R v KING Anthony [2008] NSWDC 191

R v KING Anthony [2008] NSWDC 191

The offence was objectively serious because the offender was pivotal in a planned and sophisticated fraud involving a very large sum, false documents and ongoing deceit, causing substantial loss to NAB. Although the guilty plea, delay, family hardship and strong rehabilitation prospects mitigated sentence, they did not justify a fully concurrent sentence. A starting point of three years imprisonment was reduced by 20% for the utilitarian value of the plea, producing a sentence of two years and five months imprisonment with a nine month non-parole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing for Dishonestly Obtaining by Deception / Sentence After Plea of Guilty on Ex Officio Indictment
Outcome
Convicted and sentenced to two years and five months imprisonment.
Legal Topics
['fraud' 'dishonestly Obtain by Deception' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'delay in Prosecution' 'totality' 'general Deterrence' 'white Collar Crime']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['fraud' 'dishonestly Obtain by Deception' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'delay in Prosecution' 'totality' 'general Deterrence' 'white Collar Crime']

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 Sentencing for Dishonestly Obtaining by Deception / Sentence After Plea of Guilty on Ex Officio Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for dishonestly obtaining a warrant for $65,785,846.50 from NAB by falsely representing that 183 new Mercedes Benz buses existed.' 'What discount should be allowed for the utilitarian value of the guilty plea.' 'What effect delay and fragmented charging should have on sentence.' 'Whether the sentence should be fully concurrent with the earlier sentence.' "How the offender's rehabilitation, family hardship, objective seriousness and general deterrence should be weighed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was objectively serious because the offender was pivotal in a planned and sophisticated fraud involving a very large sum, false documents and ongoing deceit, causing substantial loss to NAB. Although the guilty plea, delay, family hardship and strong rehabilitation prospects mitigated sentence, they did not justify a fully concurrent sentence. A starting point of three years imprisonment was reduced by 20% for the utilitarian value of the plea, producing a sentence of two years and five months imprisonment with a nine month non-parole period.

Court Disposition

Convicted and sentenced to two years and five months imprisonment.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted.' 'The offender is sentenced to two years and five months imprisonment from 8 February 2010 to 7 July 2012.' 'A non-parole period of nine months is imposed, to expire on 7 November 2010.' 'The offender will be eligible for release to parole on 7 November 2010.']