CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Parviainen
[2025] VCC 1107
•4 August 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-24-00867
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH) |
| v |
| JADE PARVIAINEN |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE MEREDITH | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF PLEA HEARING: | 1 November 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 4 August 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | CDPP v Parviainen | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 1107 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Taxation fraud by lodging of fake BAS. Quantum $230,000, attempted $49,000. Deferral of sentence, rehabilitation, hardship to children, reduced moral culpability, parity.
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence: Total Effective Sentence: 22 months and immediate release on Recognisance Release Order.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP (Cth) | Ms R. Barrett | Solicitor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr N. Brown | Nelson Brown Legal |
HIS HONOUR:
1Ms Parviainen, you have pleaded guilty to Charge 1, of obtaining a financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity. This took place between 10 October 2021 to 21 March 2022 and concerns you lodging eight false business activity statements, whereby you obtained $230,720. You have also pleaded guilty to Charge 2, of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity, on 27 April 2022, which concerns you lodging one false business activity statement, whereby you attempted to gain $49,947.
2Both Charges 1 and 2 have maximum penalties of 10 years' imprisonment.
3As both charges are Federal offences, I must sentence in accord with Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Section 16A(1) of that Act requires that I impose a sentence which is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of your offending, having regard to s16A(2), which sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors which are to be taken into account so far as relevant and known to the court.
4Section 17A of the Crimes Act provides that a court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment on any person for a Federal offence unless, having considered all other available sentences, the Court is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in the circumstances.
5You were aged between 27 and 28 at the time of your offending. Your offending concerns the lodging of a total of nine false business activity statements. You were not operating a legitimate business enterprise and on 26 August 2021 you had registered for an ABN as a sole trader for a business with the description 'Dental Laboratory'. On 3 September 2021, you submitted documents declaring that your GST turnover was estimated to be between $75,000 to $150,000 and you would report monthly on a cash basis. Between 10 October 2021 and 27 April 2022, as I have said, you lodged a total nine false business activity statements. The summary of these is contained in Annexure 'A' to the prosecution opening. You nominated an ANZ Bank account as the destination for the BAS refunds, and you were the sole signatory of that account.
6Your offending was detected via an ATO audit, and a criminal investigation commenced on 22 June 2022. On 17 October 2022, you received mail correspondence from the ATO whereby they informed you it had been determined that you were not running an enterprise for tax purposes and cancelled your GST and ABN registration, that there was a shortfall of some $230,720 as a result of your payment.
7In the June of 2022, police attended the residence of your father where you were living with your two children, and a search warrant was executed. On this occasion you were interviewed by police and made some admissions, to the effect that your only current source of income was $1,000 per fortnight from Centrelink payments as you were currently on unpaid maternity leave. That you had registered an ABN online for a dental tech business approximately a year ago. You, however, exercised your entitlement not to answer any questions relating to the lodgement of the BAS in question and the operation of your business.
8Sentencing authority is clear that for offences against the revenue system of the Commonwealth, general deterrence and the court's denunciation of fraudulent conduct are important sentencing principles. Offending of this nature may also result in a loss of confidence in the efficacy and integrity of the taxation system. Taxation fraud impacts all taxpayers who lawfully pay what is due for the maintenance of our governments, their institutions and services for the common good.
9In the case of Gregory,[1] where the Court stated:
In the case of taxation offences, general deterrence is also given special emphasis in order to protect the revenue as such crimes are not particularly easy to detect and if undetected may produce great rewards. Deterrence looms large as the present process of self-assessment reposes on the taxpayer a heavy duty of honesty. Moreover, general deterrence is likely to have a more profound effect in the case of white-collar criminals. White-collar criminals are likely to be rational, profit seeking individuals who can weigh the benefits of committing a crime against the cost of being caught and punished.
[1]DPP (Cth) v Gregory [2011] 34 VR 1, at Paragraphs [53]-[54]
10These sentencing principles fall to be applied in the context of your own personal circumstances and to these I now turn. Much of your background is contained in a psychological assessment of Jeffrey Cummins dated 16 October 2024. Your counsel further supplemented this.
11You are currently 30 and you have no previous criminal history.
12You have two older brothers, one younger sister and two half siblings on your mother's side. Your mother has worked as a support worker and your father works as an electrical engineer. They separated when you were approximately seven and you have a positive relationship with each. Your mother re-partnered when you were around seven and you had a good relationship with your stepfather until he left your mother when you were about 16.
13You report being close with your second eldest brother who is an aerospace engineer, and your younger sister working at an employment agency. You have limited contact with an older brother and none of your family have been in trouble with the law.
14After completing Year 12 you commenced a Bachelor of Nursing. You did not complete this and describe withdrawing from the course as you felt overwhelmed, finding it difficult to organise yourself.
15You then completed a Diploma in Dental Technology, obtaining employment at an orthodontic clinic. You worked there for approximately five years until you went on maternity leave, and you have not had further paid employment since. You are currently on a supporting parent's pension. Your first relationship of substance was when you were about 18 and ended approximately two years later.
16You have then been in a de facto relationship with Joshua Merrett, and he is the father of your two children. This relationship lasted for about 10 years. Both of your children are under four years of age. You report having been introduced to the drug ice by Joshua and that you began using it when you were about 20. You describe stopping using the drug throughout your pregnancies and for a few months after the birth of each of your children but then returned to using it. You report that both yourself and Joshua were drug users and that he would sell drugs and use ice daily. You describe a relationship which was abusive and controlling and drug fuelled.
17Regarding your offending, you told Mr Cummins:
Well Joshua set things up so that I would do this offending and he was doing this offending himself, he made the ABN for me. I had no car, therefore Joshua had control over me, he'd say 'well by committing this offending you can get yourself a car'. With the money I got from this he'd handle the money but then he'd give me some of the money for gambling and for drugs and I'd become a bit of a spendaholic.
18You said:
I'm smart enough to know that I'd eventually be caught and look, now I've been caught and I've been charged and I've been told I could go to jail for this. I need help to completely break away from Josh. I guess with what he's been charged with, he'll probably end up going to jail and maybe that would be my opportunity to really break free from him. I want to break free from him and I no longer love him.
19Mr Cummins states:
Joshua has been subjecting coercive control over her and she is therefore being and continues to be the victim survivor of intimate partner violence.
20In addition to a number of written references which have been submitted on your behalf, I heard evidence from your mother. She impressed me as an honest and forthright witness. She described observing a change in your demeanour, for the worse, during the course of your relationship with Joshua. She described observing behaviour of his which she said was controlling. She spoke of him making you late and demanding that you leave family functions and describes you having been alienated and isolated from your family. She describes Joshua as being disrespectful toward members of your family, in particular, your father.
21She recounted that family members had only recently learned of your offending and the true nature of your relationship with Joshua. She spoke of the ongoing support which the family are prepared to provide to you.
22The prosecution does not take any issue with Mr Cummins' characterisation of your relationship with Joshua, nor with any of the evidence that your mother gave.
23I was told that Joshua had also been charged with similar offending, involving a greater quantum, spanning from 10 January to 8 August 2022 and that his plea was at the initial listing of your matter, to be in a couple of weeks.
24It seems you have little, if anything, to show for your offending, describing to Mr Cummins that you spent the money on ice and gambling. Mr Cummins describes you as having had a major depressive disorder during the currency of your offending period and relationship with Joshua. He states:
There was a genuine nexus between her offending and her suffering from a major depressive disorder, her illicit drug use and gambling. In my opinion her moral culpability was impaired at the time she offended by virtue of her suffering from a major depressive disorder and being the victim of coercive control and being in a toxic relationship.
25He further states:
If she was incarcerated, her mental health would inevitably deteriorate because she would miss having contact with her children.
26I allow for some reduction of your moral culpability and the allied punitive aims of sentencing in light of the uncontested link between your mental state of major depressive disorder and your offending.
27As I have earlier referenced, you have two children and whilst they are capable of being cared for by family members, your separation from them would, I accept, obviously occasion hardship to you and to the children, and in addition to the members of the family who had to take on the role of carer.
28In particular, I accept that given the circumstances of your offending, that your moral culpability is reduced, and it follows the punitive aspects of sentencing have a lesser role to play given my finding of your reduced moral culpability, consequent upon the nature of your relationship with Joshua Merrett and his influence over you.
29Since confiding in your family regarding your offending, steps have been taken, in particular by your mother, to engage you in the provision of therapeutic services. In summary, you had been seeing a psychologist, however, now have had an appointment with a psychiatrist and it was proposed that that person provide you with ongoing treatment. You had also sought assistance from Odyssey House with respect to your drug abuse and had only recently been appointed a case manager from that organisation. The nature of what ongoing rehabilitative programs that they may have been able to offer you was earlier unable to be determined. You had further been assessed by an organisation known as 'The Orange Door' dealing with victims of violent and/or coercive relationships and in addition you had commenced being medicated by your general practitioner.
30It was in this context that I acceded to your counsel's request to defer the further sentencing of you for a period of time to enable your capacity for, and prospects of, rehabilitation to be better assessed, and to allow you to demonstrate that rehabilitation had in fact taken place with respect to you. The further plea and my sentencing of you then takes place today on 4 August 2025, with the previous hearing of your matter having been before me on 1 November of 2024.
31I have been told that in the interim period you have become pregnant and are due to give birth in October of this year. That you are no longer subject to the influence of your co offender who is currently serving a term of imprisonment.
32From 9 to 20 January of 2025 you attended De Paul House, attached to St Vincent's Hospital, to detoxify from drug abuse in a supervised manner. You then attended The Bridge Program for some 11 weeks, which is a residential drug rehabilitation program. The Bridge Program is described as an intensive community integrated residential rehabilitation program for individuals recovering from substance misuse issues. That during the program residents are required to always remain on the premises other than pre-approved leave, to abstain from using illicit substances and to work co-operatively with staff. It is said that during your time in the program, you were completing overnight leaves on the weekend with the support of her family. At The Bridge Program, residents are encouraged to regularly engage in individual counselling sessions and therapeutic support whilst also participating in daily psychoeducational group activities. Initially you were granted some two hours' leave per weekend which enabled you to meet your children and your mother, their grandmother, at a café each weekend.
33After about four weeks, you were permitted to stay overnight for one night at your mother's residence and this was for you to have contact with your children. You were subjected to urinalysis on your return to the facility and were required to provide an account of your movements and whereabouts during your absence. To the extent that punitive aspects of your residency have been made known to me, I have taken them into account. Following your departure from the program, you have engaged with your general practitioner as well as a psychiatrist. Monthly urine screens tendered to the court demonstrate your abstinence from drug abuse.
34Various references have been also tendered on the return of these proceedings, and these speak of your efforts at rehabilitation and of the support which is available to you.
35
Youi have used your time since early 2024, I accept, to turn your life around. Your progress really has been exceptional, which combined with the role of your
co- offender in the offending, places your case into, in my view, an exceptional category.
36So far as the hardship which an actual term of imprisonment will cause to your dependent children, when a person is being sentenced for a Commonwealth offence, the relevant provision is s16A(2)(p) of the Crimes Act (Cth), and this requires the sentencing court to consider 'the probable effect of any sentence on the offender's family or dependants'. I am of the view that your being required to serve an actual term of imprisonment would occasion very considerable hardship to your young children who have a close bond with you and one of whom suffers from a number of developmental issues such that they meet the criteria for NDIS support and are currently being investigated in regard to this.
37Documentation from the NDIS states:
This notice tells you the category of impairments for which Oakley is a participant in the NDIS. The categories of impairments are intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory, physical and impairments relating to a psychosocial disability. Oakley meets the early intervention requirements with developmental delay and the full extent of his deficits is still under investigation.
Oakley I am told is only two years of age.
38In addition, I take into account your early plea of guilty in this matter and that it has facilitated the course of justice.
39I further accept that on the whole of the materials, you are remorseful for your offending conduct.
40I also take into account the delay between your interview by investigators in mid-2022, and subsequent charging with offences and my sentencing of you today, approximately some three years later. I accept that you have had to live with the uncertainty of the outcome of your matter, and the likely imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. In addition, I accept as I have said, that a process of rehabilitation has commenced in the interim with your determination to end your relationship with your abusive and controlling partner, who is now undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, as well as the steps which you have taken to address your drug abuse.
41In fixing an appropriate sentence of you, I must have regard to the sentencing principle of parity. The parity principle reflects the notion that those who commit the same or similar offences should be treated equally, save where differences in an offender's age, background, previous criminal history and general character, and/or the part which each played in the commission of the offence, justify the imposition of different sentences[2]. The purpose of the principle is to ensure consistency in punishment[3].
[2] See Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584, 608 [65] (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ); [2001] HCA 64; Postiglione [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295, 301–2 (Dawson and Gaudron JJ); [1997] HCA 26; Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462, 472–3 [28] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ); [2011] HCA 49 (‘Green’).
[3] See Kellway (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 109, [124] (Emerton P, Niall and Kaye JJA) (‘Kellway’).
42This important sentencing principle is not confined solely to co-offenders, in the sense of persons who are charged with the same offence. Rather, it applies in a broader range of circumstances. Given the proximity in time, place and circumstance of Joshua Merrett's offending to yours, it seems inescapable to me that you fit within this broad umbrella, see for example Farrugia[4]
[4] Farrugia v The Queen [2011] VSCA 24, at [27]
43Here your co- offender, Joshua Merrett, was sentenced by Her Honour Judge Leighfield of this court on 15 April 2025. On Charge 1, of dishonestly obtaining a benefit from a Commonwealth entity, which involved him lodging 31 business activity statements from 16 June 2021 to June of 2022, in the sum of 394,801, he received a term of two years and six months' imprisonment. On Charge 2, of attempting to do the same, involving a further 15 business activity statements claiming credits of $336,193, he received a term of two years' imprisonment. His total effective sentence was two years and 11 months' imprisonment with release by way of recognisance release order after serving one year and eight months' imprisonment.
44Here there are relative differences between the two of you which justified differing sentencing outcomes. Your moral culpability is, I accept, less than Joshua Merrett's, as is the quantum of your offending to name two obvious differences. In addition, you are the carer of your two children and have engaged successfully in impressive rehabilitation in the intervening period between November of last year and August of this year.
45Balancing all matters notwithstanding the mitigatory matters available to be put on your behalf, I am of the view that a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate in all the circumstances of your offending.
46The prosecution accepts that immediate release on recognisance is within range in your case and independently of this concession I have come to the same conclusion.
47I propose to sentence you to a total effective sentence of 22 months' imprisonment and direct your release by way of recognisance release order immediately.
48Before I make the order, I am required to explain the purpose and effect of the proposed recognisance release order, the consequences that may flow if you without reasonable excuse or cause, fail to comply with conditions of the proposed order and that any recognisance given in accordance with the order may be discharged or varied.
49The purpose and effect of the recognisance release order is to grant you conditional freedom immediately after its commencement. The conditions are that you be of good behaviour for a period of 24 months. If you breach the recognisance release order, you will be brought back before the court, most likely before me, to be dealt with for that breach and you may be required to serve the remaining term of imprisonment, or the order may be extended or revoked. A breach would also mean that the sum of $1,000 would be forfeited. In addition to what I have said, I direct your counsel explain to you the workings and operation of the order, and the consequences of any breach of it.
50I propose to achieve the total effective sentence I have outlined by imposing the following individual sentences.
51On Charge 1, I sentence you to 20 months' imprisonment.
52On Charge 2, I sentence you to six months' imprisonment.
53
The sentence imposed on Charge 1 is to commence today, and the sentence imposed on Charge 2 is to commence four months prior to the expiration of the sentence imposed on Charge 1, which ought make a total effective sentence of
22 months' imprisonment.
54I will direct your release pursuant to recognisance immediately if you are prepared to undertake that. What I propose then is that if I just briefly stand down, the document is being prepared, and if she is agreeable, Ms Parviainen can enter into it by signing it, and if you would make sure she understands what her obligations are and what the consequences of any breach may be of it, and then if there is no problems with - or if there is any problems with the sentence, just alert me to it when I come back.
55MS BARRETT: As Your Honour pleases.
56HIS HONOUR: Yes. Thanks.
57MR BROWN: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
(Short adjournment.)
58HIS HONOUR: All right. Thanks, Mr Brown. You have explained all that to your client?
59MR BROWN: Yes, thank you, Your Honour, I've explained that. It's been understood and consented to and been signed.
60HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you.
61MR BROWN: Thank you.
62HIS HONOUR: And no problems with the sentence, the structure or the arithmetic?
63MS BARRETT: No, Your Honour, I was just going to note the reparation order for completeness.
64HIS HONOUR: Yes, no, that is okay. I will make that order. That is pursuant to s21B(3) is it not?
65MS BARRETT: It is, Your Honour.
66HIS HONOUR: And that is a direction to repay the sum of $230,720, and in addition I am required to state the sentence that I would have imposed but for the plea of guilty, and whilst that is a highly artificial exercise in that it seeks to pluck one matter out in isolation and ascribe a value to it, nonetheless, but for your guilty plea, I would have imposed a sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment and directed that you not be eligible for release until the expiration of two years.
67MS BARRETT: As Your Honour pleases.
68MR BROWN: As the court pleases.
69HIS HONOUR: Is there anything else required?
70MS BARRETT: No, Your Honour.
- - -
0
9
0