The Case
1. What Was Mr Zhang Accused Of?
Unknown to Mr Zhang at the time, Mr Alan Crowe of the Newcastle ATO referred the JKC matter to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) on 13 December 2010, and the CDPP consented to the prosecution on 4 February 2014. Mr Crowe referred the RHV matter to the CDPP on 27 September 2011, and the CDPP consented to the prosecution on 11 March 2015.
Both charges were brought under section 135.4(3) of the Criminal Code, set out in the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Section 135.4(3) states:
A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person conspires with another person with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to a third person; and
(b) the third person is a Commonwealth entity.
In this case, the Commonwealth entity was the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The maximum penalty for each offence was 10 years’ imprisonment.
The two charges concerned JKC and RHV. Both companies were subsidiaries of High Trade Company Pty Ltd, known as Hightrade (HT), which was owned by Mr Li Zhang.
JKC — JKC Developments Pty Ltd was the owner and developer of the mixed-use residential and commercial project at 12–26 Regent Street, Chippendale, New South Wales.
RHV — Resort Hunter Valley Pty Ltd was the owner and developer of the hotel and golf resort at Lovedale in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales. The resort was originally known as Crowne Plaza Hunter Valley and is now known as Rydges Resort Hunter Valley.
2. What Was Mr Zhang’s Defence?
Mr Zhang stated clearly that both charges were made up. He said the Newcastle ATO turned civil disputes over indefensible tax assessments into criminal proceedings to conceal its wrongdoing and destroy him. He said Mr Crowe secured the CDPP’s consents through false documents.
His position was that the ATO never incurred the alleged loss. The ATO based its claim on the JKC and RHV assessments, which, he said, were issued for an ulterior purpose and breached the GST Act 1999.
The ATO never pursued the approximately $3.15 million debt arising from the JKC assessment. He said this was because the assessment was illegitimate.
The ATO did pursue the approximately $16 million debt arising from the RHV assessment, which Mr Zhang said was false. When the Commissioner proposed taking mortgage security, Mr Zhang accepted and granted a mortgage over the resort. The bank’s valuer had put the resort’s market value in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
He ceased to be a director of JKC on 26 August 2003, before the alleged conduct began in January 2004. The RHV charge covered the period from June 2004 to April 2008. He ceased to be a director of RHV on 1 July 2004, about a month into that period, and was therefore no longer a director for almost all of it. He said the directors were legally responsible for the companies’ tax affairs under corporations law. In his account, targeting him while bypassing those directors was part of the continuing retaliation over the Azure dispute.
The ATO alleged that Mr Zhang conspired with Mr Peter Chang and Mr Simon Chan. Mr Zhang said that even if the ATO treated him as responsible because he owned the businesses, he directed or instructed both men to carry out their duties. He had no need to conspire with either of them and said he never did.
3. Extradition from New Zealand
On 30 January 2019, Mr Alan Crowe sent an affidavit and two NSW arrest warrants to New Zealand. The warrants were endorsed there on 27 March 2019. Mr Zhang was arrested in Auckland on 4 April 2019 and extradited to Australia on 12 September 2019.
The warrants concerned the JKC and RHV charges. A court attendance notice sets out the charge and requires the person named to appear in court. Mr Zhang questioned whether the notices had been filed before the arrest warrants were issued.
For JKC, he compared the stated filing date of 29 January 2014 with 4 February 2014, when he says the case number first existed. For RHV, he compared 6 May 2015 with 3 September 2015 and pointed to the change of date on the warrant.
Mr Zhang relied on these discrepancies to challenge the basis for his extradition. The courts’ decisions on that issue are described below. Crowe’s Investigation examines the warrant documents and affidavit in more detail.
4. The First Pre-Trial Hearing and Appeal
Before trial, Mr Zhang applied to the District Court to stop the prosecution permanently. He raised the validity of his extradition, the commencement of the charges and the committal proceedings, and alleged that the prosecution was malicious. He also sought bail as an alternative.
On 23 April 2021, Judge Wass SC held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to make the declarations sought. The judge considered and refused the application to stop the prosecution and also refused bail.
Mr Zhang then sought leave to appeal to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. That Court rejected his contention that the extradition amounted to an abuse of process, and the prosecution continued.
Decision: Zhang v R [2021] NSWCCA 266.
5. The Second Pre-Trial Hearing and Appeal
Further applications followed before the jury trial began. Mr Zhang returned to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in 2022 and again sought leave to appeal from rulings made before the trial.
The second Court of Criminal Appeal decision was Zhang v R [2022] NSWCCA 100. A third application concerned two further District Court rulings and was heard on 25 November 2022.
The Court refused leave in relation to both rulings considered at that November hearing. The jury trial began on 28 November 2022.
The Court later published its reasons for the November orders in Zhang v R [2023] NSWCCA 98. These decisions concerned rulings made before the trial. The appeal against the convictions is described in section 7.
6. The Trial in Sydney District Court
The NSW District Court trial ran from 28 November 2022 to 9 October 2023, approximately ten and a half months. Acting Judge Blackmore SC presided, and Mr Zhang represented himself.
The proceedings involved evidence about the JKC and Hunter Valley developments, company accounts, invoices, emails and other electronic records. Mr Zhang gave evidence, questioned witnesses and presented his defence to the jury.
The jury began deliberating on 25 September 2023 and returned guilty verdicts on both counts in October 2023. Mr Zhang returned to custody following conviction.
He challenges aspects of the trial process, including the jury’s access to electronic materials, answers given to jury questions, judicial interventions and the presentation of his defence in the summing-up. The detailed arguments and supporting references belong on The Next Step page.
7. The Conviction Appeal
Mr Zhang appealed to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. He challenged the convictions and raised complaints about the evidence, the conduct of the proceedings and the fairness of the trial.
His written submissions included allegations concerning the origins and conduct of the investigation, disputed electronic records, search warrants and extradition, together with complaints about judicial intervention, jury directions and access to trial materials.
The Court dismissed his appeal on 18 February 2026, leaving the convictions in place. Mr Zhang disputes the Court’s treatment of material parts of his case.
The original CCA grounds and the proposed High Court grounds must be read as separate stages of the proceedings. This website will present the judgment, submissions and relevant records alongside the arguments so that readers can examine what was raised and how it was addressed.
8. Why Seek High Court Review?
Following the dismissal of his CCA appeal, Mr Zhang intends to apply to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal. The application has not yet been filed.
He proposes to raise issues concerning the integrity of important electronic evidence, the jury’s practical access to that evidence, judicial directions and interventions, and whether his defence was fairly presented and considered.
His position is that these matters, individually and cumulatively, call the safety of the convictions and the fairness of the trial into question. He seeks an opportunity to challenge the convictions before the High Court.
The Next Step page sets out the proposed arguments. The Documents page provides the place to inspect the judgments, submissions, transcript extracts and exhibits supporting the discussion.
9. Attorney-General Review
Mr Zhang has identified a request to the Attorney-General for review of his convictions as a separate avenue from his proposed High Court application.
His concerns include the source and handling of electronic evidence and the records used to obtain the arrest warrants. He sets out those concerns and the documents he relies on elsewhere on this site.
The Documents page brings together judgments, submissions and supporting records for readers who want to examine those issues.
Any request to the Attorney-General and any response will be reported here when their status is confirmed.