Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Robert Bart Doff

Case [2005] NSWSC 51


CITATION:

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Robert Bart Doff [2005] NSWSC 51

HEARING DATE(S): 17 December 2004, 11 February 2005
 
JUDGMENT DATE : 


11 February 2005

JUDGMENT OF:

Barr J at 1

DECISION:

Defendant ordered to pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty of $37,255.75.

PARTIES:

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Bart Doff

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 14163/2004

COUNSEL:

P Byrne SC
M Buscombe and P R McGuire

SOLICITORS:

John De Mestre & Co
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 2 -

      IN THE SUPREME COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES
      COMMON LAW DIVISION

      GRAHAM BARR J

      11 FEBRUARY 2005

      14163/2004 COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
              PROSECUTIONS v ROBERT BART DOFF
      JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions for an order under s116 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 that the defendant, Robert Bart Doff, pay to the Commonwealth an amount determined by the Court. On 19 November 2004 the defendant was found guilty by a jury of the offence of insider trading. I have today imposed sentence on Mr Doff, ordering him to serve a number of hours of community service work and fining him.

2 Section 116 requires the Court to make an order of the kind sought here if the Director of Public Prosecutions applies for it and the Court is satisfied that the defendant has been convicted of an indictable offence and has derived benefits therefrom and that the offence is a serious offence. A serious offence includes one punishable by imprisonment for three years or more. The maximum period of imprisonment that may be imposed for the offence of which the defendant has been convicted is five years, so his offence is a serious one. The Director of Public Prosecutions has made out his case for an order.

3 The manner of determining the amount of any pecuniary penalty order is prescribed by Chapter 2, Part 2 – 4 Division 2 of the Act. As that Division applies to the present case the amount of the order is the total amount of benefits received by the defendant, without deduction of outgoings. It is agreed that the total proceeds derived by the defendant’s company Jetoten Pty Limited upon the sale of the shares was $67,255.75. Since Jetoten Pty Limited was under the control of the defendant, the proceeds came under the control of the defendant. He therefore received a benefit equivalent to that sum.

4 The only deduction the Court may make as the Act applies to this case is that provided by s132, by which the Court may if it considers it appropriate reduce the pecuniary penalty amount by an amount equal to that of any fine payable by the defendant for the same offence.

5 I have today imposed a fine of $30,000.00 on the defendant and I consider it appropriate to reduce the amount of the pecuniary penalty order that I shall make by an amount equal to that amount. The order that I make, therefore, is as follows -

1. Order that the defendant pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty of $37,255.75.

      ************
Details
AGLC
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Robert Bart Doff [2005] NSWSC 51
Case
[2005] NSWSC 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Robert Bart Doff is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions seeking a pecuniary penalty order against Robert Bart Doff under section 116 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Doff had been found guilty of insider trading by a jury on 19 November 2004. The Supreme Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Graham Barr, heard the matter on 17 December 2004 and 11 February 2005, resulting in a judgment on 11 February 2005.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defendant had derived benefits from the offence, whether the offence was serious, and the appropriate amount of the pecuniary penalty order. The court found that the offence of insider trading was serious, as it carried a maximum imprisonment term of five years, and that the defendant had derived a benefit of $67,255.75 from the sale of shares by his company, Jetoten Pty Limited. The court further determined that a fine of $30,000 had already been imposed on Doff, and thus, the pecuniary penalty order should be reduced by that amount.

Justice Barr concluded that the appropriate order was for Doff to pay a pecuniary penalty of $37,255.75 to the Commonwealth of Australia. This decision was based on the total proceeds derived by Jetoten Pty Limited, less the fine imposed for the same offence. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the circumstances of the case. The final order was that Doff pay $37,255.75, reflecting the total proceeds less the fine already imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.