Commonwealth bribery sentence appeal in matter of Wei

On 24 September 2025, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA) delivered judgment in the matter of Wenfeng Wei. The judgment related to an application made pursuant to s5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). The application was ultimately dismissed.

Background

This matter is part of Operation Barker, with co-accused Raymond Shlemon and John Zeitoune also convicted. Operation Barker was a joint investigation commenced by the former ACLEI, which transitioned to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

WEI, an ATO officer, pleaded guilty to:

• 1 x bribing a Commonwealth public official, contrary to s141.1(3) of the Criminal Code (the $100,000 bribe)
• 3 x unauthorised access to, or modification of, restricted data contrary to s478.1(1) of the Criminal Code
• 1 x abuse of public office contrary to s142.2 of the Criminal Code

WEI was committed for sentence on 22 August 2022 for accepting a $100,000 cash bribe, from Raymond Shlemon, who he was assigned to audit, together with Shlemon’s company Global World Group.  WEI was also convicted for accessing ATO restricted data more than 500 times in respect of Shlemon and his entities, and for accessing restricted information more than 1200 times in respect of another person, Chao Chang, and his entities, and passing on this information to Chang. 

Sentences

On 12 March 2024, Wei was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months. The sentencing Judge, Hanley DCJ, gave indicative sentences for each offence, including three years and three months’ imprisonment for the bribery offence.

Appeal

WEI appealed his sentence, on the basis that:

1. The sentencing judge erred in incorporating a reduction for the applicant’s past assistance within the 25% discount allowed for the utilitarian discount of an early plea of guilty; and
2. The sentence was manifestly excessive.

The third ground identified in the notice of appeal was abandoned prior to the hearing. Counsel representing the applicant, sought at the hearing to raise a new ground of appeal, namely that the sentencing judge failed to consider the applicant’s contrition and remorse. Leave was granted for the applicant to file and serve an amended notice of appeal.

Outcome

The NSWCCA delivered judgment in the matter on 24 September 2025.

In relation to the grounds of appeal, the Court held:

• the sentencing Judge erred in merging the consideration of the recognised level of cooperation of law enforcement agencies and the 25% that had otherwise been attributed to the early guilty plea. This merging of considerations was not otherwise brought to bear in the instinctive synthesis and therefore ground one of the appeal should be upheld ([32]- [53]).
• it was unnecessary to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in circumstances where the Court was already required to undertake a re-sentencing exercise([64]).
• As to the additional ground of appeal raised in the amended notice of appeal, the sentencing judge failed to take into account the degree to which the applicant had shown contrition for the offence ([54] – [63]).

As to the re-sentencing exercise, the Court held:

• taking into account additional evidence filed by the applicant, the Court placed weight on the more positive recent indications of remorse, while noting that the earlier evidence, showing a lack of insight and tendency to minimise his own culpability, did not lose all significance ([68]).
• the additional evidence was also found to reinforce the hardship imposed on the applicant’s family.
• the applicant’s assistance to law enforcement was found to be a weighty factor ([71]).
• it was appropriate to impose individual sentences, noting the current uncertainty as to the appropriateness of imposing an aggregate sentence for Commonwealth offences, adopting the approach in O’Hanlon v R [2025] NSWCCA 118 at [92] – [ 93] ([73]).
• in relation to the bribery offence, if an individual sentence were to be imposed, the sentence would be materially higher than the indicative sentence imposed by the sentencing judge ([75]).
• in relation to the other sequences, it would not arrive at a lower sentence than any of those found by the sentencing judge ([75]).
• in circumstances where re-sentencing would result in an outcome ultimately more severe than that imposed by the sentencing judge, the Court adopted the usual practice and instead dismiss the appeal.

 Accordingly, the NSWCCA dismissed the appeal.

Related material

NACC media release following original sentence – Former ATO employee jailed for accepting bribes