defendant. Offender convicted on three Commonwealth counts; aggregate sentence of three years imprisonment imposed (commencing 20 December 2020), with recognisance release order permitting release on 9 June...
Key principles
An early plea of guilty attracts a substantial utilitarian discount; in this case a 25% reduction was appropriate (Imposition of sentence, para 1).
The attempted export offences (Counts 1 and 2) involving six shingle-backed lizards were assessed as objectively serious but well below a notional mid-range offence because of...
The dealing with proceeds offence (Count 3) involving $59,980 was below a notional mid-range level of objective seriousness: the amount was not far above the statutory threshold...
Aggregate sentencing under Commonwealth law (Crimes Act Part 1B) may be used where offences overlap; some accumulation between the offences was appropriate but limited because of...
Issues before the court
What is the appropriate sentence for attempted export of regulated native specimens under ss 11.1(1) and 303.DD of the EPBC Act / Criminal Code?
What is the appropriate sentence for dealing with the proceeds of crime where the value is $50,000 or more (s 400.5(1) Criminal Code)?
Plain English Summary
The District Court (Buscombe DCJ) sentenced Buddy Pogmore after he pleaded guilty to two attempted exports of protected shingle-backed lizards and to dealing with proceeds of crime (about $59,980). The judge found the export offences and the money-dealing offence to be below mid-range seriousness, allowed a 25% discount for an early plea, and fixed indicative sentences of 14 months, 14 months and two years. Applying aggregate sentencing provisions, the judge imposed a three-year term of imprisonment, with release on a recognisance order after 18 months provided the offender entered a $100 recognisance for good behaviour for 18 months. Additional state fines and convictions were recorded for related offences. The decision emphasised deterrence and biodiversity protection as key sentencing considerations (Imposition of sentence).
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,852 words · generated 25/07/2026
How should aggregate sentencing be applied where Commonwealth offences overlap?
What discount should apply for an early guilty plea?
Cited legislation
3 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
What happened
Buddy Pogmore pleaded guilty in the District Court of New South Wales (Buscombe DCJ) to three Commonwealth charges arising from his involvement in the unlawful possession, attempted export and commercial dealing in protected native reptiles. The three convicted Commonwealth offences were:
Two counts of attempted intentional export of regulated native specimens (three shingle‑backed lizards in each of two parcels posted on 24 July 2018) under ss 11.1(1) and s 303.DD of the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 / Criminal Code (Commonwealth) (The Facts, paras 7–8). CCTV linked the offender to posting the two parcels (The Facts, para 8).
One count of dealing with money the offender believed to be proceeds of crime where the total value of the money dealt with was $50,000 or more (s 400.5(1) Criminal Code), based on approximately $59,980 deposited into accounts linked to the offender across the period 8 December 2017 to 19 March 2019 (The Facts, para 9).
Multiple search warrants executed at the offender's residences in November 2017 and May 2019 recovered numerous reptiles (including 44 shingle‑backed lizards, juvenile freshwater crocodiles, a death adder and other species). The offender had no licences to possess the animals (The Facts, paras 2–6).
At sentence the judge assessed objective and subjective factors, accepted an early guilty plea and allowed a 25% utilitarian discount (Imposition of sentence, para 1). Indicative sentences were announced as 14 months for each export count and two years for the proceeds offence (Imposition of sentence, para 11). Applying aggregate sentencing provisions under the Commonwealth Crimes Act Part 1B, the judge fixed an aggregate custodial term of three years imprisonment, commencing 20 December 2020, and made a recognisance release order permitting release on 9 June 2022 after 18 months served upon entering a $100 recognisance for good behaviour for 18 months (Imposition of sentence, paras 11–13; Orders).
Why the court decided this way
The judge’s reasoning follows standard sentencing methodology: assess objective seriousness, consider subjective circumstances, identify relevant sentencing purposes (general and personal deterrence, denunciation, protection of the community) and apply available statutory sentencing mechanisms (including aggregated sentencing and recognisance release orders).
Objective seriousness: For the attempted export offences the judge noted planning (false consignor/consignee details, false description of contents, use of two post offices) and financial motive (the offender having received money from the buyer), but considered the offences to be of limited objective seriousness because:
only six animals were involved in the intercepted parcels (the relevant parcels contained three lizards each) and the numbers were modest (Objective seriousness, paras 1–6);
the offending lacked sophistication beyond basic attempts to disguise parcel contents and avoid detection (Objective seriousness, paras 1, 6);
there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that significant cruelty occurred to the animals during transit (Objective seriousness, para 4).
Hence the judge assessed Counts 1 and 2 as "well below any notional mid-range offence" (Objective seriousness, para 6).
For the proceeds offence (Count 3) the judge considered the amount ($59,980) not far above the statutory threshold of $50,000 and the transactional pattern not sophisticated: accounts were in the offender’s or his partner’s name and transactions were not disguised or channelled through complex structures (Objective seriousness, paras 7–10). Accordingly that offence was also assessed as below notional mid-range though not at the bottom (Objective seriousness, para 10).
Subjective factors: The offender was relatively young, had a limited criminal history (not previously imprisoned), personal and family circumstances of social disadvantage and ADHD, expressed remorse and had family support and some prospects of rehabilitation (The offender's subjective case; Family background; Sentencing Assessment Report). The judge accepted much of the offender’s evidence about how he obtained and handled certain reptiles (The Facts, para 5–6).
Discount for plea: The judge accepted the plea was entered at an early opportunity and allowed a 25% utilitarian discount (Imposition of sentence, para 1).
Deterrence and punishment: The judge emphasised deterrence (both general and personal) and biodiversity protection as important sentencing objectives for such offences (Imposition of sentence, paras 4–6). On this basis, and having regard to the offences’ seriousness and the judge’s assessment that imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence, the judge fixed indicative sentences and then an aggregate custodial sentence (Imposition of sentence, paras 7, 9–13).
Aggregate sentencing: The judge used Commonwealth aggregate sentencing provisions (Part 1B) and applied limited accumulation between the two export offences and somewhat more accumulation for the proceeds offence because of overlap in source and conduct (Imposition of sentence, para 3).
Recognition of statutory release mechanism: The judge made a recognisance release order under the Commonwealth Crimes Act permitting supervised release after 18 months subject to a recognisance (Imposition of sentence, para 13).
Before and after state of the law
Before: The general principles applied here reflect settled sentencing law in Australia: identify objective and subjective circumstances, apply discounts for early pleas, give weight to general and personal deterrence in commercial wildlife and proceeds offences, and use statutory frameworks for aggregation and conditional release.
This judgment applies those principles to a factual matrix involving small-scale but commercial wildlife export and related proceeds dealings. The court cited The Queen v Kennedy [2019] SNWCCA 242 as an authority for the proposition that offences of this type are always serious and can be difficult to detect (Imposition of sentence, para 4).
After: The decision confirms how sentencing reasoning is tailored where the monetary threshold for proceeds offences is only marginally exceeded and where export of protected fauna involves limited numbers and only modest sophistication. Practitioners can expect sentencing judges to:
scrutinise the number of animals, the sophistication of the export scheme and any proof of cruelty when assessing objective seriousness;
give substantial weight to deterrence for wildlife export and money-dealing offences;
allow sizeable utilitarian discounts for genuinely early guilty pleas (here 25%);
use aggregate sentencing to reflect overlap, but not mechanically cumulate indicative sentences.
The decision therefore provides a practical template for quantifying seriousness in similar fact patterns and for anticipating the likely shape of an aggregate custodial penalty combined with a recognisance release order.
Key passages with plain-English translation
"I propose to allow him a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of his plea." (Imposition of sentence, para 1)
Plain English: Because the offender pleaded guilty early and saved court time and resources, the judge reduced the sentence by 25%.
"I assess the objective seriousness of the first two principal offences as being well below any notional mid-range offence." (Objective seriousness, para 6)
Plain English: Although the offences were illegal and planned, they involved a small number of animals and limited sophistication, so they are less serious than a typical mid-level export offence.
"Given the amount of money, the number of transactions and the source of the funds, I consider the offence to be below a notional mid-range level of objective seriousness..." (Objective seriousness, para 10)
Plain English: The money-laundering conduct involved nearly $60,000 but the transactions were not complex and the amount is not very large for this kind of offence, so it is below mid-range severity.
"I am satisfied that the only appropriate sentence is one of imprisonment." (Imposition of sentence, para 7)
Plain English: Even after accounting for mitigating factors, the judge considered only a custodial sentence suitable to meet punishment and deterrence goals.
"I impose an aggregate sentence of three years imprisonment... released on 9 June 2022, after having served 18 months... upon entering into a recognisance in the sum of $100..." (Imposition of sentence, paras 12–13)
Plain English: The judge combined the sentences into a single three-year term, but allowed supervised early release after 18 months if the offender signs a $100 good-behaviour bond.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This judgment will be most relevant where:
Offending involves attempted export or trafficking of protected native fauna where the number of animals is small but evidence demonstrates planning and an intention to commercialise.
The proceeds-of-crime count is marginally above a statutory threshold (here $50,000), with multiple relatively transparent transactions into accounts in the offender's or partner's name.
There is overlap between wildlife export activity and proceeds dealings, supporting the use of aggregate sentencing with limited accumulation.
The offender pleads guilty at an early stage and has subjective factors (youth, limited record, remorse, family support) that attract mitigation but not sufficient to avoid custody.
The prosecutor and judge attach high weight to general deterrence and biodiversity protection.
In those settings, expect sentencing outcomes akin to Pogmore: indicative individual sentences consistent with assessed objective seriousness, a sizeable plea discount, aggregation to a custodial term, and a recognisance release mechanism for supervised early release.
How later courts have treated it
The judgment itself does not report later judicial treatment. The only appellate authority cited by Buscombe DCJ in the reasons was The Queen v Kennedy [2019] SNWCCA 242, used to underscore the seriousness and detectability problems associated with wildlife export offences (Imposition of sentence, para 4). Any subsequent appellate consideration of Pogmore, including whether the quantum, the discount, or the recognisance release order were interfered with, is not recorded in the sentencing judgment. Users should check appellate databases for any reported appeals or citation history after this decision date (11 December 2020 / updated 13 April 2021).
Still-open questions
Appellate resonance: Will an appellate court view the three‑year aggregate sentence and the structure of accumulation between the export counts and the proceeds offence as manifestly excessive in other fact patterns? The sentencing judge exercised a fact‑sensitive discretion; appellate correction would require demonstration of error.
Quantification of overlap: The judge noted overlap between the export offences and proceeds dealings but did not allocate precise credit or percentages between offences (Imposition of sentence, para 3). Future cases may test how granular courts must be in quantifying overlap when aggregating sentences for closely related economic criminality.
Plea discount percentage: The judge allowed a 25% discount for an early plea. That figure sits within typical appellate tolerances but is fact specific. How sentencing judges will calibrate plea discounts in wildlife-export contexts where offences are commercial remains a point for continuing practice development.
Role of animal welfare evidence: The judge declined to find significant cruelty absent clear expert-supported causation linking transit to deaths (Objective seriousness, para 4). The threshold and kinds of expert evidence necessary to elevate cruelty findings in export cases may attract future contestation.
Use of recognisance release orders: The exercise of the Commonwealth recognisance release order here produced supervised release after 18 months on a low monetary recognisance. How courts balance the attractiveness of recognisance release orders against community expectations of deterrence in wildlife trafficking cases may continue to be litigated.
Practical note: practitioners advising clients in similar factual matrices should pay close attention to (a) the scale and sophistication of the export scheme, (b) the quality of evidence connecting account transactions to unlawful sales, (c) timely plea strategies to secure a meaningful utilitarian discount, and (d) advocacy on accumulation principles under Commonwealth aggregate sentencing provisions.
Judgment (12 paragraphs)
[1]
Introduction
The offender is to be sentenced having pleaded guilty to the following offences on an indictment:
Count 1, that on or about 24 July 2018 at Rooty Hill and elsewhere he attempted to intentionally export a specimen, namely, three shingle backed lizards, knowing that the specimens were a regulated native specimen.
Count 2, is an offence that on or about the same day, as in Count 1, at Marayong and elsewhere, he attempted to intentionally export a specimen, namely three shingle backed lizards knowing that the specimens were a regulated native specimen.
Those two offences are offences under Sections 11.1(1) and 303.DD of sub (1) of the Commonwealth's Criminal Code and the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act. Both offences each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine equivalent to 1,000 penalty units.
The third count is an offence that between 29 October 2017 and 19 March 2019 at Lethbridge Park and elsewhere the offender dealt with money that was, and he believed to be, the proceeds of crime and at the time of the dealing the value of the money was $50,000 or more. That is an offence contrary to s 400.5(1) of the Criminal Code. It has a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and a fine of 900 penalty units.
There are also two State offences on the s 166 Certificate. Those offences are under the New South Wales Biodiversity Conservation Act and are fine only offences. The principal offences, being Commonwealth offences, I am to sentence the offender in accordance with the Commonwealth Crimes Act and in particular Part 1B and in accordance with, in particular s 16A.
[2]
The Facts
Turning then to the facts of the matter or in terms of the Commonwealth statute, the nature and circumstances of the offences, they are as follows, which are agreed.
On 9 November 2017 investigators from the relevant Commonwealth department executed a search warrant at 41 Moresby Crescent, Whalen, being the then residence of the offender and his partner, and three children. During the execution of the search warrant investigators located and seized a number of reptiles. I am not going to read them out, they are all in the agreed facts. Of some real relevance to the sentencing exercise, is that one was a death adder snake, that is the reptile which is the subject of one of the s 166 Certificate offences, and there were also 44 shingle backed lizards, and I think it is appropriate to mention those lizards because they are the type of reptile that is the subject of the two principal Commonwealth counts.
The offender was present during the execution of the search warrant. He confirmed that he did not hold the necessary licence to possess any of the reptiles found and they were seized and taken to a wildlife centre to be cared for. There is no dispute that each of the reptiles as native to Australia and that they were protected animals within the meaning of that term under the relevant New South Wales legislation and that the offender was not authorised to possess the animals.
On 23 May 2019 New South Wales police and officers from the relevant department executed a search warrant at 60 Marquesa Crescent, Lethbridge Park, where the offender and his partner and their three children were residing at that time. The offender was present during the execution of the search warrant. He advised the investigators that there were shingle backed lizards and a turtle in his bedroom. During the execution of the search warrant he also advised that there was a Stimson's python and three Gillen monitors in a white cupboard in his bedroom.
During the execution of the search warrant the investigators located a number of reptiles. I will simply mention two because they have some significance. There were two juvenile freshwater crocodiles that were found and I note that the other offence on the s 166 Certificate related to possessing a juvenile crocodile and again there were 12 shingle backed lizards, and I have mentioned those lizards for the obvious reason. The freshwater crocodiles were located in the door of a freezer. He apparently denied to the officers where they had come from. He gave evidence today about the background to the possession offences of these particular reptiles, and I will not go over his evidence but he explained in a satisfactory way to my way of thinking how he came to possess them.
There is evidence that some of those reptiles looked unhealthy because of their physical condition, and that is set out in the facts. Those reptiles too were native to Australia and he had no authorisation to possess them. The python and two freshwater crocodiles were significantly underweight to a level that the expert, who is referred to in the agreed facts, considered likely contributed to their deaths. I note the offender gave some evidence about the condition that those reptiles were in when he obtained them from a friend, and I certainly do not feel that I am in a position to reject his account in that respect.
[3]
Objective seriousness
Each of Count 1 and 2, as I say, concerned native shingle backed lizards which are a protected species, and as I understand it, a type of blue tongued lizard. There was clearly considerable planning involved in the commission of Counts 1 and 2. The second parcel was falsely described as containing toys, and I have seen photographs of the packaging. A false consignor was used on the parcels. The offender went to the two different post offices on the one day, no doubt to attempt to prevent detection.
The offender has given evidence that he simply followed the directions of the proposed buyer of the reptiles in China. He also gave evidence that he had received money from that buyer both prior to and after the commission of the offences.
I consider the offender to be an acceptable and straightforward witness and I am prepared to accept his evidence that he may have felt obligated to send the reptiles having been provided with some funds by that person at an earlier point in time. Even accepting that evidence, in my opinion, it is still correct to characterise the offences as being engaged in for financial gain. Although in saying that I am not suggesting the offender lived a life of some extravagance. I accept the evidence he used the money simply to live a basic life and endeavour to provide for his family.
I note that six lizards were alive when intercepted, although if they had not been intercepted they would have been confined for a very long time, no doubt, on the journey to China and it would appear with no food or water, and therefore at some risk. I do not consider on the material before me that I could find beyond reasonable doubt that there was significant cruelty to the animals.
The number of animals put at risk appears to be relatively small. Six insofar as the principal offences are concerned. The agreed facts do not suggest the animals were deceased or unwell, as I say when the packages were intercepted.
The two offences were committed on the same day and involved the same type of animal. The offender himself attended the post offices and had not recruited anyone else to the enterprise and the offending appears to be not overly sophisticated in my opinion. I assess the objective seriousness of the first two principal offences as being well below any notional mid-range offence.
[4]
The offender's subjective case
Turning then to his subjective case. His date of birth is 3 August 1993, so he is 27 years of age and was 24 as at the date of Counts 1 and 2, still a relatively young man. He has a somewhat limited criminal history, but there are some relevant matters on it.
On 24 January 2019 he was given a 12 month conditional release order for a number of offences concerning dealing in protected animals, he having been charged with the relevant offences it seems in November 2018.
On 21 October 2019 he received a $5,000 fine in Western Australia for 15 counts of unlawful possession of protected fauna.
His criminal record is not such as, in my opinion, to completely disentitle him to some leniency in this sentence. I note he has never been in prison before.
[5]
Sentence Assessment Report and psych reports -
There is a Sentencing Assessment Report dated 2 June 2020 and a letter of apology from the offender, together with letters of support from his two sisters. Those two sisters have been present today for the sentence proceedings and clearly continue to support him, and as I say he has given evidence before me on sentence.
[6]
Family background
In terms of his family background the Sentencing Assessment Report reports that he resides with his partner and three young children. He gave evidence about his early life, which was not the subject of challenge by the Crown in cross-examination. It appears he has had to cope with ADHD from a relatively young age and has had something, of what I will describe as an unusual background, in relation to his parents' use of medication when a child. There was clearly some social disadvantage in that upbringing.
[7]
Education and employment history
In terms of his educational and employment history, he completed Year 10 at a behavioural school, so, his education was somewhat limited. He was, it seems, a long term recipient of the Disability Pension and gave evidence as to why he had not engaged in significant employment based essentially on what he had accepted from his parents.
As at the time of the Sentencing Assessment Report he was said to be normally self-employed as a labourer, although at that time was unemployed due to the Covid 19 pandemic and he confirmed that in his evidence today, and the difficulties he has had with employment in coming up to the pending sentence date.
[8]
Attitude to the offence
In the Sentencing Assessment Report he attributed his offending to financial stress. He is recorded as telling the author of the Sentencing Assessment Report that he was ashamed of his actions and that he had never hurt animals and was an animal lover.
The author of the Sentencing Assessment Report considered that the offender did not appear to believe that his actions impacted on any other person or the animals. In his evidence he said that his actions did not hurt anyone and believed he had discussions about how to look after any animals that he traded with the person who was going to take them.
I formed the view from his evidence that from a very young age he developed a fascination with reptiles. I think he probably looked after the animals appropriately in most instances, but certainly posting six in the manner he did showed a disregard for their wellbeing.
[9]
The future and risk of reoffending
In the Sentencing Assessment Report he was assessed as having a medium to low risk of reoffending.
[10]
Imposition of sentence
He entered a plea of guilty at an early opportunity. He had to be arraigned this morning, but I understand the Crown accepts it was an early plea and I propose to allow him a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of his plea.
Having heard from the offender today and noting the early plea of guilty, I consider that he has some genuine remorse in relation to his offending. Given his limited criminal history, the family support that he has, and he has a medium to low risk of reoffending according to the Sentencing Assessment Report, I consider he has reasonable to good prospects of rehabilitation.
He has spent one day in custody, so I will backdate the sentence by a day to have regard to pre-sentence custody. I will utilise the aggregate sentencing provisions which may be used when sentencing for Commonwealth offences. While the two attempt export offences were committed on the one day and involved the same type of animal, in my opinion if I had not been using the aggregate sentencing provisions there should have been some limited level of accumulation in the sentence. There should be slightly more accumulation of the money laundering offence accepting there is some overlap between that offence and the two other offences.
Offences of this type are always serious as explained in The Queen v Kennedy [2019] SNWCCA 242. The offences are difficult to detect and impose a threat to this country's biodiversity, something which in the third decade of the 21st century we should all be very concerned with.
General deterrence, that is the need to send the message to the community that such offending will not be tolerated looms large when sentencing for this type of offending.
Given his past fascination with reptiles and the serious nature of the offences, there is a need, in my view, for an element of personal deterrence. Money laundering offences are also difficult to detect and general deterrence looms large when sentencing for them.
I am satisfied that the only appropriate sentence is one of imprisonment. His counsel accepted that the only appropriate sentence is one of full time imprisonment. The maximum penalties have been taken into account as legislative guideposts.
Stand up, Mr Pogmore please. Mr Pogmore, you are convicted of the three offences on the indictment to which you pleaded guilty.
[11]
Orders
1. The offender is convicted of the offences to which he pleaded guilty
2. Impose an aggregate sentence of three years imprisonment. The sentence commences on 20 December 2020 and expires 9 December 2020.
3. Make a recognizance release order under the Commonwealth's Crimes Act that the offender be released on 9 June 2022, after having served 18 months of the sentence upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $100 without surety, to be of good behaviour for a further period of 18 months.
4. Record convictions and $500 fines on the two State offences on the s 166 Certificate
[12]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 13 April 2021
Offender convicted on three Commonwealth counts; aggregate sentence of three years imprisonment imposed (commencing 20 December 2020), with recognisance release order permitting release on 9 June 2022 after serving 18 months upon entering into a $100 recognisance without surety for 18 months; convictions recorded and $500 fines imposed on each of two State s 166 Certificate offences (Orders).
In terms of the principal counts then, following the execution of the search warrant in November 2017 two parcels were intercepted by the relevant department. One had been sent from the Rooty Hill Post Office on the morning of 24 July 2018. A consignee was recorded on the parcel from China. The package had certain consignee details from Rooty Hill. The consignor was clearly false, as was the consignee. The second parcel was posted the same morning about 25 minutes later from a different post office at Marayong. The consignee details were again someone in China, as I would understand it they were false, and the consignor details were clearly false. The consignment note of the second parcel, as I understand it, purported to contain toys, that is it was wrongly disguised in terms of its packaging and description.
Officers from the relevant department attended on 26 July at the Sydney Gateway Facility where the items had been taken. Each parcel was found to contain three shingle backed lizards. There is some CCTV footage which specifically identified the offender as taking the packages to the two post offices. They were each of specimens of regulated native species. He was not authorised to export them.
In terms of the proceeds of crime offence, investigators obtained records in relation to a particular PayPal account which was registered in the offender's own name. It was linked to a Commonwealth Bank account in his own name. There are then a series of transactions into that account. I am not going to read them all onto the record. Of some significance is the fact that during the period 8 December 2017 to 19 March 2019 a total of $38,480 was deposited into the Commonwealth Bank account from an account named, Zhing Minh Zeng in 31 transactions. That has significance when one has regard to the offender's evidence, particularly of to whom the shingle backed lizards were effectively being posted to. The total amount received via PayPal and as direct payments into the Commonwealth Bank account that is referred to in the facts totalled some $59,980, and that is the total amount that is the subject of the money laundering account. Much of the facts are devoted to endeavouring to establish that the money that went into the account was from the sale or export of reptiles, and I will say something about that in a moment when I deal with the objective seriousness of the offences.
The amount of money involved has been said to be a highly significant matter when it comes to sentencing for the money laundering offence. The amount of money, the subject of Count 3, is $59,980, so not much above the $50,000 amount which engages the offence creating provision. It is well below an amount that would constitute an offence under s 400.4 of the Commonwealth Code.
The number of transactions and the period over which they occurred are also a relevant factor to have regard to here. The overall facts including an acceptance of the offender's evidence, support an inference that some of the money the subject of the Count was derived from the sale of protective native species, some from the attempted exports which are the subject of Counts 1 and 2, but I am not able to say to what extent one can divide up the source of the funds.
Clearly, the offender here was aware of the source of the money, as it is an overwhelming inference that he generated it through his own activities. Knowledge of the illegal conduct has been said to increase the seriousness of the offence. There was no real sophistication in the money laundering offence. The accounts used were in his own name or that of his partner, and no attempt was made to disguise the transactions.
Given the amount of money, the number of transactions and the source of the funds, I consider the offence to be below a notional mid-range level of objective seriousness for such an offence, although not at the very bottom of the range.
I will firstly record the indicative sentences. In determining the indicative sentences and fixing the aggregate sentence I have had regard to all the objective and subjective factors I referred to earlier.
The sentences you will hear me first announce are what are called "indicative sentences". You will then hear me announce an aggregate sentence, which is the sentence and a period of it that you will serve before being released. It is not arrived at by simply adding up all the indicative sentences. When announcing the aggregate sentence I will tell you the date it starts from, the date it ends, and the date when you will be released from custody.
The indicative sentences then are as follows: Count 1; 14 months imprisonment. Count 2; 14 months imprisonment. Count 3; two years imprisonment.
I impose an aggregate sentence of three years imprisonment. It commences yesterday, 20 December 2020 and expires on 9 December 2023.
I make a recognizance release order under the Commonwealth's Crimes Act and order that you be released on 9 June 2022, after having served 18 months of the sentence upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $100 without surety, to be of good behaviour for a further period of 18 months.
When you are released if you fail to comply with the conditions of the recognizance further action may be taken against you which may require you to return to Court.
On the two State offences on the s 166 Certificate, I record convictions and $500 fines on each offence.