Fineff v R [2024] NSWCCA 102

Fineff v R [2024] NSWCCA 102

The aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive. Although the applicant had an exceptionally favourable subjective case, including remorse, insight, rehabilitation prospects, early guilty pleas and assistance to authorities, the offending involved 12 separate victims, many elderly, over about 3½ years, a total fraud exceeding $3.3 million, grave abuse of trust as a financial adviser, planning and sophistication, and substantial financial and emotional harm. None of the indicative sentences was challenged, their total was almost 25 years after discount, and the 9-year aggregate sentence reflected very high notional concurrency. The non-parole period of 5 years and 4 months reflected...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['dishonestly Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'indicative Sentences' 'early Guilty Plea Discount' 'assistance to Authorities' 'breach of Trust' 'victim Impact' 'comparable Cases' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['dishonestly Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'indicative Sentences' 'early Guilty Plea Discount' 'assistance to Authorities' 'breach of Trust' 'victim Impact' 'comparable Cases' 'special Circumstances']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentence of 9 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 4 months for 12 offences of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception contrary to s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether comparable fraud sentencing cases demonstrated that the sentencing discretion miscarried.' 'How the 30% combined discount for early guilty pleas and assistance to authorities affected the aggregate sentence and indicative sentences.']

Ratio Decidendi

The aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive. Although the applicant had an exceptionally favourable subjective case, including remorse, insight, rehabilitation prospects, early guilty pleas and assistance to authorities, the offending involved 12 separate victims, many elderly, over about 3½ years, a total fraud exceeding $3.3 million, grave abuse of trust as a financial adviser, planning and sophistication, and substantial financial and emotional harm. None of the indicative sentences was challenged, their total was almost 25 years after discount, and the 9-year aggregate sentence reflected very high notional concurrency. The non-parole period of 5 years and 4 months reflected...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']