Lu v R [2014] NSWCCA 307

Lu v R [2014] NSWCCA 307

The sentencing judge did not err in treating abuse of a position of trust as an aggravating factor because the applicant's role as a financial advisor who was entrusted with investors' money went beyond the element that he was a director of a company. Given the seriousness of the offending, the accepted indicative sentences, totality and the need for accumulation, the aggregate sentence of 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal allowed; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['cheating or Defrauding by a Director of a Company' 'obtaining Money by Deception' 'abuse of a Position of Trust as an Aggravating Factor' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['cheating or Defrauding by a Director of a Company' 'obtaining Money by Deception' 'abuse of a Position of Trust as an Aggravating Factor' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence']

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 Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by finding that the applicant's abuse of a position of trust was an aggravating feature of the s 176A offences." 'Whether the aggregate sentence and aggregate non-parole period were manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in treating abuse of a position of trust as an aggravating factor because the applicant's role as a financial advisor who was entrusted with investors' money went beyond the element that he was a director of a company. Given the seriousness of the offending, the accepted indicative sentences, totality and the need for accumulation, the aggregate sentence of 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal allowed; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['That leave to appeal be allowed.' 'That the appeal be dismissed.']