Obtaining Property By Deception – Community Corrections Order
Our client was initially charged with 60 dishonesty offences. These charges were related to obtaining property by deception, obtaining financial advantage by deception, and use false identity information.
The total value of the offending was initially $13,000 and it occurred against her employer. Our client made full admissions when first interviewed. She also had no prior court appearances.
Shaun Pascoe represented our client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
Our client was placed on a Community Corrections Order to perform 100 hours of unpaid community work. Importantly, this order was made without conviction.
During case conference discussions, several of the Use false identity information charges were withdrawn and the remaining offences rolled-up on a between dates basis. The effect of this was to reduce the total number of charges from 60 down to 5 offences.
In addition, and to try and shed some light on the offending, a psychological report was organised. Our client was also advised early that because the offending was aggravated as it occurred in the context of her employment relationship, she should endeavour to repay as much of the restitution sought by the complainant as was possible.
Through case conference discussions the amount of restitution sought was reduced from $13,000 to $8,000. Of this $8,000, our client had paid $7,000 and so we were able to say that she had made substantial repayment.
Furthermore, our client was co-operative with the Police and had made full admissions.
Shaun Pascoe
Shaun is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist and a partner of the firm. Shaun runs the Heidelberg branch of Doogue + George.He is an experienced criminal law solicitor and works hard to achieve the best possible outcomes for his clients. Shaun handles indictable and summary criminal offences and is an expert at criminal defence for both contested and non-contested cases.
Visit Shaun's profile to read more about his 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