Director of Public Prosecutions v Abbot

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-25-00751

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

LEIGH ABBOT

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE ENGLISH
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 November 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 November 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Abbot
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 1713

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCING
Catchwords:              Obtaining a financial advantage by deception
Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958 s 82(1) – Sentencing Act 1991 s 5(2)
Cases Cited:DPP v McLeod [2023] VCC 2213; DPP v Zafiratos [2020] VCC 377; R v Grossi [2008] VSCA 51; R v Cusack [2009] VSCA 207; R v Do (2007) 180 A Crim R 338; DPP v Brotherton [2020] VCC 2026
Sentence:                  Total effective sentence of 9 months imprisonment with a community corrections order of 2 years with treatment and supervision conditions

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms A. Dearman	Ms S. Fetherstonhaugh
For the Accused	Mr B. Tait (solicitor advocate)	Tait Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Leigh Abbot you have pleaded guilty to four rolled-up counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception, contrary to s 82(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
The maximum penalty for each offence is 10 years' imprisonment.
Circumstances of offending
There were four victims to your offending. This summary is taken from the agreed prosecution opening:
Charge 2 - Alexandra Whitehouse
The amount you dishonestly obtained from Ms Whitehouse was $4,000 by way of three separate amounts transferred to your account on a single day, 19 April 2023. You have repaid $600.
On 15 April 2023 you met Ms Whitehouse at The Grand Hotel on the Gold Coast. After speaking for a few hours, you told Ms Whitehouse your father had passed away and you were visiting from Melbourne to attend the funeral on 18 April 2023.
On 16 April 2023 you went for dinner with Ms Whitehouse and discussed your upbringing in Tasmania. You continued messaging Ms Whitehouse after that night.
On 19 April 2023 you asked Ms Whitehouse if you could borrow some money and sent a text. I have included the text in my written judgment, I am not going to read them out:
Hey babe just at airport now.. sorting out with bank when they will release the money… such a hassle.. if I get stuck can I get a small loan off you. Trying to get hold of family but there all flying lol.. it’s OK if you can’t.. just cost me 25 grand for funeral.. and used up all my leave at work.. don’t stress if you can’t though ok there is no pressure xx [love heart kiss emoji]
Ms Whitehouse agreed and transferred $1,000 to your NAB account. This transfer is transaction 1 of Charge 2.
Later on 19 April 2023 you told Ms Whitehouse that the cost of transferring your dad's belongings was more than expected, and you asked to borrow a further $1,000. Ms Whitehouse agreed and transferred $1,000 to your NAB account. This transfer is transaction 2 of Charge 2.
Later on 19 April 2023 you told Ms Whitehouse you had not received any money, and asked for another $2,000 and Ms Whitehouse agreed and sent the money at 7:50 pm. This is transaction 3 of Charge 2.
Your NAB bank statement shows that on 19 April 2023 before Ms Whitehouse transferred money to you, your account balance was $3.53. After receiving the money you made two $500 purchases and one $1,000 purchase via EFTPOS on the online betting platform 'Ladbrokes'.
On 20 April 2023 you asked Ms Whitehouse for a further $2,000 and advised you would repay her $6,000 when you received the inheritance from your dad. Ms Whitehouse declined to transfer you any further money.
In October 2023 you repaid $400 to Ms Whitehouse and on 24 January 2024 you transferred a further $200 to her. Ms Whitehouse had commenced a new relationship, but asked you to transfer her the $3,400 still owing. She last asked you for the money in March 2024.
The total quantum of Charge 2 is $4,000 made over the three transfers. You dishonestly represented the funds were for the purchase of legitimate personal items.
Charge 1 - Susan Henriksen
The amount you dishonestly obtained from Ms Henriksen was $15,000 by way of three separate amounts transferred to your account by request between 12 December and 19 December 2023. You have repaid $1,200.
On 18 December 2023 you began messaging Ms Henriksen on the internet dating app 'Zoosk'. Shortly after this you exchanged phone numbers and started texting. You sent Ms Henriksen a number of selfies and moved your chat to WhatsApp.
Later that day you told Ms Henriksen you were buying a work car, that you had taken an Uber to Warburton which had cost $300. You told her that there was a fault with your Commonwealth Bank banking app and you could not access your account to transfer funds across to your NAB account because of poor reception. You provided Ms Henriksen with your bank account details and asked her to put money in your account as you did not have enough for the car. You said you would pay her back the following Thursday. Ms Henriksen transferred $1,700 into your account.
Between 18 September 2023 and 7 December 2023 you communicated daily via text or WhatsApp with Ms Henriksen. During that time, you asked Ms Henriksen for money to help with expenses including rent, gym membership and bills. In total Ms Henriksen transferred you $95,452.01 in this time period.
On 27 November 2023 you transferred $1,000 to Ms Henriksen.
In early December 2023 you told Ms Henriksen you had to travel to Sydney at short notice to complete a course for work. You asked Ms Henriksen for money to cover expenses including flights and accommodation. You told her there was $30,000 in a safe at your home to pay her back.
On Saturday 9 December 2023, while you were in Victoria, you dishonestly represented to Ms Henriksen you needed a hire truck to drive back from Sydney.
Ms Henriksen applied for a loan and was approved. On 12 December 2023 she transferred $8,000 to your NAB account. This is transaction 1 of Charge 1.
After receiving the money, you made a purchase via EFTPOS at Ladbrokes of $290, and a purchase at TAB Limited of $950. You also transferred $5,000 to another account in the name of 'Leigh'.
On 15 December 2023, you transferred $1,200 to Ms Henriksen.
On 18 December 2023, you dishonestly represented to Ms Henriksen that you needed some money to extend your stay in Sydney. You asked for $5,000 in a WhatsApp message, which is included in my judgment:
So work said they cant send anyone up babe so job needs to be completed by me… but they will owe me 20 grand for job but they get invoice when I finish it here… plus will sell 1 of my bikes to pay you also that’s another 25 grand.. plus money that’s in safe… at home.. so am thinkn u should get 10 grand loan keep half for yourself and give me 5 grand.. and I will book hotel for longer here ??
After some further messaging, you then asked Ms Henriksen to transfer $2,000 now and $4,000 later.
At 4:33 pm Ms Henriksen confirmed on a WhatsApp message that she has transferred $2,000 to your NAB account. This is transaction 2 of Charge 1. On the same day you transferred $2,000 into another account in the name of 'Leigh'.
On 19 December 2023 you dishonestly represented to Ms Henriksen that you needed to further extend your hotel booking by two weeks at a cost of $3,000. You said in a WhatsApp message, which is included in my judgment:
Heh babe I just got to hotel I have to book 2 more weeks 14 days.. so it cost me 3000… now I am broke… till I drive down.. need to get food and stuff shortly I might need 7 grand all up not sure if you can do it but let me know ok .. So if you get 4000 loan try another 1 after that then I am.sorted.. xx
The following day Ms Henriksen transferred $5,000 into your NAB account. This is transaction 3 of Charge 1. After receiving the money, you made a purchase on EFTPOS of $290 at Ladbrokes, and $1,200 on EFTPOS at TAB Limited. At 2:07 pm you withdrew $800 from an ATM at Milleara Shopping Centre in Keilor East and transferred $3,500 into another account in the name of 'Leigh'.
At 7:38 pm on 19 December 2023 you sent another WhatsApp message to Ms Henriksen asking her to take out a further loan, so that there was $9,000 all up and that she would give $5,000 to you.
At 12:51 am on 20 December 2023 Ms Henriksen sent you a WhatsApp message saying her application for a loan had been unsuccessful. In a subsequent message exchange, you suggested she use equity on her house to apply for more money, and that you only needed another $6,000 and that it would cover everything.
On 21 December 2023 Ms Henriksen booked an appointment with the NAB home loan lender team. It was identified that seven personal loans had been approved in one month, which was unusual, and noted that all the funds were transferred to another NAB customer, being you.
NAB requested that Ms Henriksen attend the NAB Colac branch on 22 December 2023 to discuss the activity with a NAB employee, Louise Morrissy. At the appointment, Ms Morrissy and Ms Henriksen called NAB fraud to make a report. NAB fraud blocked both yours and Ms Henriksen's accounts.
On 24 December 2023 Ms Henriksen and Ms Morrissy attended Colac police station to report the offending.
The total quantum for Charge 1 is $15,000.
Charge 3 - Brooke Tinsley
The amount you dishonestly obtained from Ms Tinsley was $1,150 by way of six separate transfers to your account by request between 9 February and 16 March 2024. You have repaid $200.
In November 2023 you began messaging Brooke Tinsley on the internet dating app Zoosk. You told Ms Tinsley that you live in Tasmania, which later changed to Melbourne. You also told Ms Tinsley you had a friend who lived near her in Sydney and that you planned to visit soon and you would meet up with her on that visit.
Over the next few months you messaged occasionally over WhatsApp.
On 27 January 2024 you told Ms Tinsley that your car had broken down 200 kilometres out of Melbourne, that you did not have reception or roadside assistance and were unable to get in touch with family for help. Ms Tinsley transferred you $300 to cover the tow truck and Uber and you responded you would give her 350 back. That evening you paid Ms Tinsley $300.
On 2 February 2024 you told Ms Tinsley you were buying a new car. You said your app was not loading and you could not transfer money. Ms Tinsley did not transfer any money at this time.
On 9 February 2024 at 10:58 am you messaged Ms Tinsley and said you had forgot your lunch at work, you could not transfer money because you had reached your 24 hour limit and asked for $100. You told Ms Tinsley you would fix her up at 4:00 pm. At the time of the request you had 80 cents in your Westpac account.
Ms Tinsley transferred you $100. This is transaction 1 of Charge 3. This transfer had the description 'lunch hehe'.
Later on 9 February 2024 you told Ms Tinsley you had to use the $100 for fuel and you requested a further $150. At 11:23 am Ms Tinsley transferred a further $150. This is transaction 2 of Charge 3.
At 1:55 pm you messaged Ms Tinsley and said your car loan came out and that you were at a service station and you could not leave until you paid for your fuel. You told Ms Tinsley you were going home now and would fix her up in just over an hour.
At 1:58 pm Ms Tinsley transferred you $200. This is transaction 3 of Charge 3. Ms Tinsley advised you that she had made the transfer, but she really did need the money back.
At 2:2 7pm you messaged Ms Tinsley and said there was a big crash on the highway, that there were delays of five hours and that the best bet was for you to get your neighbour to get your wallet and bring it to you so you could go to the bank.
At 2:42 pm you messaged Ms Tinsley and said you could not get home, that you were going to get a neighbour to grab your wallet and take an Uber to meet you. You told Ms Tinsley your neighbour could not afford the Uber so you needed another $250, and that your neighbour would use your Uber App. You told Ms Tinsley you would repay her $1,500 at 4 pm.
At 2:44 pm Ms Tinsley responded saying she had transferred you $250. This is transaction 4 of Charge 3.
Ms Tinsley further messaged saying 'Please, please, please don't leave me with nothing. You don't need to give me $1500, just what I've transferred. I'll be beyond fucked without [that] money though'. You responded, 'I got you don't stress'.
At 3:24 pm you messaged Ms Tinsley and said the Uber is stuck in traffic, he (being your neighbour) is going to be late. You said you had called the Uber to go to the closest bank, which was 45 minutes away, and you would be there by 4:30 pm. You said you needed $250 to get to the bank by 4:30 pm. You said you had to do it today as you were working on site at 4 am every day until the end of next week, and that you had to do it for Ms Tinsley now.
Ms Tinsley transferred you a further $250. This is transaction 5 of Charge 3.
At the end of the day you transferred all the money Ms Tinsley had transferred you, totalling $950, into another account named 'Leigh'.
On 10 February 2024 Ms Tinsley asked you to repay her. You said you were getting it done shortly, and that you had not messaged because your phone was not charged and you were saving it for a phone call.
On 12 February 2024 Ms Tinsley sent you a further message asking for you to repay her.
On 13 February 2024 you responded saying you had smashed your phone which was why you had not responded.
Over the next few weeks you continued to message Ms Tinsley. You asked her on numerous occasions for further money. Ms Tinsley did not transfer you any further money.
On 15 March 2024 you asked for Ms Tinsley's bank account details. On that day you repaid her $200.
On 16 March 2024 you sent Ms Tinsley a message and said the union had kicked you off site and you could not go back to work. You asked for $300 to get an Uber back and you said you would then transfer her $1,200.
Ms Tinsley said that the $200 you had transferred the previous day had cleared into her account, and she transferred you back that $200. This is transaction 6 of Charge 3.
The total quantum subject of Charge 3 is $1,150 paid between 9 February and 16 March 2024 over six transfers. For all transfers you dishonestly represented the funds were for the purchase of legitimate personal items.
Charge 4 - Rebecca Scott
The amount you dishonestly obtained from Ms Scott was $2,030 by way of 12 separate amounts transferred to your account by request between 10 February and 29 March 2024. No repayments have been made.
In late January or early February 2024 you began messaging Ms Scott on Zoosk. Shortly after, you began messaging on WhatsApp.
On 8 February 2024 you had a video call via WhatsApp with Ms Scott. In this call you told her you were on your way to Lang Lang to buy a work car. You told Ms Scott that you were in an Uber that cost $300 and that you were having trouble logging onto your banking app. You told Ms Scott the car was advertised for $7,000 and you had negotiated the sale down to $5,900. You asked her for $900 to pay for a deposit on the car and that you would pay her back 'tonight or tomorrow'.
Ms Scott told you to contact the bank to find out what was happening with the banking app. You told her you were on hold with a wait time of half an hour. You asked her again for the money but Ms Scott said she was unable to transfer you any money.
On 10 February 2024 you told Ms Scott that a guy at work had loaned you $500 and asked her for $300 so you could pay an $800 deposit for the car. You told her you would go into the NAB bank on Monday and fix up your banking app. Ms Scott asked how she could get the money to you, and you said you had accounts with Westpac and the Commonwealth Bank. You told her you would pay her back Monday, that you have no family and it is hard not knowing anyone in Melbourne.
Ms Scott transferred $300 into your Commonwealth Bank account. This is transaction 1 of Charge 4.
Approximately 10 minutes later you contacted Ms Scott again and said that the car owner's wife wanted $1,100 and you asked for a further $300. When she refused, you asked for a reduced amount and she transferred you $150. This is transaction 2 of Charge 4. Your bank statement shows that after receiving these two transactions, being a total of $450, you withdrew $270 cash from an ATM.
On 12 February 2024, being the Monday you had told Ms Scott you would repay her, you messaged her and said that you were in Euroa, returning that day. You said you could not drive back the night before as a headlight on your car was not working properly. You also said you had to go to the Gold Coast to sign paperwork for your dad's estate, which had taken a year to go through. You asked for 'one last favour' and said you needed to fill up your car, which was empty, and you asked if she could lend you $100 because a mate had not given you money.
Ms Scott said she had given you the last of what she had, she had not paid her bills and you responded with 'LOL'. She transferred you $50 for petrol and told you this was all she had. This is transaction 3 of Charge 4.
You told Ms Scott that petrol was $2.37 per litre and you would not make it to Melbourne and you would have to pull over for the night.
Your bank statement shows that after receiving $50 from Ms Scott, you had a balance of $455.43.
On 13 February 2024 you made four purchases with Ladbrokes totalling $330.
On 14 February 2024 you told Ms Scott you had tried to get a loan online, but your credit rating was not good from when you were young. You asked if you could borrow $100 and you would repay her $500 by 3:00 pm that day.
On 16 February 2024, Ms Scott transferred you $130 to pay for petrol. This is transaction 4 of Charge 4.
You then told Ms Scott that money had come out of your bank account for a gym membership and you did not have enough money for petrol. You asked Ms Scott for another $100. You said you had used a garden hose to take petrol out of a mate's car and that $100 would definitely be enough to get you home. Ms Scott agreed and transferred you $100. This is transaction 5 of Charge 4.
You then told Ms Scott you had not received the money. You said you would give her $1,000 when you got home, but because the money had not gone through to your Commonwealth Bank account, you asked her to transfer $150 into your Westpac account. Ms Scott agreed and transferred you $150. This is transaction 6 of Charge 4.
Later that day you told Ms Scott that your car had broken down 100 kilometres out of Melbourne. You said you would Uber home but required another $150. Ms Scott offered to drive to pick you up but you refused. Ms Scott transferred you another $150. This is transaction 7 of Charge 4.
You did not speak to Ms Scott for a few days. On 20 February 2024 she reported you on Zoosk for fraud. She also sent a message saying she needed to report you to the police.
On 1 March 2024 you sent a message to Ms Scott asking if she had received your messages. You then said she could come and pick up money from your place tomorrow. You then asked for a further $300 for an Uber home from work. Ms Scott did not meet up with you or send you money.
On 8 March 2024 you sent another message to Ms Scott asking for money for an Uber. Ms Scott, wanting to get her money back and thinking she should transfer you the money otherwise she would never see the other money owed by you, transferred $100 to your Commonwealth Bank account. This is transaction 8 of Charge 4.
On 9 March 2024, in two purchases via EFTPOS, you paid $1,000 to Ladbrokes. On the same day, you dishonestly represented to Ms Scott that the Uber you had booked the previous day had changed price and you needed more money. You told Ms Scott you would repay her later that day if she transferred you more money. You also asked Ms Scott to apply for a loan online. Ms Scott transferred you $200. This is transaction 9 of Charge 4.

On 12 March 2024 you paid $200 via EFTPOS to Ladbrokes.
On 19 March 2024 you asked Ms Scott for another $200 for an Uber. Ms Scott did not transfer you any money.
On 22 March 2024 you told Ms Scott you really needed money for an Uber. You told Ms Scott you would pay her back $2,400 after work. Ms Scott transferred you $250. This is transaction 11 of Charge 4.[1] That day you made two payments via EFTPOS to Ladbrokes totalling $557.
[1] By agreement between the parties, an alleged transaction originally labelled ‘transaction 10’ is no longer the subject of Charge 4.
You did not contact Ms Scott again until 26 March 2024. You asked for another $400 for an Uber home. You told Ms Scott you would reimburse her $3,500 or you would otherwise be stuck where you were for another eight weeks. Ms Scott did not transfer you any money.
On 29 March 2024 you asked Ms Scott for another $200 for an Uber. Ms Scott transferred you the $200. This is transaction 12 of Charge 4.
On 12 April 2024, you told Ms Scott you were going to Port Headland for work, and she would have to wait for your return to be repaid.
The total quantum the subject of Charge 4 is $2,030 paid between 10 February 2024 and 29 March 2024 over 12 transfers. During this period, you dishonestly represented that the funds were for the purchase of legitimate personal items.
Nature and gravity of offending
Your offending involved four different victims and occurred over a period of 11 months from April 2023 to March 2024. There were multiple transactions for each victim ranging from three to 12. The number of victims and the length of the conduct are objective indicators of the gravity of offending.
You met one victim in person at a hotel on the Gold Coast and the other three you targeted from the internet dating app Zoosk. They were all women who hoped to have a romantic relationship with you, which you encouraged and they were vulnerable to your manipulation.
Your text messages indicated you used the words 'babe', 'sexy' and symbols such as 'xx' and the 'love heart kiss' emoji liberally in your communications with these victims indicating the existence of a romantic relationship. You and your victims texted descriptions of sexual acts you wanted to perform on each other, as well as exchanging intimate images and videos of yourself.
You took advantage of this emotional engagement and trust to extract funds from these victims. You preyed upon and took advantage of your victims' collective good nature.
You were also persistent in your requests for funds, inventive with your complicated stories about needing funds. You were quick to seemingly empathise with your victims when they expressed concerns about your requests for funds such as texting back 'I got you babe', and 'I got you don't stress xx' and promising repayment when concerns were raised. You also made small random occasional repayments which were no doubt strategic to engender trust and thus worked as a mechanism to extract more funds. On one occasion you repaid $200 only to immediately request '300 for Uber' and the $200 was immediately transferred back to you by a victim.
There is an intimate context to your financial deceptions of vulnerable victims who were looking for relationships which was calculated and deliberate. Your moral culpability is high. It is moderated somewhat by the value of your offending which totals $22,180 and is at the lower end of objective seriousness. However, I note that despite working fulltime since this offending you have only repaid $2,000. I note you consent to four compensation orders totalling $20,180.
Personal Circumstances
You are 45 years old. You have an older brother. Your parents separated when you were 17 and you described them as 'pathological gamblers'. You left school after Year 10 and moved out of home at 18. You have been employed as a concreter and more recently in demolition.
You have not had any significant intimate relationships, have no children and are single. You currently live in shared accommodation. You are prescribed escitalopram for anxiety and depression, which you relate to your current situation.
Your mother died in 2022 and your father died in 2024.
Submissions
Ms Dearman, who appeared on behalf of the prosecution, submitted a combination sentence is within range noting the maximum term of imprisonment that can be combined with a community corrections order.
Ms Dearman submitted that your gambling addiction can be used as motive and explanation for the commission of offences, not as a mental condition that has impaired your judgment at the time of offending.
You have relevant prior convictions having been sentenced in Perth District Court of Western Australia to five years and six months imprisonment in relation to similar offending in which multiple victims were defrauded a total amount of $157,610. The prosecution submission contended you recommenced gambling after serving your sentence as indicated by cash withdrawals from TAB outlets of $73,000 between October 2021 and May 2024 and between March 2022 and May 2024 $247,000 deposits to your Ladbrokes account.
Ms Dearman submitted that your prospects for rehabilitation are 'poor'.
Mr Tait on your behalf conceded a term of imprisonment is appropriate which he submitted be served in the community by way of a community corrections order to meet sentencing purposes of punishment and rehabilitation. His submissions focussed on your plea of guilty, your acknowledgement of your wrongdoing, and the work you are doing towards your rehabilitation and that you are willing to repay your victims.
Mr Tait submits your gambling addiction can be used to assess your prospects for rehabilitation.
He noted that despite serving a substantial period of imprisonment in Western Australia you have never had treatment for your gambling addiction. You are now having counselling with IPC Health and he referred to a letter by Josh Phitri Therapeutic Counsellor dated 31 October 2025 confirming you have engaged in therapeutic counselling since 10 June 2025. A reference from your employer, Synergy Demolition Group confirmed your employment as a casual there since 2024.
Mr Tait also referred to a report from Forensic Psychologist and Clinical Neuropsychotherapist Mr David Ball, dated 31 October 2025.
In his report Mr Ball stated you completed the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory on which he noted you returned an invalid profile and as a result of excessive numbers of positive responses meaning you denied or minimised most symptoms including those that might normally occur in general populations. Following his mental status examination he noted:
‘Overall, Mr Abbot impressed me as a man with the capacity to exercise generally good judgement and ability to plan and execute positive and self-sustaining behaviours. He presented as a high functioning and generally intelligent man and with insight into his general psychological functioning.’
Mr Ball went on to note that you engaged in the clinical interview providing a limited, disjointed and at times tangential personal history. Mr Ball noted he had no way of confirming your historical details and did not discount the possibility of exaggeration, confabulation or minimisation.
Ms Ball diagnosed you as satisfying the DSM-5-TR for gambling disorder. You explained your offending as 'gambling debts', that you were depressed following your dad's death, you were sleeping 12 to 14 hours a day and you 'downloaded a gambling app to get you through the day'. He stated you expressed simple remorse and that you have applied yourself to treatment for your gambling addiction. In terms of your rehabilitation Mr Ball stated you are likely to present with 'few challenges in terms of safe management in the community' and that ongoing treatment, monitoring and relapse prevention treatment is imperative to your maintenance in the community.
Mr Tait submitted you are currently doing well by reporting to police twice a week, having counselling for your gambling and working full time. He noted you have not re-offended nor breached your bail and that you have never worked so hard on your rehabilitation before and are putting in 120 per cent, and noted your intention to pay your victims and that you consent to a restitution order.
Sentencing considerations
I note the maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment which applies to each offence.
I turn to the factors in s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act to which I must have regard.
The prosecution has referred me to two cases to reflect current sentencing practices. Neither is completely on all fours with your offending.
In DPP v McLeod,[2] four charges totalling $182,200 of which $9,800 was repaid, the defendant pleaded guilty and had a relevant prior history. He was sentenced to an effective sentence of three years 10 months with a non-parole period of two years three months. This offending was similar in that the defendant met his victims through a dating website however in that case he represented himself variously as an investor/ financial adviser, Chartered Practising Accountant and a lawyer and encouraged transfers to his bank account for 'investment' purposes.
[2] DPP v McLeod [2023] VCC 2213.
In DPP v Zafiratos,[3] Mr Zafiratis met his five victims on Seeking Arrangements, which is a sugar daddy website for older men seeking younger women. He engaged in deceptions totalled $43,193 and which involved convincing one complainant to invest $10,000 in a bridal business in Greece which was never repaid and the other four complainants who bought mobile phones for him which were never repaid. He had a relevant prior criminal history, was a child victim of sexual assault and had a long history of severe bipolar disorder, his moral culpability was reduced by his psychological and psychiatric conditions. He pleaded guilty during the pandemic and was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment and a two year treatment community corrections order.
[3] DPP v Zafiratos [2020] VCC 377.
I have noted earlier the factors which contribute to the gravity of your offending. That over an 1 month period from April 2023 to March 2024 you manipulated four different victims by feigning a romantic relationship with each of them, betraying their trust and affection and cheating them out of money to fund your gambling addiction.
Although there is no victim impact statement this does not prevent me from drawing the inference from the agreed prosecution opening that the victims would have felt humiliated by your conduct. As has been noted in a case with similar themes the fact that your victims did not make statements does not seem to be completely unrelated to your form of offending.[4] Further the prosecution opening indicates that although the NAB wrote off the loans taken out by Ms Henricksen, in her texts she refers to having a 'bad credit score' and 'bad credit rating' and her financial standing was deleteriously impacted. Ms Tinsley indicated in her texts the financial pressure she personally was under yet you continued to press her for more money. When asking you to repay she stated 'I'll be beyond fucked without [that] money though'. I agree with the prosecution submission that although the amount involved was objectively moderate, the texts indicate this was a significant amount for her.
[4] DPP v Brotherton [2020] VCC 2026, [37].
I take into account the victims' losses as a result of your offending.
I take into account your early plea of guilty and I give full weight to its utilitarian value to the justice system in not requiring the time and resources involved in a trial by jury which involves the calling of witnesses.
I refer to your previous character as demonstrated by your prior history of criminal convictions which are admitted. You have engaged in similar conduct previously. The summary of that offending indicated you pleaded guilty to a consolidation of 21 sets of offending with multiple victims over a two and a half year period from 22 August 2014 to 1 February 2017 and the value of your deceptions was over $150,000. You were sentenced in Western Australia to a global sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment.
With respect to your gambling addiction, it provides an explanation and motive for your offending. In accordance with the established authorities[5], in your case it does not call for any moderation of your sentence.
[5] R v Grossi [2008] VSCA 51; R v Cusack [2009] VSCA 207; R v Do (2007) 180 A Crim R 338.
Your gambling addiction is put as evidence of your intent to rehabilitate, which I accept, and with regards to treatment you are reporting on bail twice a week, engaging in counselling and working full time.
Taking into account the objective seriousness of your offending, the time period and number of victims, together with your history of similar offending, protection of the community, denunciation of your conduct, punishment and deterrence are primary sentencing purposes. Specific deterrence is an important sentencing purpose because of your criminal history of similar offending. General deterrence is an important sentencing purpose: the prevalence of technology such as dating apps facilitated your ability to contact the prospective victims and conduct what they believed was a relationship on a digital or online basis only. I note three of the victims you contacted through the dating app you never physically met.
Given your age and relevant prior criminal history I give less weight to rehabilitation although it is in the community's interest and protection for you to stop offending.
Sentencing objectives including punishment and rehabilitation can be met by a combined sentence of imprisonment and a community corrections order.
A term of imprisonment will denounce your conduct, punish you and deter yourself and others from engaging in similar conduct. I take into account the work you are currently undertaking regarding counselling and a community corrections order will ensure your rehabilitation continues post release. You have been assessed as suitable for a community corrections order.
I note the four charges are rolled up charges, meaning they bundle a collection of counts together and a significantly higher sentence than a single offence is justified.
I have applied the principle of totality so that the effective sentence reflects your overall offending.
Sentence
Leigh Abbot, could I ask you to stand up please. I sentence you as follows:
In respect of Charge 1, obtaining a financial advantage by deception, you are sentenced to six months' imprisonment, which is the base sentence.
In respect of Charge 2, of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment and I order that one month be cumulated.
In respect of Charge 3, obtaining a financial advantage by deception, you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment and I order cumulation of one month.
In respect of Charge 4, obtaining a financial advantage by deception, you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment and I cumulate one month.
In respect of Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 I direct you be placed on a community corrections order for two years to commence on your release from imprisonment.
Within two working days of your release from imprisonment, you are to report to the Office of Corrections at Sunshine and the conditions of the community corrections order are as follows:
·Supervision
·Mental health treatment.
Do you consent to being placed on the community correction order?
You will be required to sign the order.
The total effective sentence is nine months' imprisonment with a community correction order of two years with treatment and supervision conditions, to commence within two working days of release from custody.
In respect of s6AAA, if you had pleaded guilty the sentence I would have imposed was two years and nine months with an 18 month non-parole period.
I make compensation orders by consent of $13,800 to Susan Henriksen, $2,030 to Rebecca Scott, $950 to Brooke Tinsley, and $3,400 to Alexandra Whitehouse, totalling $20,180.
Please take a seat, and you will be required to sign the community corrections order.
Is there anything outstanding?
COUNSEL: The two days of pre-sentence detention, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Thank you. I omitted to note; I reckon the pre-sentence detention of two days as already served.
Is there anything further arising?
COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Thank you, we will adjourn the court.
- - -
Summary of Sentence

Charge	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Obtaining a financial advantage by deception	10 Years imprisonment	6 months	Base Sentence
2	Obtaining a financial advantage by deception	10 years imprisonment	3 months	Cumulate 1 month
3	Obtaining a financial advantage by deception	10 years imprisonment	3 months	Cumulate 1 month
4	Obtaining a financial advantage by deception	10 years imprisonment	3 months	Cumulate 1 month
Community corrections order		In respect of charges 1,2 3 and 4, I direct you be placed on a community corrections order for 2 years to commence on your release from imprisonment. Within two working days from your release from imprisonment you are to report to the Office of Corrections at Sunshine. The conditions of the community corrections order are as follows: · Supervision · Mental Health Treatment
Total Effective Sentence:		9 months imprisonment with a community corrections order of 2 years with treatment and supervision conditions to commence within two working days of release from custody
Non parole period: N/A Pre-sentence detention reckoned as served: 2 days 6AAA Statement: 2 years and nine months with an eighteen months non parole period Compensation order: by consent $13,800.00 to Susan Herikson, $2,030.00 to Rebecca Scott, $950.00 to Brooke Tinsely, $3,400.00 to Alexandra Whitehouse. Total $20,180.00

[2025] VCC 1713

19 November 2025