Obtain Financial Advantage By Deception – CCO
Our client was charged with underdeclaring and not declaring income to centrelink. She has 2 priors for the same type of offending.
She was employed as a casual through an employment agency and her position was on call. The fraud was detected through data matching between the Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink. As our client submitted her taxes for the financial year and her tax file number was connected to her centrelink account, Centrelink was notified of the amount she had been paid by her employers. These amounts did not match up to the amounts which were declared and, as a result, an investigation ensued. She was eventually charged with Obtaining financial advantage by deception.
During the period of time for which she was underdeclaring or alternatively not declaring at all, she had experienced domestic violence and had given birth to two children which ultimately she had sole care for.
Dee Giannopoulos represented our client at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court.
Our client ultimately received a Community Corrections Order.
This was our client’s third period of the same offending and it was open to the Magistrate to impose an immediate period of imprisonment even though she had the care of her two children. His Honour has however agreed that sending her to gaol would not be in the communities’ interests as she did care for her children and was now doing the right thing by declaring her income completely to Centrelink.
Our client avoided a term of imprisonment immediate or otherwise. She was sentenced to undertake unpaid community work to repay her debt to society and was also ordered to repay the overpaid amount to Centrelink.
Dee is based in our Melbourne office and appears at all Courts in Victoria. Dee’s commitment to her clients and her passion for justice drives her to achieve great results.
Visit Dee’s profile to read more about her background and experience.
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 25/02/2013