Krecichwost v R [2012] NSWCCA 101

Krecichwost v R [2012] NSWCCA 101

The appellant authorised payments to related entities as fees for services that he knew had not been performed, falsely characterising such payments in company records. His conduct was dishonest as judged by ordinary standards, and the existence of consent from the sole shareholder, company profitability, or absence of third-party disadvantage did not negate dishonesty. Fresh evidence and other grounds did not provide a significant possibility of acquittal or demonstrate miscarriage of justice. The appeal is dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['dishonest Use of Position as Director' 'factors Relevant to Dishonesty' 'accounts and Determination of Profit' 'unrealised Capital Gains' 'dividends' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal']
['corporations Law' 'criminal Law'] ['dishonest Use of Position as Director' 'factors Relevant to Dishonesty' 'accounts and Determination of Profit' 'unrealised Capital Gains' 'dividends' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal']

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 Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's conduct was dishonest within the meaning of s 184(2)(a) Corporations Act 2001" 'Whether fresh evidence required a new trial' 'Whether prejudicial material in jury book led to miscarriage of justice' 'Whether legal error occurred regarding declaration of dividend' 'Whether failure to direct jury on factors relevant to dishonesty caused miscarriage' 'Whether verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant authorised payments to related entities as fees for services that he knew had not been performed, falsely characterising such payments in company records. His conduct was dishonest as judged by ordinary standards, and the existence of consent from the sole shareholder, company profitability, or absence of third-party disadvantage did not negate dishonesty. Fresh evidence and other grounds did not provide a significant possibility of acquittal or demonstrate miscarriage of justice. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']