Good Behaviour Bond for Insurance Fraud

GavelThis is a case study on a sentence of good behaviour bond for insurance fraud.

Our client was one of seven people involved in an insurance fraud enterprise. One of his co-offenders (the primary offender) purchased second hand cars from car auctions and would ’sell’ these vehicles at inflated prices to our client and other co-offenders using false sale contracts. No money would actually be exchanged when these sales occurred. The client and other co-offenders would then insure the cars at the inflated sale price.

The primary offender would then deliberately smash the insured cars in his car yard and our client and other co-offenders would claim insurance on the damaged vehicles. Insurance companies paid out one of the claims and commenced investigations into the others. Our client and his co-offenders were eventually charged with Obtain Property By Deception and Attempt to Obtain Property By Deception.

Sam Cooper provided legal representation for our client at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court. The charges were:

Although the offending was sophisticated and pre-meditated, our client was sentenced to a 14-month good behaviour bond for insurance fraud. This was imposed without conviction along with an order for our client to pay compensation to the insurance company. This was an excellent result for our client. The primary offender in this matter was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and the other co-offenders received Community Corrections Orders.

Sam was able to obtain this result for our client in four ways: Firstly, Sam examined the evidence closely and saw that our client made full admissions and
helped the investigation at every stage of the matter, whereas other co-offenders gave inconsistent statements and made belated admissions if they made them at all.

Secondly, Sam investigated our client’s medical history and obtained evidence of substantial mental health problems during the period of the offending which had since been treated. Sam tendered this evidence at our client’s plea.

Thirdly, Sam had a lengthy and detailed conference with our client and learned how the primary offender manipulated him and orchestrated the insurance fraud. Sam confirmed this version of events with the police informant.

Fourthly, Sam listened to our client and developed a clear understanding of the hardships and difficulties our client had experienced throughout his life and his subsequent rehabilitation.

Sam made submissions to the magistrate at our client’s plea hearing noting the above factors. The magistrate decided that given our client’s circumstances, a merciful sentence was appropriate in his case which ended up being a good behaviour bond for insurance fraud.
 

Elements of Obtaining Property By Deception:

  • The accused obtained property belonging to another.
  • The accused did so with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property.
  • The accused used deceit to obtain the property.
  • The accused obtained the property dishonestly.

 
Other related case studies:

 


Sam CooperSam Cooper

Sam is one of our criminal law specialists based at our Broadmeadows office. He regularly handles cases at the Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court and also appears for clients at other courts in Melbourne. He was admitted to practice in February 2018 and has previously worked at the Criminal Law section of the Law Institute of Victoria.

Sam believes in rehabilitation and justice reinvestment as crucial tools to effective management of the criminal justice system. He is dedicated to helping clients understand the law that would empower them to make the right choices, helping them through the rigorous legal processes and achieving excellent results in court.

Click here to visit Sam's profile.
 


DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 08/04/2019