R v Dickson; R v Issakidis (No 9) [2014] NSWSC 1460

R v Dickson; R v Issakidis (No 9) [2014] NSWSC 1460

There is evidence upon which a jury could be satisfied that Mr Issakidis was party to a conspiracy with Mr Dickson to lodge, or cause to be lodged, tax returns for NeuMedix falsely claiming depreciation expenses, and to cause a loss or a risk of loss to the Commonwealth. There is also evidence for a jury to find that he knowingly facilitated this process, aware of the roles of the alleged entities and knowing the representations to be false or misleading. Therefore, the evidence meets the threshold required to put the accused on their defence and the applications for directed verdicts of acquittal (no case submissions) are dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / No Case to Answer Submission Application Following Close of Crown Case at Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['conspiracy to Defraud Commonwealth' 'no Case to Answer Submission' 'dishonesty Offences' 'proceeds of Crime' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'criminal Code Act (cth) S 11.5, S 135.4, S 400.3']
['criminal Law'] ['conspiracy to Defraud Commonwealth' 'no Case to Answer Submission' 'dishonesty Offences' 'proceeds of Crime' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'criminal Code Act (cth) S 11.5, S 135.4, S 400.3']

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 / No Case to Answer Submission Application Following Close of Crown Case at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is a case to answer by Mr Issakidis and consequently Mr Dickson on Count 1 (conspiracy to defraud) and Count 6 (conspiracy to deal with proceeds of crime) of the indictment' 'Whether, on the evidence adduced, it is open for a jury to convict the accused on these counts' 'Application of the principles concerning no case to answer submissions, particularly in circumstantial cases']

Ratio Decidendi

There is evidence upon which a jury could be satisfied that Mr Issakidis was party to a conspiracy with Mr Dickson to lodge, or cause to be lodged, tax returns for NeuMedix falsely claiming depreciation expenses, and to cause a loss or a risk of loss to the Commonwealth. There is also evidence for a jury to find that he knowingly facilitated this process, aware of the roles of the alleged entities and knowing the representations to be false or misleading. Therefore, the evidence meets the threshold required to put the accused on their defence and the applications for directed verdicts of acquittal (no case submissions) are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['No case submissions in respect of Counts 1 and 6 by both accused are dismissed.']