Obtaining Financial Advantage By Deception – Imprisonment
Between 2010 and 2012, our client falsely claimed work-related expenses from the company that he was employed by. He created some false invoices in support of the offending.
The offending was eventually discovered and he lost his job.
A year later, he was interviewed by Police; and the following year he was charged with Obtaining financial advantage by deception. The offending totalled just over $450,000.
We represented the client at the Melbourne County Court.
We accompanied our client to record of interview. When he was charged a year later, we had a copy of the file and the instructions we had taken from him at the time. This enabled us to have a good working knowledge of the file from the start. We took detailed instructions from the client over a number of conferences. We had a detailed knowledge of his background and his current family circumstances (wife and children). We arranged for a psychological report to be prepared on the basis that our client, while coping, was struggling with the impact of the offending on his family. We called evidence at the plea to demonstrate the impact of a gaol sentence on our client. The Court and the prosecutor described the witness’ evidence as compelling.
We ran an argument that the impact of an immediate term of imprisonment on our client met the exceptional circumstances test such that it was open to the Court to shorten the length of prison or wholly suspend it. While ultimately the argument wasn’t successful, and a minimum term of 18 months was imposed, the Court accepted that the impact on the family would have a very significant burden on our client.
On the four charges of obtain financial advantage by deception, our client was sentenced to a total effective sentence of three years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 18 months’ imprisonment.
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