R v Goel [2013] NSWDC 153

R v Goel [2013] NSWDC 153

The offences were serious tax fraud offences requiring imprisonment and general deterrence, but because they were committed, investigated and in substance identical to earlier offences for which Mr Goel had already been sentenced, and because no explanation was offered for not dealing with them at the same time, the Court imposed a significantly lower sentence, made the two sentences concurrent, and fixed a single non-parole period intended to require Mr Goel to spend six months longer in custody.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Sentence Following Guilty Plea
Outcome
Sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months, with concurrent sentences on the two counts and a single non-parole period covering past and present sentences.
Legal Topics
['dishonestly Causing a Loss to the Commonwealth' 'fraud by Tax Agent' 'unexplained Delay in Prosecution' 'general Deterrence' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['dishonestly Causing a Loss to the Commonwealth' 'fraud by Tax Agent' 'unexplained Delay in Prosecution' 'general Deterrence' 'non Parole Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing / Sentence Following Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for two charges of lodging tax returns with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to the Commonwealth.' 'What effect the unexplained delay in prosecuting the two offences, which were committed and investigated at the same time as earlier similar offences, should have on sentence.' 'Whether concurrent sentences and a single non-parole period should be imposed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were serious tax fraud offences requiring imprisonment and general deterrence, but because they were committed, investigated and in substance identical to earlier offences for which Mr Goel had already been sentenced, and because no explanation was offered for not dealing with them at the same time, the Court imposed a significantly lower sentence, made the two sentences concurrent, and fixed a single non-parole period intended to require Mr Goel to spend six months longer in custody.

Court Disposition

Sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months, with concurrent sentences on the two counts and a single non-parole period covering past and present sentences.

Orders

  • ['The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen months to commence on 9 September 2015.' 'The sentences on the two counts are imposed concurrently.' 'Under s 19AD of the Crimes Act, a single non-parole period of two years and six months is set to commence on 9 September 2011 and expire on 8 March 2014.'...