Nakhl v R (Cth) [2020] NSWCCA 201

Nakhl v R (Cth) [2020] NSWCCA 201

The sentencing judge made no appealable error. Her assessment of the offending as high in seriousness was open because the applicant deliberately, systematically and dishonestly misused vulnerable clients' money, disobeyed instructions for low-risk and capital-protected investments, deceived clients with false reports and videos, caused losses exceeding $5 million, and used funds for his own purposes. Partial accumulation was required because each count involved different victims and different criminality, and the substantial concurrency applied by the sentencing judge adequately reflected totality. The total effective sentence of 10 years with a 6-year non-parole period was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['dishonest Conduct in Relation to Financial Services' 'objective Seriousness' 'accumulation and Concurrency' 'totality' 'manifest Excess' 'section 16 BA Schedule Offences' 'reparation Order']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'corporations Law'] ['dishonest Conduct in Relation to Financial Services' 'objective Seriousness' 'accumulation and Concurrency' 'totality' 'manifest Excess' 'section 16 BA Schedule Offences' 'reparation Order']

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 Imposed in the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the offences as in the high range of objective seriousness.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in determining accumulation, concurrency and totality across eight counts and four s 16BA schedule offences.' 'Whether the total effective sentence of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge made no appealable error. Her assessment of the offending as high in seriousness was open because the applicant deliberately, systematically and dishonestly misused vulnerable clients' money, disobeyed instructions for low-risk and capital-protected investments, deceived clients with false reports and videos, caused losses exceeding $5 million, and used funds for his own purposes. Partial accumulation was required because each count involved different victims and different criminality, and the substantial concurrency applied by the sentencing judge adequately reflected totality. The total effective sentence of 10 years with a 6-year non-parole period was not...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']