Application for Bail in the Supreme Court of Victoria
Our client was charged with:
- Aiding and abetting with dealing in the proceeds of crime to the value of $100,000 or more contrary to sub-ss 400.4 and 11.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
- Deriving a benefit from the earnings of sex work without holding the necessary license contrary to section 10 of the Sex Work Act 1994 (VIC)
Consequences of pre-trial detention
In this case our client was prima facie entitled to bail. If bail was not granted, our client would have to be detained while waiting for her trial. This period of pre trial detention would likely have been a minimum of 18 months
What our client received
Bail was granted with conditions
Why was this a favourable outcome?
This meant our client did not have to be detained while waiting for her hearing to commence
Our client is an Australian citizen with ties to China and Korea.
Our client was charged with aiding and abetting her sister who was dealing with money believed to be the proceeds of crime(s).The money is said to be the proceeds of crime because it was derived from the provision of sex work contrary.
Our client’s sister was a suspected head of a syndicate which was running multiple sex worker businesses without the necessary licenses. Our client was charged with assisting her/his sister with managing financial matters which was said to be from the proceeds of crime(s).
The prosecution estimates that our client had helped with the dealing of approximately $500,000 to 800,000 dollars in proceeds of crimes. The prosecutor claimed that our client had unexplained wealth and her assets would appear to be consistent with a high disposable income. In this bail application, the prosecutor contended that our client was an unacceptable flight risk and also an unacceptable risk of reoffending. Proving the unacceptable risks lies with the prosecution (read more about bail application)
Besides being an Australian citizen, our client also had ties to other countries like China and Korea. Coupled with the ties and the money, the prosecutor believed that it contributed to our client being an unacceptable flight risk. It was found due to the lack of evidence put forward by the prosecution, unacceptable risk of reoffending was not established. Furthermore, by imposing strict conditions, the risk of flight can be minimised and therefore our client was granted bail.
If you would like to Understand Bail further, you can read it here
If you have any queries on bail applications, please contact us to get help.
Disclaimer: Please be aware that the above piece is NOT intended to be definitive legal advice. If you have enquiries relating to the above subject matter, please contact us for an obligation free, face to face consultation.