28 Mar 2023
Proceeding was struck out as plainly an abuse of process because the pleading sought to pursue alleged criminal offences through a civil High Court proceeding and failed to plead any non-frivolous connection to statutory causes of action under the Companies Act or Secret Commissions Act, thereby rendering the claims manifestly inappropriate and unfair to respondents under r 5.35A/B.
21 May 2020
Defendant pleaded guilty to corruptly providing a financial gift to a Council agent; the court rejected a discharge under s 106 because consequences of conviction were not disproportionate; starting point fixed at 10 months' imprisonment reflecting objective gravity and defendant's lesser role, reduced by 40% (15% for good character/remorse and 25% for early guilty plea) to six months, and substituted with six months' community detention with electronically monitored curfew because custody was not required given lack of prior convictions and low risk of reoffending; no credit for disclosure b…
21 May 2020
The application for discharge without conviction was declined because the court assessed both the gravity of the offending and the likely consequences of conviction as low, and therefore the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending and statutory threshold under s107 was not met.
10 Jul 2019
The Court held s 240(1)(b) does not require the defendant personally to have incurred the debt or liability where credit is obtained for another person because the Crimes Act interpretation of 'obtain' covers obtaining credit for third parties; a solicitor acting for a bank owed a fiduciary duty to disclose the identity of the true borrower and material false particulars; convictions for obtaining credit by deception and secret commissions were upheld but the imposed minimum periods of imprisonment were unnecessary and quashed for both appellants.
3 Aug 2018
Court fixed individual starting points by assessing each defendant's role, culpability and aggravating/mitigating features: Xu given a starting point of 2 years 9 months but reduced to 12 months home detention due to subservience, remorse, caregiving and good prospects; Chen given a starting point of 6 years plus 6 months uplift to 6 years 6 months (totality) with MPI 50% (3 years) because he was the central solicitor 'middleman' who facilitated payments and abused fiduciary duties; Jiang given a starting point of 5 years 6 months (5 years for obtaining by deception uplifted 6 months for secr…
15 Jun 2018
On the totality of direct and circumstantial evidence, including forensic IT linking creation of false Chinese bank statements to devices in Xu's office, transaction and text-message evidence showing coordination by Huang and transmission through Chen, and forensic accounting showing funds routed through accounts controlled by Chen and paid to bank staff, the Court found beyond reasonable doubt that Xu, Chen and Jiang knowingly engaged in deception or omissions that induced banks to advance credit and that secret commissions were paid and given. The Court also held s 240(1)(b) does not requir…
23 Apr 2018
Section 240(1)(b) is not limited to cases where the defendant personally incurred the debt or liability; read purposively and with the expanded definition of 'obtain' the provision covers obtaining credit for another. The causative link between deception and obtaining credit can be established by circumstantial evidence and need not always be proved by direct evidence from the individual credit decision-maker. Computer-assisted lending decisions did not negate the possibility of deception where human bankers with delegated authority and validation steps were involved. The Crown is not require…
9 Feb 2018
Having regard to the scale, sophistication and duration of the fraud and the aggravating corruption payment, the appropriate end sentence was fixed at four years seven months imprisonment with a 50% minimum period on the Crimes Act charges (two years three months before parole eligibility); sentences to be served concurrently, and the Secret Commissions Act sentence of nine months concurrent.
27 Oct 2011
Section 103(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 encompasses the corrupt acceptance of substantial benefits whether provided before or after the relevant official acts so long as the recipient accepted them 'corruptly' (i.e. knowingly in connection with the official acts); token, de minimis gifts are excluded; the trial Judge's directions were correct and the convictions stand.