Background
Yiwei Liu pleaded not guilty to Commonwealth money-laundering and anti-money-laundering compliance charges. The Crown alleges that he was the Australian principal of an international syndicate that used shell-company accounts and remittance arrangements to move proceeds of a cyber-investment fraud, said to total about $370 million.
Related Victorian proceedings arose from a separate AFP investigation into alleged money laundering involving Changjiang Currency Exchange, where Liu was alleged to have held a senior role. Although the NSW and Victorian investigations were run by separate teams, they had significant factual overlaps. The defence sought access to material disclosed in Victoria, including unused digital material, intercepts, surveillance material, phone downloads, police notes and database entries.
The Court’s Holding
McGuire J held that the requested Victorian material ought to be disclosed to Liu. The relevant AFP and CDPP authorities had disclosed it in the Victorian proceedings, and the substantial factual similarities between the cases meant that withholding it in NSW created a significant risk that Liu’s trial would not be fair.
The Court accepted that the AFP officer had thoroughly reviewed the Victorian material using keyword searches and had already disclosed material assessed as relevant. But much of the material was in Mandarin, remained untranslated, and could not be understood by that officer. That created a real potential for Liu to identify evidence materially assisting his defence. The Court therefore allowed a short adjournment, rather than an indefinite one, so the material could be provided electronically and reviewed.
Key Takeaways
- Prosecutorial disclosure extends to material held by investigating agencies, not only material physically held by the prosecutor.
- Material disclosed in closely related proceedings may need to be disclosed in another prosecution where non-disclosure risks an unfair trial.
- Keyword-based review did not eliminate the fairness concern where substantial untranslated Mandarin material could assist the accused.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that disclosure is directed to trial fairness, including material that may provide a lead to evidence helpful to the defence. The Crown’s assessment that material is not disclosable may not resolve that issue where related proceedings and the nature of the material create a meaningful risk of unfairness.
The pre-trial hearing was adjourned to 31 August 2026, and the trial was moved from 31 August to 28 September 2026.