Sydney Office

Level 35
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000

Melbourne Office

Level 4
99 William Street
Melbourne VIC 3000

Brisbane Office

Level 5
231 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000

Canberra Office

Level 5
1 Farrell Place
Canberra ACT 2601

Armstrong Legal Logo

Privacy Policy  |  Terms & Conditions

Copyright © 2017 Armstrong Legal. All rights reserved.

Phone 1300 168 676

Executive Fraud


An executive from a large, publicly listed company has been imprisoned for up to six years after pleading guilty to serious fraud offences.

As part of a vehicle leasing operation, the executive illegitimately and illegally received funds that had such diverse labels as “introducer fees” and “inspection services”. The funds were then diverted towards flights, jewellery and “adult entertainment.”

He even went so far as to set up a set up a company in the name of his accountant. This company then rendered invoices to his employer to a total value of over half a million dollars, when in fact no services had been provided.

In handing down sentence, District Court Judge Mark Williams ordered that he serve a minimum of four years in gaol and a maximum of six years. According to media reports, the judge allocated a “discount” of 40 percent for “pleading guilty, displaying remorse, having previously good character and being unlikely to reoffend.”

This is unusual, as judges usually avoid specifying a particular discount for such matters, with the exception of the plea of guilty.

The courts have long favoured being extremely transparent about the allocation of discounts for a plea of guilty, considering that it is only by being specific about the discount that offenders can be encouraged to enter pleas of guilty.

However, when it comes to more subjective factors such as “remorse” or “likelihood of reoffending”, the courts have generally favoured what has come to be known as an “instinctive synthesis”. This is a process where the judge or magistrate considers the multitude of factors that apply to a particular offender and then arrive at an appropriate sentence.

This is as opposed to an arithmetic process of addition or calculation, where a person receives a increase in their penalty because of one aggravating factor, but then has it discounted because of a mitigating factor.

As a consequence, it is often said that there is “no one correct sentence”. It is accepted that judges and magistrates will sometimes differ as to what is an appropriate punishment. Judges are able to weigh individual factors but then also the final result, and consider whether in all the circumstances the final penalty appears just and reasonable.

In this case, notwithstanding the significant discount, the executive still received a substantial sentence of imprisonment.

Image Credit – Dinis Tolipov © 123RF.com

Written by Andrew Tiedt on November 22, 2017

Andrew has spent many years building a reputation for high quality legal advice and representation. His experience and ability means that his clients are always in safe hands. View Andrew's profile


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Contact Armstrong Legal:
Sydney: (02) 9261 4555
Melbourne: (03) 9620 2777
Brisbane: (07) 3229 4448
Canberra: (02) 6288 1100