This is a case study on a plea of guilty to charges of obtaining property by deception and knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime.
What is alleged to have occurred?
Our client was alleged to have committed multiple charges of fraud amounting to more than $200,000. It was alleged that while in the position of a senior manager, our client directed junior staff members to pay sums of money under the belief that it was for tax, superannuation, and other employment related matters. The money was ultimately received by our client and was not required to be paid for legitimate reasons related to employment-related matters.
Several other charges were withdrawn and the client avoided a term of imprisonment.
What happened at court?
A total of 10 charges were made against the client. Our lawyers were able to negotiate a resolution that involved several charges being withdrawn at the committal mention stage. Our client provided instruction that they accepted responsibility and intended to plead guilty to the remaining charges. The matter was then committed for a plea hearing at the County Court at Melbourne.
The matter was committed to the County Court at Melbourne due to the nature of the conduct and the amount of money alleged to have been involved in the scheme.
The charges our client pleaded guilty to at the Melbourne County Court were:
- nine charges of obtaining property by deception, and
- one charge of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime.
Our lawyers assisted the client in preparing for the plea by obtaining material in support, including character references and reports that addressed their employment situation, personal history and current family circumstances.
On the plea, submissions were made to the Sentencing Judge that our client’s rehabilitation prospects, lack of prior criminal history, remorse, mental health and preparedness to repay the money all pointed to a non-custodial penalty as being appropriate in the circumstances.
Our client had lost employment because of the offending and was effectively blacklisted from the industry they specialised in, which amounted to a degree of extra-curial punishment in addition to the punishment they would then receive by way of sentence.
The client had overcome significant disadvantage and poverty throughout their childhood to ultimately obtain a tertiary education, employment and establish a family. They supported their young family, including their child who had development delays.
Our lawyers submitted that the client’s offending was driven by a misguided attempt to financially support their family, including their parents and that a Community Corrections Order would sufficiently punish the client while also supporting their rehabilitation.
What was the result?
We successfully argued that although these charges are very serious, a term of imprisonment would not be appropriate. Our client received a 3 year and 10-month Community Corrections Order with conditions that focussed on rehabilitation.
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 01/11/2024
