R v Albert [2019] NSWDC 869

R v Albert [2019] NSWDC 869

An aggregate sentence of full-time imprisonment was required because the 32 offences involved a high degree of objective criminality: large sums of money, offending over about four and a half years, greed, planning and sophistication, use of false names and businesses, and significant hardship to individual investors. The offender received a 25% discount for guilty pleas, but his remorse was given reduced weight, prospects of rehabilitation were not good, and deterrence was important. Special circumstances justified a slightly extended parole supervision period because of the offender's gambling, drug and alcohol issues.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas to 32 Counts of Dishonestly Obtaining a Financial Advantage Contrary to S 192 E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900
Outcome
Offender convicted on each offence and sentenced to an aggregate term of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and nine months.
Legal Topics
['dishonestly Obtain Financial Advantage' 'fraud' 'sham Businesses' 'aggregate Sentence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'objective Seriousness' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'totality' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['dishonestly Obtain Financial Advantage' 'fraud' 'sham Businesses' 'aggregate Sentence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'objective Seriousness' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'totality' 'special Circumstances']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas to 32 Counts of Dishonestly Obtaining a Financial Advantage Contrary to S 192 E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for 32 counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage involving about $4,324,570 received from 32 victims through four businesses operated by the offender.' 'Whether the Glamour Nail offences were mitigated by a genuine intention to produce an automated machine or aggravated because the business was an intentional sham from the outset.' 'Whether prior civil findings and penalties could invoke the principles in Veen v R (No 2) for greater weight to deterrence and protection of the community.' 'Whether special circumstances justified varying the ordinary ratio between the head sentence and non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

An aggregate sentence of full-time imprisonment was required because the 32 offences involved a high degree of objective criminality: large sums of money, offending over about four and a half years, greed, planning and sophistication, use of false names and businesses, and significant hardship to individual investors. The offender received a 25% discount for guilty pleas, but his remorse was given reduced weight, prospects of rehabilitation were not good, and deterrence was important. Special circumstances justified a slightly extended parole supervision period because of the offender's gambling, drug and alcohol issues.

Court Disposition

Offender convicted on each offence and sentenced to an aggregate term of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and nine months.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted for each offence.' 'An aggregate sentence of 10 years imprisonment is imposed.' 'A non-parole period of six years and nine months is imposed.' 'The sentence and non-parole period date from 30 October 2017.' 'The head sentence will expire on 29 October 2027.' 'The non-parole period will...