Spending cash generated from drug dealing on personal expenditure, travel and accommodation amounts to money laundering ruled the Court of Appeal, confirming Paula Toleafoa’s conviction after she acted as a conduit dispersing cash received from her spouse Luther who was subsequently convicted of meth dealing.
Her unsuccessful appeal against conviction for money laundering came following a sentence of ten months home detention.
The Court of Appeal was told more than $537,000 passing through her hands came from funds having no known source.
She claimed most of this money came from her property management business and her spouse’s house wash business. Forensic examination of financial records for these businesses showed no evidence of business expenses or employee expenses expected to parallel any receipt of cash for work done.
Much of this cash was paid into bank accounts by ATM deposit. CCTV footage showed Ms Toleafoa using both her own bank card and her spouse’s bank card to make multiple ATM deposits.
Income tax filings did not match claimed business activity.
At least $73,000 of this money was spent on ‘lifestyle expenses’ such as overseas holidays, hotel accommodation, jewellery, party expenses, handbags and Botox treatments.
This personal spending amounted to Crimes Act money laundering, the court ruled. Converting drug dealing cash to any other form of property fell within the definition of ‘concealment’ as an element of money laundering, the court said.
In her defence, Ms Toleafoa claimed her behaviour was driven by fears of further domestic violence from her spouse. For a time during police surveillance of Mr Toleafoa’s activities the two lived apart; she in Auckland, he in Rotorua.
The court said the scale of her support in managing his cash, coupled with their continuing communication and three trips together overseas indicated she was a willing participant in laundering proceeds of her spouse’s drug dealing.
Toleafoa v. R. – Court of Appeal (14.10.24)
25.014