R v Issakidis [2018] NSWSC 378

R v Issakidis [2018] NSWSC 378

Mr Issakidis' conduct in conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth and conspiring to deal with proceeds of crime involved intricate planning, significant loss or risk to the Commonwealth, and was motivated by greed; his role, while slightly less than Dickson's, was essential and culpable. The aggravating features required sentences reflecting general deterrence and punishment, with mitigating effect for age, health, good character, delay, and family hardship. Full-time imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence.

Parties
Crown: Regina (Crown); Offender: Michael John Issakidis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing After Conviction by Jury
Outcome
Offender sentenced to imprisonment for both counts. Non-parole period fixed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Conspiracy to Defraud the Commonwealth, Money Laundering, Tax Fraud, General Deterrence, Parity, Rehabilitation, Mitigating Circumstances, Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Law Sentencing Conspiracy to Defraud the Commonwealth Money Laundering Tax Fraud General Deterrence Parity Rehabilitation +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Crown

Michael John Issakidis

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing After Conviction by Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for conspiracy to dishonestly cause a loss or risk of loss to the Commonwealth (Criminal Code s 135.4(5))
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence for conspiracy to deal with property of $1 million or more, believing it to be proceeds of crime (Criminal Code ss 11.5(1), 400.3(1))
  3. 3 Application of parity with co-offender Dickson

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Issakidis' conduct in conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth and conspiring to deal with proceeds of crime involved intricate planning, significant loss or risk to the Commonwealth, and was motivated by greed; his role, while slightly less than Dickson's, was essential and culpable. The aggravating features required sentences reflecting general deterrence and punishment, with mitigating effect for age, health, good character, delay, and family hardship. Full-time imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence.

Court Disposition

Offender sentenced to imprisonment for both counts. Non-parole period fixed.

Orders

  • For count 1, offence contrary to s 135.4(5) of the Criminal Code, sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment commencing 16 October 2017 and expiring 15 October 2024.
  • For count 2, offence contrary to s 11.5(1) and s 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code, sentenced to 8 years 3 months’ imprisonment commencing 16 October 2019 and expiring 15 January 2028.