Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Commerce v Armond Shoostovian [2009] NSWSC 713

Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Commerce v Armond Shoostovian [2009] NSWSC 713

The defendant's offences were systematic, non-technical breaches of consumer finance broking regulation committed after Fair Trading warnings and undertakings, involving deceptive non-disclosure to vulnerable consumers and unlawful receipt of commissions. Although the fine should not be fixed by reference to commission as restitution, the seriousness of the conduct, need for denunciation, general and personal deterrence, totality, guilty pleas and the connection between paired s 4C offences justified fines of $1,700 for each Schedule 1 offence. It was expedient under s 10(1)(b) and s 10(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to discharge the defendant on 2-year good behaviour...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Offences Against the Consumer Credit Administration Act 1995 / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Defendant sentenced after guilty pleas; fines imposed for Schedule 1 offences and discharge on good behaviour bonds for Schedule 2 offences.
Legal Topics
['finance Broking Contracts' 'failure to Disclose Prescribed Matters' 'failure to Keep Records' 'unlawful Commission' 'good Behaviour Bond' 'regulatory Offences' 'general and Personal Deterrence' 'totality']
['consumer Credit Regulation' 'finance Broking' 'sentencing'] ['finance Broking Contracts' 'failure to Disclose Prescribed Matters' 'failure to Keep Records' 'unlawful Commission' 'good Behaviour Bond' 'regulatory Offences' 'general and Personal Deterrence' 'totality']

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

Prosecution for Offences Against the Consumer Credit Administration Act 1995 / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalties should be imposed for breaches of ss 4C(1), 4C(4) and 4H(1) of the Consumer Credit Administration Act 1995 after guilty pleas.' 'Whether fines for breaches of ss 4C(1) and 4C(4) should be assessed by reference to commissions obtained by the Company.' 'Whether offences under s 4H(1) should be dealt with by dismissal and discharge on condition of a good behaviour bond under s 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether the offences were committed in breach of a position of trust.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's offences were systematic, non-technical breaches of consumer finance broking regulation committed after Fair Trading warnings and undertakings, involving deceptive non-disclosure to vulnerable consumers and unlawful receipt of commissions. Although the fine should not be fixed by reference to commission as restitution, the seriousness of the conduct, need for denunciation, general and personal deterrence, totality, guilty pleas and the connection between paired s 4C offences justified fines of $1,700 for each Schedule 1 offence. It was expedient under s 10(1)(b) and s 10(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to discharge the defendant on 2-year good behaviour...

Court Disposition

Defendant sentenced after guilty pleas; fines imposed for Schedule 1 offences and discharge on good behaviour bonds for Schedule 2 offences.

Orders

  • ['In respect of each offence in Schedule 1 to this judgment there is a fine imposed of $1700.' 'In respect of each offence in Schedule 2 to this judgment the defendant is discharged on condition that he enters into a good behaviour bond for a period of 2 years from today.' "The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff's...