Money laundering (Section 243(2) Crimes Act 1961)

Charge 1: Money laundering under section 243(2) of the Crimes Act 1961

The Crown must prove each element of the offence. That is called the burden of proof. The Crown carries that burden. Also, the Crown must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt. That is called the standard of proof. It means you must be sure that each element is proved.

1.	Are you sure that the $25,000 in cash was the proceeds of an offence?
	“Proceeds” means any property that is derived, directly or indirectly, by any person from the commission of the offence. “Offence” means any offence, committed in New Zealand or elsewhere. Neither proof of a particular actual offence, nor proof of the identity of a particular offender(s) is required. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question two.
2.	Are you sure that Mr Smith dealt with the $25,000 in cash [or assisted any person, whether directly or indirectly, to deal with the $25,000 in cash]?
	[Note: Amend or delete the words in square brackets above as required.] “Deal with” means to deal with the property in any manner and by any means; and includes, without limitation,— (a) to dispose of the property, whether by way of sale, purchase, gift, or otherwise: (b) to transfer possession of the property: (c) to bring the property into New Zealand: (d) to remove the property from New Zealand If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
3.	Are you sure that Mr Smith concealed the $25,000 in cash [or enabled any person to conceal the $25,000 in cash]?
	[Note: Amend or delete the words in square brackets above as required.] “Conceal” means to conceal or disguise the property; and includes, without limitation,— (a) to convert the property from one form to another: (b) to conceal or disguise the nature, source, location, disposition, or ownership of the property or of any interest in the property The Crown does not have to prove that Mr Smith intended to conceal the $25,000 in cash. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question four.
4.	Are you sure that Mr Smith knew or believed that the $25,000 in cash was the proceeds of an offence or that Mr Smith was reckless as to whether the $25,000 in cash was the proceeds of an offence?
	“Reckless” means that Mr Smith recognised that there was a real possibility that the $25,000 in cash was the proceeds of an offence and that, having regard to that possibility, Mr Smith’s actions were unreasonable. “Unreasonable” actions are actions that a reasonable and prudent person would not have taken. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.