Jury also found him guilty of enabling a person to conceal proceeds of crime
New Zealand’s Supreme Court has dismissed an application for leave to appeal convictions for enabling a person to conceal the proceeds of crime and possessing such proceeds with an intention to deal with and enable anyone to conceal them.
In Mateparae v R, [2026] NZSC 8, the applicant worked at an Auckland car yard, which dealt in motor vehicles and class A drugs. He acted as a cash courier for drug dealings.
In March 2019, the applicant went to Wellington to pick up a suitcase with drug-dealing proceeds. He returned to Auckland and gave the suitcase to his employer at the car yard. He went back to Wellington after 12 days. At the Auckland Airport, police searched his bag and found cash.
In May 2019, while the applicant was driving in Wellington, police stopped him, searched him, and found a suitcase with money. The applicant claimed that he was collecting cash from vehicle sales on his employer’s behalf.
Under the Crimes Act 1961, a jury found the applicant guilty of enabling a person to conceal the proceeds of crime under s 243(2), as well as possessing such proceeds with the intention to deal with and enable anybody to conceal them under s 243(3).
The applicant received a home detention sentence of eight months. Appealing his convictions, he alleged that the judge failed to instruct the jury that it needed to determine that he intended to enable concealment under s 243(2).
New Zealand’s Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal upon seeing no error in the judge’s directions. First, the appeal court stressed that the dealing should enable concealment, not necessarily cause it.
Second, pursuant to s 243(4A), the appeal court saw no requirement for an intention to enable concealment.
Third, the appeal court found that s 243(4) – which defined “engages in a money laundering transaction” – previously referred to dealing “for the purpose” of concealment or enabling concealment, words deleted in 2015.
According to the applicant’s proposed appeal, under s 243(2):
The applicant contended that the court should try cash couriers for the less serious offence under s 243(3), not under s 243(2).
Denying leave, the Supreme Court of New Zealand did not consider it in the interests of justice to hear or determine the proposed appeal.
The Supreme Court ruled that the proposed appeal essentially reprised previously made arguments. In the proposed appeal, the Supreme Court saw no realistic prospect of success, no matter of general or public importance, and no apparent substantial miscarriage of justice.
According to the Supreme Court, while s 243(2) required the defendant to conceal property or enable its concealment by another individual, it did not require the defendant to act with the purpose of enabling concealment.
The Supreme Court explained that s 243(3) did not limit the application of s 243(2) and that the two provisions addressed distinct offences.
The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s attempt to describe a cash courier’s responsibility under s 243(2) as unfair for lack of mens rea. The Supreme Court considered this argument misconceived.
The Supreme Court noted that s 243(2) offence required proof of knowledge, belief, or recklessness in relation to the property’s criminal origin.
