Sentence: Tuong Mew Choo - 7 years, NPP 4 years and 2 months
[2]
Tuong Mew Choo, and I will refer to you as Mew Choo, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of engaging in conduct on two or more occasions in relation to proceeds of general crime valued at over $10,000,000 believing it to be the proceeds of general crime pursuant to s400(2B)(3) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. This offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Tuong Huat Choo, and I will refer to you as Huat Choo, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of engaging in conduct on two or more occasions in relation to proceeds of general crime valued at over $10,000,000 being reckless as to it being the proceeds of general crime pursuant to s400(2B)(6) of the Criminal Code. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.
Both of your guilty pleas arise from a sentence indication hearing which was conducted last week.
By way of background, between August 2022 and January 2023, Mr Mew Choo, you directed the activities of a network that was engaged in money laundering. The known members of this syndicate in Melbourne included your brother Huat, Chee Keong Kan, Weng Yan Chin, Chee Onn Tan, as well as unknown others. Kan, Chin, and Tan have all been sentenced previously.
The following methodology was employed. Cash that had been obtained through various illegal activities in Australia which was required to be laundered would be facilitated by the person having the cash contact 'Max Chong' or 'Justin'. These were believed to reside in Malaysia.
Max or Justin would contact Mew Choo and arrange for him to collect and launder the specified amount of cash.
Information would be provided to Mew Choo which included the amount to be laundered, the date the cash needed to be collected, account details for overseas cryptocurrency accounts into which the money was to be transferred and a contact phone number for the person who would deliver the cash to Mew Choo.
On collection Mew Choo would provide a token, being a combination of numbers and letters, ordinarily the serial number of a $5 note, which would be used to verify identity and operate as a receipt on collection of the cash.
Mew Choo would then contact and direct other members to deposit and transfer the funds generally in smaller portions.
The usual meeting place was in Collins Street in the CBD due to the high concentration of various banks and branches in close proximity. Syndicate members would enter Mew Choo's vehicle and collect portions of the cash which Mew Choo wished for them to deposit. Deposits would occur at ATMs and in bank branches. Accounts used for deposits would be held in the names of Mew Choo, various syndicate members, or others.
Cash deposited into bank accounts would then be transferred into accounts controlled by syndicate members and ultimately into online accounts held with a cryptocurrency exchange, Binance.
Once deposited into the Binance accounts the money would be disseminated.
So far as deposits made by you Mew Choo are concerned, between 3 October 2022 and 4 January 2023, you made in-person bank deposits of cash at various branches around central Melbourne. You deposited $214,800 into bank accounts in your name on five separate occasions.
Between 9 October 2022 and 23 December, you made in-person bank deposits of cash at various bank branches into bank accounts in the names of others. You deposited a total of $628,750 into the accounts of eight different persons across 21 separate occasions. These deposits are detailed in an annexure of the prosecution's opening. A total of $833,350 was deposited by you across 17 transactions between 3 October 2022 and 4 January 2023.
So far as you are concerned Huat Choo, between 5 October 2022 and 17 January 2023, you made in-person bank deposits of cash at various branches around central Melbourne. You deposited $2,928,560 into bank accounts in your name on 53 separate occasions.
Between 12 October 2022 and 13 January 2023, you made in-person bank deposits of cash, again at various branches, into bank accounts in the names of others. You deposited a total of $910,050 into the accounts of six different persons across 21 separate transactions.
The deposits made by you are detailed in another annexure to the prosecution's opening.
A total of $3,738,610 was deposited by you Huat Choo in 74 transactions between 5 October 2022 and 17 January 2023.
The total amounts deposited by known members of the syndicate in addition to yourselves were as follows:
Between 30 December 2022 and 19 January 2023, Weng Yan Chin, 58 deposits totalling $2,365,000.
Between 15 August 2022 and 12 January 2023, Chee Onn Tan, 31 deposits totalling $1,927,995.
In addition, various cryptocurrency transactions were undertaken by each of you.
Regarding you Mew Choo, you operated a Binance cryptocurrency account that was registered in your name with a mobile phone number and an email address attached. This account was opened on 15 May 2021 using your name, driver's licence details and related information.
Between 11 August 2022 and 21 January 2023, on 158 occasions you transferred a total of $14,283,873.71 out of this account to other overseas crypto accounts.
Regarding you Huat Choo, you also operated a Binance cryptocurrency account registered in your name with a mobile phone and an email address linked to you. Between 21 August 2022 and 24 January 2023, on 219 occasions you transferred a total of $14,694,482.41 out of this account to other overseas crypto accounts.
In regard to you Mew Choo, the charge to which you have pleaded guilty represents a total of $14,912,623.14. Regarding you Huat Choo, the charge to which you have pleaded guilty represents a total of $15,604,532.15.
Other transfers by known members of the syndicate in addition to yourselves are as follows:
Between 21 August 2022 and 24 January 2023, by Chee Keong Kan, a total 149 transfers totalling $12,121,801.
Between 8 December 2022 and 22 January 2023, by Weng Yan Chin, a total 24 transfers totalling $310,983.
Between 13 August 2022 and 16 January 2023, by Chee Onn Tan, a total 101 transfers totalling $4,661,792.
As part of the investigative process two mobile phones utilised by you Mew Choo, were the subject of interception and calls were intercepted between yourself and Mr Chee Keong Kan, as well as yourself and Huat Choo.
Regarding intercepted calls between yourself and Mr Kan, they included yourself, Mew Choo, seeking advice from Mr Kan about his experiences dealing with various banks and maximum amounts that could be transferred each day, you, Mew Choo, having money to allocate to Mr Kan and arranging meeting times. Transferring amounts of money, the most efficient ways to transfer large sums, the commission to be earned from transfers and the collection and transferring of tobacco money. The need to balance responsibility and risk and of being responsible for money if arrested by police.
Intercepted calls between Huat Choo and Mew Choo included discussions about the opening and purchasing of bank accounts, issues with transferring large amounts of money from bank accounts, receiving and moving large amounts of money and you Mew Choo directing Huat Choo in relation to bank transfers, Mew Choo receiving cash and Huat Choo coming to the city to receive cash and make deposits, and Huat's Binance account regarding amounts he was to or had transferred.
Mew Choo, you were arrested on 24 January 2023 in Collins Street, Melbourne. When searched police located a wallet containing various identity and banking cards in your name and the names of others including key cards for two accounts which you used for your offending. Also located was a note with a series of names and values next to them. In a vehicle police located deposit receipts for various sums on various occasions.
When interviewed you made significant admissions notwithstanding the fact that you sought to minimise your role. These are detailed in the summary of prosecution opening, however, in summary, they include you saying that you had been running a currency exchange business between mid-August 2022 until January 2023; that you had full control of the money in your Binance account and transferred it to Binance addresses you were provided to send money to. You said that you transferred money from your bank account into your Binance account. You said that at the beginning you did not know it was illegal. You said you would receive 50,000, 80,000, 100,000 or 400,000 Australian dollars in cash and deposit that into accounts and then transfer to Binance and send it to Malaysian addresses. You said deposits would be made in the tens of thousands into banks; that friends would help you deposit money and you would pay them to do that. You said you used your own bank accounts but would use others who were willing to share their bank accounts and get a commission. You said you received instructions from Malaysia as to where the money was to be transferred. You said that Justin and Max Chong arranged for the cash to come to yourself and that your superiors trusted you to do the work; that you were involved in the distribution of the money, but the instructions and payments were arranged by Justin or Max. That in collecting the money you would send a picture of a note and put your phone number in and would be contacted for delivery; that the sequence number of the note was the token, and you would take a photo of it and use it to identify ensuring the right person was collecting the money. You said the largest amount you had received in one delivery was $1,000,000.
Huat Choo, you were arrested on 4 April 2023 in Narre Warren and police located numerous banking cards and identification cards in your name as well as others. When interviewed you answered 'no comment' to questions asked of you.
Division 400 of the Criminal Code (Cth) provides for a hierarchy of offences relating to money laundering. They have an ascending order of seriousness depending on the quantity of money involved, the number of transactions engaged in and the state of mind of an offender. Some offences carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life whilst others have a maximum penalty involving a fine only.
Here, Mew Choo, you are charged that you believed the money to be the proceeds of general crime. The respective maximum penalty is life.
Huat Choo, you have pleaded guilty to an offence that you were reckless as to the money being the proceeds of general crime, carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years.
Recklessness is defined within the Code as with respect to a circumstance or a result if the person is aware of a substantial risk that the circumstance exists, or will exist, or that the result will occur and, having regard to the circumstance known to the person, it is unjustifiable to take that risk.[1]
Your guilty plea serves as an admission that throughout your offending period you were reckless regarding the money being the proceeds of general crime. Initially, your level of recklessness may not have been as great as it later became. Having regard, however, to the quantum involved in your offending, the nature of the transfers engaged in and your intercepted communications with Mew Choo, I am satisfied that from an early stage you exhibited a high degree of recklessness.
With respect to you, Mew Choo, your guilty plea is an admission that throughout your offending period you believed the funds to be the proceeds of general crime.
Mew Choo, you were responsible for depositing $833,550 by way of 17 deposits and transferring a total of $14,283,873.71 by way of cryptocurrency over 258 transfers. Charge 1 represents a total of $14,912,623.14. This includes 17 deposits and 258 Binance transfers over a period of some five months for which you have instructed you received a commission of approximately $100,000.
No real issue was taken with the prosecution's characterisation of your role as the principal of the Melbourne operation who engaged with, and was provided with, work from overseas syndicate members, Justin and Max Chong. That you collected or arranged for collection of cash delivered from couriers using tokens, and you recruited others to whom you delivered the cash to make deposits and Binance transfers. You were engaging in discussions with co-offender, Kan, and your brother, Huat Choo, regarding the operations of the syndicate.
Huat Choo, you were responsible for depositing $3,738.610 over 74 deposits and transferring a total of $14,694,482.41 of cryptocurrency by way of 219 transfers. Your charge represents a total of $15,604,532.15 and involved 74 deposits and 219 Binance transfers over a period of five months.
I am satisfied that you would have not involved yourself in this conduct other than in the expectation of a commensurate reward.
Huat Choo, you played a trusted and elevated role similar to that of Kan's, below that of your brother, Mew Choo, but above that of co-offenders, Tan and Chin, in the overall hierarchy of the syndicate. You were engaging in discussions with Mew Choo regarding dealings with banks, bank accounts, and you received and transferred large amounts of money. You participated in a significant number of deposits and transfers.
Regarding your co-offender, Kan, he pleaded guilty to transferring a total of $12,121,801 out of his cryptocurrency account to other overseas cryptocurrency accounts. He was, however, captured on surveillance interacting with other syndicate members in and around Collins Street. He engaged in intercepted telephone conversations with your brother, Mew Choo, which, in my view, when objectively viewed, suggest him to be a trusted and senior member of the operation in question, and the discussions are reflective of this.
I sentence you, Huat Choo, that your role is roughly equivalent to that of Kan's.
So far as each of you are concerned, it is clear that the venture involved sophisticated, planned and extensive clandestine movements of funds. Both of you exhibit a high moral culpability, particularly you, Mew Choo, and both of your offending was protracted, involving many transactions involving significant sums. I am satisfied both of you were motivated by financial gain. However, in your case, Huat Choo, the precise quantum of your commission remains unclear.
Yours is offending that facilitates other criminal activity by enabling the gains of unlawful activity to be realised. You enabled funds to be secreted or otherwise dispersed or dealt with. This type of offending is often difficult to detect, and accordingly, general deterrence and the court's denunciation of your conduct must feature prominently in the sentences which I impose.
In each of your cases, I sentence you for a Federal offence and accordingly must sentence in accord with Part 1B of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. That Act requires that I impose a sentence of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances, having regard to s16A(2) which sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors that I must take into account so far as relevant and known to the court.
Turning next to your personal matters.
Firstly, I acknowledge that each of your guilty pleas expresses an intention to and has facilitated the course of justice. You have saved the community the cost and time of taking your matters to trial and you are entitled to, and will receive, an appropriate reduction of your sentence as a result of this.
As I have earlier said, your guilty pleas arise as a result of a sentence indication which I gave last week. Aside from the bare fact of your guilty pleas, there is little evidence of any remorse on behalf of each of you.
Given that each of you are brothers, you share a common personal history and to that I now turn.
Huat Choo, you are approximately 43 years of age, and you Mew Choo, approximately 41. Neither of you have any prior convictions and both are Malaysian nationals.
It has been submitted on behalf of each of you that you both grew up in impoverished circumstances. Your parents worked long hours and as a result of this you had limited contact with them.
It has been recounted that the family lived in a two-bedroom premises which was home to 10 people, including your father's extended family. There was an absence of electricity and conditions were primitive.
Mew Choo, you left school at age 14 to earn some money and worked as a kitchen hand until you were approximately 19 years of age. You had developed a taste for gambling at an early age and this has been a longstanding problem for you. Apparently, Mew Choo, you had some sort of role in illegal gambling, as what is described as being a 'banker' and moving money between winners and losers by opening bank accounts and arranging exchanges.
It was said, Mew Choo, that by the age of 24 you had made some funds. However, you lost all of these and were married with two children when coming to Australia. That relationship ended some time ago with your wife separating from you and taking herself and the two children back to Malaysia.
Apparently, you are a chronic gambler, and this has influenced you in a negative way throughout your life.
You had engaged in some menial work on coming to Australia.
Regarding you, Huat Choo, you share a similar background of impoverishment and ultimately came to Australia on a student visa and enrolled in an IT course.
Apparently, you had left your family home to work at age 13 in another city in a kitchen and supported your family, along with your brother Mew.
You ultimately partnered and have three children, all of which are in Malaysia.
Prior to coming to Australia, you had become indebted and sought to improve your position financially. You provided to Ms Lechner, psychologist, a history of becoming indebted as a result of your gambling. You did not complete your IT course in Australia, and you worked in hospitality in differing capacities until Covid times when you then worked full time as a food delivery driver.
You miss your family and have some concerns that given you have not repaid your debt owed in Malaysia you may be the subject of reprisal when you are in all probability deported back to that country.
Each of you are concerned about the prospect of your deportation and I accept this is a likely outcome of your offending. I take this into account, both during the currency of your period of imprisonment, and also upon your release. It is, however, of little mitigatory value as neither of you have much in the way of ties in the community here in Australia, and you, Mew Choo, have separated from your wife who has removed herself and your two children back to Malaysia where you will probably be deported to. Your family, Huat, have remained in Malaysia.
Given each of you experience some English language difficulties, and the fact that you are largely absent any family support and friends in this country, I accept that prison will be burdensome for each of you given your relative isolation from supports and English language difficulties.
To your credit, each of you have undertaken some courses and study whilst on remand and all in all I assess your respective rehabilitative prospects as positive.
In sentencing each of you, I have had regard to the important sentencing principle of parity. This provides that like should be treated as like and differences in sentences imposed on co-offenders or others involved in a joint criminal venture ought be rational.
Regarding your co-offender, Mr Kan, I sentenced him to a total effective sentence of four years and 10 months' imprisonment with a two year and 10 months non-parole period. Kan had given an undertaking to give evidence in accord with the statement which he made to investigators, and I reduced the sentence that I would have imposed on him as a result of this.
As I have said, Kan pleaded guilty to transferring a total of $12,121,801 out of his cryptocurrency account to other overseas accounts. He faced the same charge as you, Huat Choo. His role had a rough equivalence to yours. However, as I have noted, whilst not charged, he was captured by surveillance interacting with other syndicate members in and around the Collins Street precinct and he had engaged in conversations reflective of this with you, Mew Choo.
Two other co-offenders, Mr Tan and Ms Chin, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne in May 2024 to single charges contrary to s400.3(2B) of the Code. Namely, engaging in conduct on two or more occasions in relation to proceeds of general crime over $1m, being reckless as to the money being the proceeds of crime. The maximum penalty for that offence is 12 years' imprisonment.
Both Tan and Chin were Malaysian nationals and respectively aged 27 and 31 at the time of their offending.
Regarding Tan, the total alleged was $5,155,792, which comprised $494,000 being deposited by Tan into his own bank accounts and the bank accounts of others, in eight separate transactions in four different accounts spanning a
[3]
five-month period between mid-August 2022 and mid-January 2023. He further arranged for $4,661,792, which had been deposited into his Binance account to be transferred out of that account between 13 August 2022 and 16 January 2023. His offending thus spanned an approximate five-month period.
73. Regarding Chin, the total alleged was $2,195,000, which she deposited into her own bank accounts and into the bank accounts of others arising from 48 separate deposits occurring between 22 December 2022 and 19 January 2023. Her offending took place over a shorter period of time to that of Tan, namely approximately a month.
74. Regard ought be had to his Honour Judge Gamble's sentencing remarks and the findings he made regarding various personal matters of each of Tan and Chin. Tan was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two and a half years. Chin was sentenced to two years and 10 months' imprisonment to be released on recognisance after serving 22 months of that term.
75. Here, the quantum of both of your offending, Mew Choo and Huat Choo, far exceeds that of either Tan and Chin, and is above that of Kan. Mew Choo, you face an offence carrying the maximum penalty of life imprisonment on the basis that you believed the money to be the proceeds of general crime.
76. Huat Choo, you face a less serious offence, than Mew Choo, carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment, as I have said on the basis that you were reckless regarding funds being the proceeds of general crime.
77. It was put on behalf of each of you that you had intended to plead guilty to an appropriate resolution of your matter. However, the fact of the matter is that your guilty pleas are later in the piece than any of the co-offenders, and your guilty pleas arise from the sentence indication hearing.
78. In arriving at the sentence which I will shortly announce, I will indicate that I have had appropriate regard to the sentencing principle of parity, as well as the personal mitigatory matters put forward on behalf of each of you, and the nature and circumstances and objective gravity of each of your offending.
79. Mew Choo, I sentence you to a total effective sentence of seven years' imprisonment and fix a non-parole period not exceeding 60 per cent of that term, namely four years and two months.
80. Regarding you, Huat Choo, I sentence you to six years' imprisonment and fix a non-parole period not exceeding 60 per cent of that term, namely three years and seven months.
81. In respect of each of you, I declare the following terms by way of pre-sentence detention, Mew - 828 days, Huat - 758 days
82. Regarding each of you, I make the following s6AAA Sentencing Act1991 declarations. Prior to doing so however, I note that this is a very artificial exercise involving plucking one matter out in isolation and seeking to ascribe a value to it. Nonetheless, Mew, but for your guilty plea I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of nine years and fixed you not be eligible for release until the expiration of six years. Regarding you, Huat, I would have sentenced you to seven years and six months' imprisonment and fixed a non-parole period of five years.
83. Are there any other orders required?
84. MR KERLIN: Only Your Honour to formally state the commencement date for each of those sentences which, given they are the only sentences it is assumed is today.
85. HIS HONOUR: Yes, it is today, yes.
86. MR KERLIN: Thank you.
87. HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. All right, do each of you want to have a brief conversation with your clients with the interpreters or not? No need?
88. MR NIBBS: No thank you, Your Honour.
89. MS DAYTON: No, Your Honour.
90. HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you. Well, interpreters, thank you both for your assistance. When I leave the Bench I will have one of my staff gather up the unrevised draft of the sentencing remarks. Once again, thank you and thank you Counsel.
91. COUNSEL: As Your Honour pleases....