Proceeds of Crime Charge Dismissed After Cash Explanation Accepted

Result at a glance

• Charge: Deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, value less than $100,000 (s193C(2) Crimes Act 1900). Maximum penalty 3 years imprisonment.
• The allegation: About $12,200 cash found in a vehicle search.
• Plea: Not guilty. Defended hearing.
• Outcome: Not guilty. Charge dismissed.

The charge

Our client was charged with dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime. The allegation concerned about $12,200 in cash found after police stopped and searched his vehicle during COVID restrictions. Because the amount was less than $100,000, the charge fell under s193C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment. The main risk was a conviction. A proceeds of crime conviction can create problems well beyond the sentence itself, affecting employment, licences, background checks and future dealings with police. He pleaded not guilty, and the matter proceeded to a defended hearing.

What police relied on

Police were patrolling in Western Sydney during COVID restrictions when they saw our client's vehicle stopped on a street, with a man observed near the passenger side window. Police did not see cash, drugs or any package change hands. Our client then drove away, and a short time later police stopped the vehicle, citing RBT and COVID compliance checks. They spoke to our client about where he had been and where he was going, then searched him and the vehicle. During the search, police found about $1,000 on our client and about $11,200 in the driver's door pocket, a total of about $12,200. No drugs, scales, resealable bags, notebooks or drug records were found. That mattered: the prosecution case depended on suspicion, not on drugs being found.

The issue at the hearing

The hearing was narrow. The prosecution did not need to prove a specific drug supply offence. It did need to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the cash was proceeds of crime. That is a different question from whether cash looks unusual. It is not illegal to possess cash, and it is not enough for police to say the circumstances felt suspicious. The suspicion must have a proper factual basis. The prosecution relied on the cash, the brief interaction near the car, an alleged mismatch between our client's movements and his explanation, and material said to connect the area, or people connected to our client, with criminal activity. We contested that approach.

The association material

One part of the prosecution case involved association material. In simple terms, police wanted to rely on matters that did not directly involve our client, including a later vehicle stop involving another car connected to a family member, and material connected to a later search at a property. The defence objection was that this was too far removed from the charge. It did not prove that our client's cash was proceeds of crime. It involved different people, different events, and a later point in time, and at its highest it invited the Court to reason by association. A person should not be convicted because someone else, somewhere else, may have been involved in criminal activity. The prosecution still had to prove the case against our client, based on the cash found in his possession and the circumstances of that possession. The Court excluded the material, which kept the hearing focused on the real issue.

The explanation for the cash

Our client gave an explanation for the cash early. He said the money was connected to an insurance debt involving his vehicle, and he provided the name of the solicitor dealing with the debt. That explanation was not left as a bare assertion. Bank records were later provided to police, showing withdrawals made in the lead-up to the police stop, and a law firm confirmed the existence of a debt broadly consistent with the amount of cash found. The prosecution did not need to disprove every possible innocent explanation, but where there is a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, the Court cannot convict. Here, the explanation was supported by documents. It was not fanciful.

The phone evidence

Police also examined our client's phone. A large download was obtained, containing tens of thousands of pages of material. Despite that, the prosecution did not produce direct evidence of drug supply from the phone. That was one of the practical gaps in the case. If the prosecution theory was that the money came from drug supply, the absence of drug supply material on the phone mattered, as did the absence of drugs or supply items in the car. Cash alone was not enough, and the surrounding evidence did not close the gap.

What we argued

The defence submissions focused on the prosecution's burden. The prosecution had to prove the suspicion element beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden did not shift to our client. He was not required to give evidence or to prove where every dollar came from. We also relied on the ordinary context: our client was an adult, working, and driving a relatively new vehicle; the amount of cash was not insignificant, but it was not hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it was broadly consistent with the debt explanation and the bank records. The man seen leaning near the car did not prove a drug transaction, because police had not seen drugs, cash or a package pass between anyone. The prosecution case remained circumstantial.

The result

The Magistrate was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The Court accepted that the explanation for the cash was believable and noted the absence of drugs, the absence of supply indicia, the confirmed debt, and the material broadly consistent with our client's explanation. Our client was found not guilty, and the charge was dismissed. That meant no conviction for dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime.

What this case shows

A proceeds of crime charge can be defended even where police find cash. The question is not simply whether the amount looks suspicious. It is whether the prosecution can prove the legal elements. That may require close attention to the amount of cash, the client's work position, documents explaining the money, phone material, bank records, and whether police found any actual evidence of drug supply. Association evidence also needs to be tested: if the prosecution tries to rely on unrelated people, later events, or weak connections to criminal activity, the Court still has to decide whether that material is relevant and fair. Where there is a lawful explanation and the surrounding evidence does not support the prosecution theory, the charge should be properly contested.

Charged with a proceeds of crime offence?

Finding cash is not the same as proving it came from crime. The prosecution still has to prove the legal elements, and a documented explanation can be decisive. If you've been charged after a police search anywhere in Sydney, call JBP Law on 1800 527 529 or book a case review. We're based in Parramatta and appear in courts across Sydney and NSW.

This case study is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each criminal matter depends on its own facts, evidence, and personal circumstances. Past outcomes are not indicative of future results.