Director of Public Prosecutions v Dimopoulos

[2025] VCC 1256

ident

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-23-01145

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ALEX DIMOPOULOS

---

JUDGE:	CHIEF JUDGE CHAMBERS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 August 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	2 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Dimopoulos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 1256

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:Criminal law – Sentence  

Catchwords:              Guilty plea – use false document – course of conduct charge – conduct involved falsifying work histories and references provided to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission on behalf of 16 clients between 2014-2015 – deliberate and repeated offending – relevant but dated prior criminal convictions for dishonesty – utility of guilty plea – lengthy unexplained delay – good progress towards rehabilitation – absence of subsequent offending – general deterrence and denunciation principal sentencing considerations – discretion to impose a conviction – impact on business in construction industry

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth); Building Act 1993 (Vic); Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic)

Cases Cited:Tones v The Queen [2017] VSCA 118; DPP v Merryfull and Bloomfield [2023] VSCA 244; Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; Naqebullah v Victorian Building Authority [2022] VCAT 895; R v Brown [1994] 2 Qd R 182; R v McInerney (1986) 42 SASR 111; Piva v Brinkworth (1992) 59 SASR 468

Sentence:                  Two-year community correction order and a fine of $10,000

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms K Crennan	Director of Public Prosecutions Victoria
For the Accused	Mr R Richter KC Mr S Tovey	Theo Magazis & Associates

HER HONOUR:

1Alex Dimopoulos, following a sentence indication given by me[1], you have pleaded guilty to a charge of using a false document contrary to s 83A(2) of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum penalty for which is ten years’ imprisonment.

[1]Sentence Indication given pursuant to s 207 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 on 1 May 2025.

2The single charge relates to a course of conduct involving the provision of seven false work histories and thirty false reference letters to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘the QBCC’) between 30 June 2014 and 3 June 2015, with the intention of inducing the QBCC to accept them as genuine. As a result of this deception, the QBCC granted builder’s licences to 16 clients of your company, Buildcense Pty Ltd (‘Buildcense’), having relied upon the documents as legitimate.

3As a consequence of being licensed in QLD, the builders were then able to obtain builder’s licences in Victoria under Commonwealth mutual recognition legislation.

4You were born in March 1967 and were between 47 - 48 years of age at the time of this offending. You have admitted a prior criminal history.

Background to offending

5In order to place your offending in context, it is necessary to first outline the builder licensing schemes operating in Victoria and QLD under their respective statutory frameworks.

6To apply for a builder’s licence in QLD, the QBCC required an application to be completed, together with supporting materials, including proof of technical qualifications, work experience, references and financial details. In Victoria, in addition to these requirements, applicants for a builder’s licence were also required to undergo an examination or interview, administered by the Victorian Building Authority (‘VBA’). As a result, the Victorian licensing scheme was perceived to be more onerous.

7Builders in QLD were licensed by the QBCC in various classes, namely: ‘Builder - Open’, ‘Builder – Medium’ and ‘Builder – Low Rise’. Each licence class comprised a scope of work the builder was licensed to carry out. An individual or company that wanted to undertake or supervise work at or over $3,300 was required to hold the appropriate licence.

8Each class of licence required particular technical qualifications: either a Certificate or a Diploma in Building and Construction. These qualifications could be obtained by completing a course conducted by a Registered Training Organisation (‘RTO’) or by way of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL). Eligible applicants could apply to a RTO for assessment of their competency to be awarded a qualification under the RPL process.

9Depending on the class of licence sought, applicants were required to have two to four years of practical and supervisory experience in the building industry. An applicant’s referee was required to verify this experience. The applicant was also required to submit a work history detailing the type of work performed and the site addresses where the work was performed. There were additional financial requirements that applicants were required to meet.

10Pursuant to the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) (‘the MRA’), the VBA was obliged to recognise building licences issued by the QBCC without further scrutiny and without requiring applicants to complete the additional investigation or interview required under the Victorian scheme.

11At the time of your offending, you operated two companies: Buildcense which operated as a RTO, and Oxford Builders Pty Ltd (‘Oxford Builders’). Oxford Builders was involved in large-scale building and construction work in Victoria, QLD and WA. You were the sole director, secretary and shareholder of both companies.

12Most of your clients were migrant workers who experienced language or educational limitations and held concerns they would have difficulty overcoming Victoria’s more onerous licensing process. Other clients chose to exploit the ‘loophole’ arising from the mutual recognition scheme in order to avoid the time associated with the Victorian interview process.

13To be clear, it forms no part of the prosecution case that there was any criminality associated with your use of the ‘loophole’ arising from the MRA. Your offending relates solely to your conduct in using false work histories and references to secure licences under the QBCC licensing scheme.

Contact with the QBCC

14On a date between June 2014 and September 2014, on behalf of Buildcense, you contacted the Manager of Regulatory Services with the QBCC, Mr Cameron Murphy. You had previously met informally with an assessment officer at the QBCC who had provided you with general information regarding the builder licence classes and process for applying for a licence for Victorian builders, including the provision of references.

15During your meeting with Mr Murphy, you told him that you and your family built service stations around Australia and were looking to expand into QLD. You provided Mr Murphy with business cards for both Buildcense and Oxford Builders and explained that in order to expand into QLD, you needed to have builders licensed under the QLD licensing scheme.

16Mr Murphy detailed the QLD licence application process to you. You specifically asked about the need for technical references and the referee requirements in QLD, which required applicants to provide three written technical references from licensed builders who could attest to an applicant’s work history and experience over a two-to-four year period.

17You informed Mr Murphy that some of your clients had not worked for three builders and may have only worked for one builder. In those circumstances, Mr Murphy explained that an applicant could obtain a technical reference from another registered building professional such as an architect, designer or engineer. These requirements were reiterated in subsequent emails exchanged between you and Mr Murphy.

Investigation

18Over 2014-2015 the Licensing and Registration Division of the VBA observed a significant increase in the number of applications for builder registration under the MRA, particularly from practitioners only recently registered in QLD. Analysis revealed that a significant number of applications under the MRA were residents of Victoria with no obvious connection to QLD.

19The Compliance and Enforcement Division of the VBA became aware that there were ‘promoters’ operating in Victoria who would charge a fee to facilitate unlicensed builders in Victoria making application to interstate regulators to be licensed, before making application to the VBA under the MRA.

20Suspecting that a number of applicants’ claims were false, the VBA engaged external consultants to review the mutual recognition applications it had received between 1 July 2013 and 31 May 2015. The results of this review identified 890 mutual recognition applications being made to the VBA between 2014 - 2015, of which 55% were registered by the QBCC. This was an increase of 115% on the previous year.

21It is in the context of this investigation that your offending came to light.

22Specifically, investigators identified three common referees whose names appeared repeatedly in respect of applications linked to Buildcense: Mr Carlos Balmaceda, Mr Leslie Cachia and Mr Leigh Elliott. Investigators subsequently interviewed those individuals. They each identified various references that were purportedly authored by them, and had submitted to the QBCC by Buildcense, as false. They confirmed that they had neither written nor signed the references.

23Mr Balmaceda was a civil and structural engineer and Director of CGB Consulting Engineers. He had previous dealings as a client of yours in 2014, during which he sent you correspondence with his company letterhead and signature. After first speaking with QBCC investigators, Mr Balmaceda was interviewed by police in 2017 and ultimately identified eight false references provided in his name of which he was not the author.

24Mr Cachia was a draftsman and Director of Letac Drafting Services. He knew you both socially and through business dealings, and had similarly corresponded with you using his company letterhead and signature. Mr Cachia had used the services of Buildcense to obtain his builder’s licence from the QBCC which was subsequently recognised in Victoria under the MRA. It is not suggested that there was any illegality associated with Mr Cachia’s application. Relevantly however, Mr Cachia identified eight references provided to the QBCC in his name, of which he was not the author.

25Mr Elliott was a registered builder who ran his own construction business, Builtsafe Constructions. Mr Elliott identified eight references provided to the QBCC in his name which he had never authored.

26In total, thirty false references were provided by you to support licensing applications made to the QBCC, purportedly authored by nine different individuals, including Mr Balmaceda, Mr Cachia and Mr Elliott. False references were also provided in the names of another six individuals, but they did not provide statements to the police.

27The offending for which you are to be sentenced relates to your course of conduct between 30 June 2014 and 3 June 2015 in providing the QBCC with false work histories and false references in respect of 16 clients of Buildcense. A schedule to these sentencing remarks summarises the particulars of the offending in respect of each of those applicants.[2]

[2]        Schedule A

28Your offending can be illustrated by way of a few examples.

29One of the applicants was Mr Ahmad Al Kunter, who was studying finance. His uncle was a builder and suggested that he obtain a builder’s licence so they could work together. Mr Al Kunter obtained a Certificate IV in Building and Construction, but needed building experience (of which he had none) in order to be licensed. For this reason, Mr Al Kunter approached you. You told him that you could arrange on-the-job training and would organise his builder’s licence.

30When Mr Al Kunter’s training was repeatedly delayed, you assured him that you would obtain his references first and that he could undertake the training later. You then applied to QBCC for a builder’s licence on his behalf. However, when police later showed Mr Al Kunter the QBCC application, he had no knowledge of the three referees whose references were provided in support of his application. He also stated that the signature on the application was not his.

31Another applicant, Mr Tengfei (‘Jake’) Hu, was contacted directedly by you after you had heard he wanted to obtain a builder’s licence. You told Mr Hu that you could train him to obtain a Certificate IV in Building and Construction, and that once completed, you would assist him in obtaining a builder’s licence. As part of that process, Mr Hu provided you with some details of his work history and copies of his identity documents. Not long after this, he received his builder’s licence from the QBCC which was then recognised by the VBA.

32Several months later, Mr Hu was contacted by the QBCC and was informed there was a problem with his application. You assured Mr Hu that you would take care of the issue, but his builder’s licence was ultimately cancelled. You then stopped taking any calls from Mr Hu.

33Mr Hu’s Victorian builder’s licence was also cancelled. When police spoke with him, Mr Hu he told them that the three references purportedly provided in support of his application to the QBCC by Mr Elliott, Mr Balmaceda and another builder were false.

34Mr Farhad Younos also dealt with you to obtain a builder’s licence. Mr Younos told you he did not have any references, but you assured him that you would take care of this on his behalf. The Certificate IV course in Building and Construction that you had promised was repeatedly delayed and an application made to the QBCC on behalf of Mr Younos was rejected. Mr Younos accused you of lying to him, stating ‘what you are doing is wrong because you are making a loophole [into] a business … using a loophole is one thing, making it a mass thing with people with no qualifications, no history of work, making up job sites, it’s wrong’.

35You told Mr Younos not to worry, assuring him that you would fix the problem. When he threatened to go to the VBA, you told him: ‘You can’t do that because you’re part of it. If you go there you’ll be in bigger trouble’.

36Mr Younos eventually received a builder’s licence from the QBCC. He then applied for mutual recognition with the VBA. Before his application under the MRA was granted, his QLD licence was cancelled and his VBA application was then also rejected. The two references provided with Mr Younos’ application were false. Both Mr Balmaceda and Mr Cachia told investigators that they had neither written nor signed the references provided to the QBCC on his behalf. Mr Younos stated that he had never met Mr Balmaceda before, but admitted that he was aware you were submitting false references with his application for registration.

37As part of the police investigation into this matter, a search warrant was executed at commercial premises rented by an associate of yours, Mr Xiafeng (‘Andy’) Wang in November 2017. Buildcense materials were stored by you at this site, including licence applications and accompanying documentation. Another search warrant was executed at a house in Reservoir, where your ex-wife lived. The police seized an Apple iMac on which they located over 800 files relating to QBCC applications, including false references, some of which were in a format capable of being edited and already had signatures attached to them.

38Physical files relating to two other applications were also seized from the residence.

39One file related to the application made on behalf of Mr Giuseppe Casabene, and contained four false references purportedly provided by Mr Elliott, Mr Cachia and another individual, Mr Salera, as well as a false work history and a Certificate IV in Building and Construction issued by the Australian Industrial Systems Institute. Mr Casabene was not aware of the existence of the Certificate IV and had never undergone any training or assessment to be awarded this qualification.

40The second file related to Mr Abdul Taylor, and contained two false references purportedly provided by Mr Cachia and Mr Elliott, a false work history, and a Certificate IV in Building and Construction also issued by the Australian Industrial Systems Institute, and a VBA mutual recognition application. As with Mr Casabene, Mr Taylor was not aware of, and had never engaged in training or assessment to be awarded, the Certificate IV qualification.

Nature and gravity of offending

41I turn now to make some observations about the nature and gravity of your offending.

42The criminality of the offence of using a false document lies in doing so with the intention of having the recipient accept it as genuine and thereby, to act in a way that is to their prejudice. In this case, the prejudice to the QBCC was realised when it granted the sixteen builder’s licences, based on the false work histories and references provided by you. The objective gravity of the offence of using a false document is clearly reflected in the maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment fixed by Parliament.

43There are a number of features that inform the gravity of your offending in the circumstances of this case.

44Firstly, the recipient of the false documents was the QBCC, a statutory body charged with regulating the building industry by, amongst other things, overseeing the licensing scheme for builders wishing to operate in the industry. The QBCC, in performing its regulatory functions, relies on the validity of documentation provided by applicants in determining their suitability to be licensed to work in the building industry. The nature of your offending undermines the legislative purpose and protections afforded by the regulatory licensing scheme.

45Secondly, this was far from a momentary lapse of judgment: your offending persisted over the course of close to a year. Your conduct involved the deliberate use of over 35 false documents – both work histories and references – to secure the registration of sixteen clients. The false documents submitted by you included references provided under the letterhead and signature of other building professionals, thereby lending legitimacy to the documents. This was not a complex fraud, but your conduct was deliberate, intentional and repeated.

46The circumstances leading to your offending were outlined by your Counsel, Mr Richter, who submitted that it occurred against a background of being ‘spread too thin’ between the two businesses. It was not argued that this provides an excuse for your offending, but rather, places your conduct in its proper context. This proposition is supported, to a degree, by an analysis of your business operations at the time.

47It is not alleged that Buildcense operated as a completely fraudulent enterprise or as a sham. The business ran as a legitimate RTO that successfully trained and assisted a large number of applicants to obtain registration as licensed builders. This was not disputed by the prosecution. Buildcense operated in conjunction with Oxford Builders at that time, undertaking significant building and construction work.

48As was highlighted in the submissions made on your behalf, a number of the applicants in respect of whom false references were provided did, in fact, have significant experience in the building industry. For instance, Bassam Nissan was a qualified carpenter with 9 years’ experience in the building industry at the time of his application. Two of the three references provided with his application were genuine. Another applicant, Dimitros Kassos, had completed a Certificate IV in Building and Construction, and had worked in the industry for 20 years.

49Moreover, it is not alleged that any of the applicants for whom you provided false documentation engaged in any dangerous or defective building work as licensed builders.

50I accept that, viewed in this context, your offending was partly borne of being over-committed in the operation of the two otherwise legitimate businesses. Nonetheless, your preparedness to engage in a course of deceptive conduct to overcome these exigencies is most concerning.

51On your behalf it was submitted that the offending was not particularly sophisticated and could readily have been detected. Specifically, it was argued that ‘had the QBCC had a practice whereby references or work histories were verified in any way, it would have been detected far sooner’. That proposition must be rejected.

52Whilst I accept that your scheme of offending was not particularly sophisticated, I reject the suggestion that the scope of your deceptions should be viewed as any less substantial due to a failure on the part of the regulator to detect them any earlier.

53By your guilty plea, you accept that you used the false documents with the intention of inducing the QBCC to accept them as genuine. That is the gravamen of your offending. It was only after the surge in applications for mutual recognition was identified by the VBA that an investigation was triggered.

54It is not to the point that there may have been any failure on the part of the regulator to detect your offending earlier. You engaged in repeated acts of deception, fully aware that your conduct was wrong. You had adequate opportunity to reflect on what you were doing and stop, but you did not. The blame for your deceptive conduct over the course of that period is yours alone. You bear significant moral responsibility for your offending.

Personal circumstances

55I turn now to your personal circumstances.

56Having been born in March 1967, you are now 58 years old.

57Your parents, Konstantina and Apostolos Dimopoulos married in 1966. During your early childhood, you and your parents lived with an aunt and her family, sharing a home with three cousins, before your father purchased a home in West Meadows.

58After attending the local primary school, you completed your secondary education at Erinbank High School and succeeded academically. You then completed a degree in civil engineering at Victoria University.

59You commenced your professional career at the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (‘MMBW’) and were soon promoted to the position of department manager. During your time at the MMBW you worked on a number of significant infrastructure projects. It was in the context of this employment that, in 1992, you were charged with misappropriating funds from the MMBW. You were aged between 23-24 at the time of this offending. You instruct that you voluntarily reported the deception to your manager and were then dismissed. Neither the prosecution nor defence were able to provide me with any further details regarding your offending in 1992 given its age.

60On 3 March 1992, on appeal from the Magistrates’ Court, the County Court sentenced you to an aggregate of 12 months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for 12 months, in respect of 16 charges of theft, in addition to charges of obtaining property by deception, making and using a false document, and false accounting.

61After being dismissed from the MMBW, you established your own hydraulics consulting company. This business was successful and grew to employ 15 staff and deliver major projects for various petrol companies and the Como Centre.

62In 1993, you met your wife who was also to become your business partner. Together you have two children, a son aged 25, and a daughter, aged 21. After marrying, your business expanded into construction and you established Oxford Builders. This business was involved in developing petrol stations and other commercial developments across Victoria.

63The company’s work expanded between 2001-2008 including large project work, such as that undertaken on the Tullamarine Development Project. By this time, the business was operating out of two offices.

64In 2006, you and your wife separated on amicable terms, and you continued to work in the business together. You have another daughter, now aged 18, from a subsequent relationship. You continue to have a close relationship with all your children, whom you have supported financially throughout their lives. You also have a 2-year-old daughter from your current relationship.

65In October 2008, you were approached to play a role in a fraudulent loan application through the Bank of Melbourne, for which you were to be rewarded by payment of a commission. You were 41 years’ old at the time. Your offending involved the provision of a false name, driver’s licence, and a fictitious contract for sale to facilitate the loan application. You were arrested by police in possession of the false documents and made admissions regarding your role in the offending.

66You then agreed to give evidence in the prosecution of the co-accused who was an employee of the Bank of Melbourne and was the one who stood to profit from the loan. On 11 August 2009, following a guilty plea in the County Court, you were convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for a period of 12 months, for the offence of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception. You completed the period of suspension without issue.

67Thereafter your business continued to expand interstate. At the time of this offending you were training tradespeople and project managers through Buildcense to attain building licences, as well as undertaking construction work through Oxford Builders. After this offending was detected, you ceased operating the Buildcense arm of your business.

68Oxford Builders has now been in operation for over 20 years, and currently employs three permanent staff and between 20-50 contractors in the building industry. The company is currently involved in several large projects of significant value, including a development in Cheltenham, a truck wash and warehouse facility in Laverton, and a project for a transport company in QLD.

69You presently live in NSW and continue to provide financial support to members of your family, including your sister who has lived with significant mental health problems since 1990, and your elderly mother who lives in aged care in Victoria, and has lived with a form of psychosis since 1977. You provided substantial support to your brother after he was mistakenly arrested by police in 2019, having been wrongly identified as an offender in a widely publicised arrest.

70You are currently experiencing poor physical health. A letter from your General Practitioner, Dr Daniela Bitlan dated 13 August 2025, has been provided to the Court.[3] Dr Bitlan details a deterioration in your health over the past six months, experiencing severe asthma, persistent and severe abdominal pain, significant insomnia, low cortisol levels and acute exacerbations of small bowel bacterial growth. You also have a history of coronary artery disease, anaemia and hyperlipidaemia. Dr Bitlan states that you underwent hernia repair in April 2025 but have experienced an unusually prolonged recovery, necessitating the use of strong analgesics.

[3]Exhibit 4

71You have not offended in any way since 2015.

Matters in mitigation

Guilty plea

72Because fraudulent conduct is generally difficult to detect, it often requires costly and time-consuming investigations and prosecutions. Therefore, the utilitarian value of a guilty plea is significant in cases such as this.

73You originally faced over 300 charges, including charges of obtaining property by deception, arising from these investigations. Following a contested committal hearing you were discharged on a number of those offences. In March 2024, you offered to resolve the matter by pleading guilty to a ‘rolled up’ charge of using a false document. Following a case conference[4] and a sentence indication given by me, you pleaded guilty on 19 May 2025 to the single course of conduct charge of using a false document. At least from March 2024 you were prepared to acknowledge some form of legal responsibility for your dishonest use of false documents in respect of the QBCC.

[4]A Case Conference was conducted on 30 January 2025.

74By your guilty plea, you saved the court and the community the time and resources associated with what would have been a lengthy, complex and document-heavy trial.  You are entitled to have the utility of your guilty plea reflected in a discernible sentencing discount.

Delay

75There was a significant and largely unexplained delay associated with these proceedings. The offending occurred over a period of close to twelve months between 2014-2015. Upon suspicions being raised within the VBA, an internal audit was conducted on its behalf in 2016 and the matter was reported to police. The police investigation commenced in February 2017 but it was not until April 2021 that you were interviewed and charged. As stated, you were initially charged with far more extensive offending. Following the committal hearing in the Magistrates’ Court and a case conference and sentence indication hearing in this Court, the matter resolved in May 2025 to the single course of conduct charge of using a false document.

76There is little by way of explanation for this delay. According to the prosecution submissions, there was delay caused by the impact of the pandemic and a lack of  priority given to the investigation of this matter by police. While I accept that the circumstances of your offending involved a detailed investigation, other delay associated with these proceedings was through no fault of yours.

77You now come before the court to be sentenced close to a decade after your offending. The law recognises that significant delay associated with criminal proceedings can be a powerful mitigating factor.[5]

[5]Tones v The Queen [2017] VSCA 118, 36.

78The relevance of delay to the sentencing task was explained by the Court of Appeal in the case of DPP v Merryfull and Bloomfield.[6] There are two limbs to a sentencing court’s consideration of delay. The first limb relates to unfairness and the anxiety caused by criminal charges hanging over an accused’s head for a lengthy period. The second limb relates to rehabilitation and whether, during the period of the delay, an accused has made progress towards rehabilitation: both in terms of contrition for their wrongdoing and steps taken to reform.

[6]DPP v Merryfull and Bloomfield [2023] VSCA 244

79Although the court was there referring to the delay between being charged and being sentenced, a delay between an accused first being aware of an investigation and being charged may also be taken into account in moderation of sentence.

80In this case, you have been in a state of ‘uncertain suspense’, not knowing what the outcome of the charges may be, at least from the date you were charged in 2021. As stated, you were initially charged with over 300 offences, including allegations of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. You faced the prospect of a trial on these more serious charges for close to four years, before the matter resolved to the single charge for which you are to be sentenced in 2025. Dr Bitlan is of the opinion that your legal situation has caused ‘severe and ongoing stress’ leading to a ‘marked and detrimental effect on your physical health…aggravating [your] pre-existing medical conditions and impairing [your] recovery from acute illness and surgery’.[7]

[7]Exhibit 4

81Indeed, you had been aware of the possibility of these proceedings since 2016 when the audit and VBA investigation first began, a period of close to nine years ago. Dr Gouras, a medical practitioner who has known you personally and professionally for close to five decades, states that these proceedings have placed you under ‘immense stress’ and that he has observed the toll they have taken on you.[8]

[8]Exhibit 1

82The delay attending these proceedings will operate in mitigation of your sentence. I accept that having these matters pending for many years has been punitive in and of itself.

83Turning to the second limb, I accept that in the intervening period you have demonstrated good progress towards your rehabilitation. Your progress is more than just the absence of any further offending, as important as that undoubtedly is. You have worked hard to build a successful business in the building and construction industry, though which you employ and mentor many others. You remain committed to your family and continue to have strong family support.  

84On the evidence before me in the form of many testimonials, those who have known you for many years continue to hold you in high regard, describing you as extremely hard working, but more than that; as a person who demonstrates a genuine desire to help others.

85Ms Alexandra Talevski, who has known you for 15 years, speaks of the pride you take in caring for your family, including your elderly mother and children, and of your dedication to your business, through which you support others with employment and mentorship.[9]  These sentiments are echoed in the reference provided by Mr Salesi Leveni, who has known you for five years, and more particularly, has worked alongside you on projects to assist First Nations people, including building NDIS-approved housing. Mr Leveni states you are passionate about empowering Aboriginal communities, in this work.

[9]Exhibit 2

86It is through undertaking this work that you met Yorta Yorta elder, Mr Stanley Dryden, who has known you for ten years. In his reference dated 15 July 2025, Mr Dryden states that you are someone who ‘works hard, carries big responsibilities, and genuinely shows up for people’.[10] Mr Dryden is the director of the Art Yarramunua Gallery and a trainer with the NSTA, an indigenous training program. It is in respect of your work with the NSTA that Mr Dryden speaks of your understanding of the importance of Aboriginal-led education, and of your work finding training opportunities for young people, offering advice and showing genuine interest in his community. He states that you spoke honestly with him about your offending, for which you expressed regret.

[10]Exhibit 5

87Through your work in business and the community you have done much good. The testimonials speak of you as a person who is respectful, compassionate and caring. Although each referee knows of your offending, they continue to view you as a man of integrity and honesty. In this latter regard, the testimonials are difficult to reconcile with your history of dishonest offences. To paraphrase what Callinan J said in the case of Ryan,[11] much of the shine of this evidence is diminished by your dishonest offending, but not all of it. Character is not a one-dimensional feature of any person.[12]

[11]Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267, [2001] HCA 21

[12]Ibid, 178

88Of course, any assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation involves a consideration of your prior criminal history. You are not to be punished again for that offending, and your prior convictions do not operate to aggravate this offending. But they are relevant to an assessment of the risk you pose of engaging in future offending of similar kind, and the need for this sentence to operate as a specific deterrent to you.

89The first of those convictions involved dishonest conduct in the context of your employment in 1992, over 30 years ago. You were 23-24 years old at the time. The age of that offence moderates its relevance, as does your youth at the time of that offending. However, the second conviction in 2009 relates to an attempt to obtain a financial advantage, relevantly involving the use of false documents. You were not a youthful offender at that time: to the contrary you were a mature man in your early 40s. This was the second occasion you were able to avoid an immediate custodial term by way of a wholly suspended sentence. However, neither sentence operated to deter you from engaging in this dishonest scheme, only five years after you were sentenced in 2009.

90Balanced against this, you are now a man approaching 60, who has worked industriously to build a successful business in the construction industry without incident over the past decade. This fact provides some cause for optimism in respect of your future rehabilitation prospects. But given your prior history, I could not assess your future prospects with unqualified confidence, despite the passage of time since this offending. There remains a need for the sentence I impose to deter you specifically from future acts of dishonesty.

Other sentencing considerations

91In cases involving dishonest conduct, the sentencing considerations of general deterrence and denunciation loom large, particularly in the context of conduct that involves the deception of a statutory regulator, such as the QBCC.

92It is also relevant that you are to be sentenced for a course of conduct charge. Although you are to be sentenced for the one offence to which the one maximum penalty applies, in sentencing you I must reflect the totality of your offending conduct over the relevant period. As a result, sentences for course of conduct charges are likely to be higher than for equivalent conduct prosecuted as a single incident on a first occasion.  

93Despite the emphasis I must give to those punitive sentencing considerations, I must still carefully weigh all matters personal to you. For the reasons I have explained, this includes your guilty plea and the lengthy delay attending these proceedings. I accept that delay of this magnitude is, itself, punitive. In addition, you have not re-offended in any way in the past decade.

94The parties did not refer to or rely upon comparative cases that might show relevant similarities or instructive differences with this case. That is not a criticism. I acknowledge that the circumstances of this case are somewhat unusual in that you are only to be sentenced for using a false document; there is no suggestion that you sought or obtained any financial or other benefit by reason of your dishonesty. As such, the circumstances of this case stand in stark contrast to many dishonesty cases that come before the court.

95On behalf of the prosecution, Ms Crennan submitted that having regard to the nature and gravity of your offending, some form of custodial sentence was warranted to properly reflect the role of general deterrence and denunciation in the sentencing discretion. However, the prosecution accepted that the ‘significant delay’ and your lack of any further offending in the intervening period meant that an appropriately structured combination sentence would be within range.

96In contrast, Mr Richter submitted that the significant weight that attaches to your guilty plea, the age of the offending conduct and delay, and your favourable prospects of rehabilitation – in addition to the ‘unusual nature’ of the offending -  means that a non-custodial sentence is ‘comfortably open’.

97At the sentence indication hearing, the parties had mistakenly proceeded on the basis that the relevant maximum penalty for the offence of using a false document was 5 years’ imprisonment. There is now no dispute that the applicable maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment. As stated, the maximum penalty acts to inform the relative seriousness of the offending.

98Having considered the completing submissions while guided by the maximum penalty, I have concluded that the weighty mitigating effect of delay, combined with the utility of your guilty plea, enables me to impose a non-custodial sentence while still reflecting the relevant sentencing considerations.[13] As indicated at the sentence indication hearing, I consider that a significant fine and a conditioned, community correction order can meet both the deterrent and punitive aspects of the sentence while giving effect to the sentencing principle of parsimony.

[13]Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342; 46 VR 308

99Having accepted this sentence indication, at the plea hearing before me on 18 August 2025, Mr Richter further submitted that the sentence should be imposed without recording a conviction. It was argued that this would best assist in advancing your prospects of rehabilitation by enabling you to continue to work in the construction industry. It was submitted that the risk of losing your building licence would ‘imperil’ your entire working life, constituting disproportionate extra curial punishment.

100This argument was advanced further in supplementary written submissions made on your behalf. These submissions focused on s 8(1)(c) of Sentencing Act 1991 which refers to the impact of recording a conviction on an offender’s ‘economic or social well-being or on his or her re-employment prospects’ when exercising the discretion to record a conviction or otherwise.

101Reliance was placed on a letter written by Mr Chad Hodge, the Director of Maxim Build Pty Ltd (‘Maxim Build’) dated 15 August 2025.[14]  Mr Hodge outlines the work undertaken by Maxim Build in constructing a $105 million industrial precinct at a site in Cheltenham. He states that you are both a director and licensee for this project, which he says would be placed in jeopardy if you are convicted. Mr Hodge states this is because a conviction may result in the withdrawal or revocation of the $75 million loan underpinning the project. Although Mr Hodge does not state this explicitly, I have proceeded on the basis that the risk Mr Hodge outlines derives from the prospect that a conviction may result in the loss of your building licence.

[14]Exhibit 6

102Mr Kayne Pettifer, who has worked alongside you in training and construction projects since 2016, has provided a letter dated 15 August 2025.[15] In a similar vein, he states that as a registered builder you are a key employer in the building industry, and that a conviction could jeopardise the employment of many people working for you across various States, as well as your ability to assist in the delivery of skills-based training to the indigenous community.

[15]Exhibit 7

103The submissions made on your behalf also refer to the provisions of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) which prohibited a person from entering into a building contract to carry out building work unless they are a registered building practitioner.[16]

[16]Section 29 Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic)

Consideration

104Section 179 of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) (‘the Building Act’) sets out the grounds on which disciplinary action may be taken against a registered building practitioner, including for unprofessional conduct, a failure to comply with a code of conduct, or relevantly, ‘where a ground for immediate suspension exists in relation to the practitioner’.[17]

[17]Section 179(1)(o) Building Act 1993 (Vic)

105One of the grounds for immediate suspension exists where ‘the practitioner has been convicted of an indictable offence involving fraud, dishonesty, drug trafficking or violence’.[18] The Building and Plumbing Commission (‘the Commission’) (the successor to the VBA) must suspend the registration of the registered building practitioner ‘if [it] considers it is in the interests of the public to do so pending the show cause process.[19]

[18]Section 180 Building Act 1993 (Vic)

[19]Section 180A(2A) Building Act 1993 (Vic)

106As the submissions made on your behalf concede, it is not possible to determine what steps, if any, the Commission may take in relation to this matter. Notably, you have never been subject to previous disciplinary action, despite the existence to two prior convictions for dishonesty offences.

107Moreover, the Commission has a range of disciplinary options available to it under s 178 of the Building Act that fall short of cancelling the builder’s registration or disqualifying the practitioner from being registered or licenced. In determining an appropriate penalty, the established case law provides that a range of factors are to be considered, including the nature and seriousness of the conduct, specific and general deterrence, any delay in the investigation, and evidence of character and community contributions.[20]

[20]Naqebullah v Victorian Building Authority [2022] VCAT 895, 34

108It can readily be observed that similar considerations apply in the consideration of the appropriate sentence to be imposed for this offence, to which I have already referred.

109It cannot be doubted that the recording of a conviction creates a risk of your building licence being suspended or cancelled. If this were to occur, I accept that the consequences could be significantly detrimental to your business operations, with ramifications for those whose employment is reliant upon your company. However, beyond accepting that risk exists, any action likely to be taken by the Commission is no more than speculative at this time. Indeed, even if a conviction is not recorded, that does not prevent the Commission from initiating an investigation into this matter.   

110Section 8(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 also requires the court, in exercising its discretion whether or not to record a conviction to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence, the character and past history of the offender, in addition to the impact of a conviction on the offender’s economic or social well-being. Each of these factors inform the discretion.[21]

[21]R v Brown [1993] QCA 271; [1994] 2 Qd R 182, 185

111In the leading text of Fox & Freiberg’s Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria, it is observed that the recording of a criminal conviction is a significant act of legal and social censure.[22] A conviction ‘marks the court’s, and society’s, disapproval of an offender’s wrongdoing’.[23]

[22]Arie Freiberg, Fox & Freiberg’s Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria (Thomson Reuters, 3^rd Ed, 2014) 85

[23]R v McInerney (1986) 42 SASR 111, 124

112As to the nature of your offending, I consider it highly relevant that you are to be sentenced for engaging in a course of conduct involving the repeated and deliberate provision of false work histories and doctored references to the statutory regulator, QBCC. You engaged in this dishonest conduct for close to 12 months. The requirements of general deterrence and denunciation assume great significance where the offending has the potential to undermine a regulatory licencing scheme, such as that operated by the QBCC.[24] This could only be characterised as serious and blatant offending.

[24]Piva v Brinkworth [1992] SASC 3629; (1992) 59 SASR 468

113Moreover, although I have made reference to positive aspects of your character and work history, it is relevant that you have not one but two prior convictions for dishonest offending, albeit dated from 1992 and 2009. As stated previously, specific deterrence continues to have a role to play in sentencing you, although moderated to some degree given your lack of offending over the past ten years.

114For these reasons, notwithstanding the potential prejudice that a conviction may carry to your builder’s licence, I consider that it is appropriate that a conviction be recorded for this offending to mark the Court’s censure of your conduct.

115You have been assessed as suitable for a community correction order and consented to such an order being made. You have indicated a preparedness to reside in Victoria pending transfer of the order to NSW.

Sentence

116Balancing the matters to which I have referred, whilst having regard to the maximum penalty for this offence, on the course of conduct charge of using a false document I sentence you, with conviction, to a two-year community correction order, subject to the supervision of a community corrections officer and to complete 250 hours of unpaid community work.

117Moreover, the fact your offending occurred in the context of your commercial activities makes it appropriate to impose a significant financial penalty.

118I further order that you be convicted and fined $10,000 for this offence.

119In addition to the conditions I have imposed on the community correction order, there are standard conditions with which you must comply.  First and foremost, you must not commit any other offences punishable by imprisonment during the two-year order.  You must report within two working days to the Melbourne community corrections office.  You are required to advise your supervising corrections officer of any change of your residential or work address and you must do so within two clear working days.  It is a term of all community correction orders that you must submit to visits as directed and you must obey all instructions and directions of your corrections officer.  You are not able to leave the State of Victoria without the prior permission of your supervising corrections officer.

120You should be aware that the order can be breached if you do not comply with either the conditions of the order or if you further offend while it is in place.  If you do, you would have to return before me for breaching the order I have imposed this day.  You may be resentenced on the charge in addition to any penalty that may be imposed for breaching the order.

121Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that had you not pleaded guilty to this offence, I would otherwise have imposed a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months.

122Finally, I make the forfeiture order sought by prosecution, noting that it is not opposed.

SCHEDULE A

Applicant	Application Date	Falsities in Application	Licence Date
Meithen AL HAMZA	12/03/2015	False reference of CACHIA False work history	08/04/2015
Ahmad AL KUNTAR	06/03/2015	False reference of SALERA False reference of BALMACEDA False reference of MAI	07/04/2015
Saseendra AMARNENI	29/01/2015	False reference of BALMACEDA False reference of MAI	05/03/2015
Peter BRANCATISANO	02/04/2015	False reference of ELLIOTT False reference of CACHIA False work history	01/05/2015
Giuseppe CASABENE	08/04/2015	False reference of ELLIOTT False reference of CACHIA False reference of SALERA False work history	30/04/2015
Akan CELIKEL	19/02/2015	False reference of CACHIA	27/03/2015
Tarek EL HAWLI	24/03/2015	False reference of ELLIOTT False reference of BALMACEDA	30/03/2015
Fadi FARAH	16/04/2015	False reference of CACHIA False reference of BALMACEDA	21/05/2015
Tengfei HU	24/03/2015	False reference of ELLIOTT False reference of TSAMBOS False reference of BALMACEDA	27/04/2015
Dimitrios KASSOS	30/06/2014	False reference of RUJANOSKI False reference of TSAMBOS False work history	14/07/2014
Bassam NISSAN	03/06/2015	False work history	11/06/2015
Milivoje ROGANOVIC	4/08/2014	False work history	18/08/2014
Abdul TAYAR	16/04/2015	False reference of ELLIOTT False reference of CACHIA False work history	22/05/2015
Gemuna WEERATUNGE	19/01/2015	False reference of BALMACEDA False reference of ELANKUMARAN False reference of BENVENUTO	05/02/2015
Farhad YOUNOS	20/01/2015	False reference of BALMACEDA False reference of CACHIA	30/01/2015
Gang ZHENG	28/05/2015	False reference of BALMACEDA False reference of CACHIA	10/06/2015