Overseas Investment Office v Hur [2020] NZDC 2821 (7 February 2020)

Last Updated: 30 December 2024

EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS].

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF DETAILS IN RELATION TO EMPLOYER’S NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS AS AN ASSOCIATED PERSON ARE PERMANENTLY SURPRESSED AND PROHIBITED BY S 202 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360350.html

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU

CRI-2019-004-009838

[2020] NZDC 2821

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT OFFICE

Prosecutor v

WON JOO HUR Defendant

Hearing:	7 February 2020
Appearances:	J Dixon QC for the Prosecutor F Pilditch for the Defendant
Judgment:	7 February 2020

NOTES OF JUDGE D J SHARP ON SENTENCING

[1] This a situation in which Dr Hur has accepted a sentence indication which I gave on 29 January 2020. Mr Pilditch has appropriately pointed out that, in setting the starting point for the sentencing, I engaged the potential for a sentence of imprisonment, which I did not see as being effectively required in this case together with a financial penalty in relation to the starting point. That is not a correct approach and what I should have done was to assess individually the different available sentencing mechanisms that the legislation provides for.

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT OFFICE v WON JOO HUR [2020] NZDC 2821 [7 February 2020]

[2] That said, ultimately, I set aside the potential for imprisonment as an appropriate sentence and looked really fundamentally at the requirements of deterrence, denunciation and other Sentencing Act 2002 factors on the basis of a monetary penalty. That took me to the end sentence of $100,000 as the monetary penalty required. At the point that I gave the indication, which these sentencing notes should be read together with, I made it clear that if there were other mitigating factors that might be advanced then I would be open to hearing from those.

[3] Mr Pilditch has pointed out that Dr Hur is towards the end of his working life and the imposition of a significant monetary penalty will have an impact. The question is whether I should add an additional discount in relation to that factor.

[4] The Crown, on the other hand, say this is not a situation of impecuniosity and, indeed, the affidavit which has been filed by Dr Hur makes it clear that there is means to pay the amount which has been indicated and acceptance of the sentence indication.

[5] I have no information on which I can determine whether or not the provisions which have been set aside for retirement is going to be impacted on by the imposition of the proposed fine. That leaves me really in a position that although potentially the mitigation may have been present I cannot find enough within the material I have to reduce the quantum of the fine that I have suggested.

[6] I will make the orders for the fine on the basis that time to pay the fine will be allowed in accordance with the submissions that are filed on Dr Hur’s behalf. In addition, I make an order for permanent suppression of the details in relation to Dr Hur’s [employer which] will have its name and details as an associated person permanently suppressed.

[7] In relation to the order that has been made for interim suppression of Dr Choi’s name, he is now being dealt with by the Court and the reasons for that interim suppression are no long present. Accordingly, the suppression order which was made is lifted in relation to Dr Choi.

[8] In terms of the fine, which will be in the sum of $100,000, the initial payment of $25,000 to be made within one month of the fine being imposed and then three further instalments of $25,000 every three months following.

D J Sharp

District Court Judge