under $10,000 corresponding to parcels of cash which were put into the bank accounts.
Now the Crown says that on the part of Azees and Haja those structured cash deposits meant that the cash they had got from whatever source it came from, but inferentially at least in part from [Z.]. But from whatever source Azees and Haja got cash, if they used it, and on the Crown allegation they did in structured cash deposits, they did so making the use unlawful. That is contrary to the legislation about the Austrack reporting obligation. So that when they received cash from [Z.], by way of illustration, and when the day after [Z.] left Australia, cash was used for many structured deposits, there is a connection between the two events that will ultimately enable you members of the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that, when they got that cash off [Z.] there was a risk that it would become an instrument of crime, because it was going to be used in the way that it was used, that is for structured cash deposits. It comes down to this. You receive money, approximate to your receipt you do something with it, that's unlawful use of the money. The question is on that scenario when you receive the money knowing what you're going to do with it, if you're going to do something unlawful with it, then, when you receive it, there is a risk that it will become an instrument of crime. Now that's in very brief compass, that aspect of each of the conspiracy charges and I put it very briefly in the context of the first charge, because [Z.] on the Crown case came to and gave Azees and Haja two million dollars plus. Then immediately after he left considerable structuring of cash occurred out of the Exchange Point business from Azees and Haja through the assistance that they arranged of Mr Sadiq Habiburahman putting the cash in the bank accounts.
Now the Crown says that in addition to having received the money in the circumstances in which they received it, so far as concerns Azees and Haja, there was a risk that it would become an instrument of crime. In addition to that the Crown says that they were reckless as to the fact that there was such a risk. That is they were reckless as to fact that the money would become an instrument of crime. The Crown will be relying upon in respect of the first conspiracy, the same body of evidence which includes evidence of substantial structuring, in relevant terms contemporaneous, whether the receipt of that two million dollars or so cash from [Z.] in October 2003. Now you may be asking yourselves, well if the Crown has evidence that it says Azees and Haja did with money that [Z.] gave them, why beat about the bush with the charge that talks about a risk and a charge of talks about being reckless, and the Crown seems to be saying well Azees and Haja got the money knowing full well what was going to happen to it and that's what they did with it. That's in part to the extent that its of any relevan[ce] related to the position of the third gentleman on trial before you Jaleel Ansari.
At the relevant time we are talking in 2003 to 2004, Azees and Haja lived and worked in Sydney. They had each been in Sydney for some years, had been running the Exchange Point money exchange business in Sussex Street Sydney for some years. But Mr Jaleel Ansari was not living in Sydney. Was not working here. Had no money exchange business here and never has had on the evidence the money exchange business in Sydney. Mr Jaleel Ansari in this period and some years beforehand had been living in France, and although the specific place in the scheme of things may not be crucial, the Crown evidence will we expect establish that he was living and working in Paris. I won't say Paris France as our American cousins sometimes do, because you know the one I mean. But there were some communications relevant to the first charge of conspiracy between Jaleel Ansari and his two brothers and the period of the first conspiracy which the Crown proposes to call evidence of and put before you in due course. The Crown says that these communications will establish knowledge and participation by Mr Jaleel Ansari in the first conspiracy. But because he was not living and working here at the time, the Crown is unable to allege against him that he necessarily had all of the knowledge of Azees and Haja in relation to cash money transactions in Australia.