Director of Public Prosecutions v Gundry

[2025] VCC 36

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

 Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-23-02125

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

LOUISE GUNDRY

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE HAWKINS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 December 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 January 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Gundry
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 36

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCING:         

Legislation Cited:      Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5; s 6AAA

Cases Cited:Boulton v R [2014] VSCA 342

Sentence:                  Total effective sentence of 18 months imprisonment, with a minimum term of 12 months imprisonment to be served before becoming eligible for parole.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms C. Paganis	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C. Marshall	Marshall Jovanovska Ralph Criminal Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1Louise Gundry, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of theft, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.[1]

[1]Crimes Act 1958 s 74.

2You have no prior criminal history.

Circumstances of Offending

3The circumstances of your offending are set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 19 November 2024,[2] the accuracy of which you accepted through your counsel. 

[2]Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 19 November 2024.

4The victim in this matter is the company ‘Mr. Verandah Pty Ltd’ (Mr. Verandah). This is a private business owned and operated by Mr Chris Dimos and his partner, Ms Gillian Vallak.

5On 22 May 2009, you were employed by the business as the office manager.

6Your duties included reception, paying accounts, and paying staff salaries- including your own.

7You were given access to the company’s National Australia Bank (NAB) bank accounts and managed two company credit cards, one in the name of Mr Dimos and the other in the name of Ms Vallak.

8To access the business accounts, you were given your own secure login and password, which you used to pay suppliers, invoices, and manage funds coming into the business. You also used this account to pay staff and your own wages. Mr Dimos and Ms Vallak had their own login details and were unable to access the accounts using your identifier.

9During your employment, and up until your employment was terminated, you maintained a personal NAB Account jointly with your then partner, Mr Adam Rand.

Circumstances of Offending

10The main supplier of Mr. Verandah is a company called ‘Van Steensel Propriety Limited’, which is a timber supply company for commercial businesses. On average, Mr. Verandah would purchase around $35,000 worth of materials a month from Van Steensel. It was your role to pay suppliers, such as Van Steensel, using the NAB everyday business account.

11In or around 2015 or 2016, Mr Dimos noticed several small transfers of $1,000 or $2,000 being made to Van Steensel each week, along with larger lump sum payments. Mr. Dimos queried the payments with you, and you advised him that there was not enough money in the Mr. Verandah account to pay the full amount due, and that by making smaller payments, Mr. Verandah could continue to keep money flowing to Van Steensel. Mr. Dimos accepted this explanation at the time.

12On or around 18 July 2019, Mr. Dimos was again reviewing bank statements for the company’s NAB business account and observed several small transactions of between $1,000 and $3,000 which were made to Van Steensel. Mr. Dimos noticed that they had become more frequent than usual.

13Mr. Dimos and Ms. Vallak contacted Van Steensel and requested a copy of all the payments made by Mr. Verandah to Van Steensel for the previous 12 months. They checked the Mr. Verandah bank account for transactions with the annotation “Van Steensel” and found that not all of them were being received by Van Steensel. Mr. Dimos was also notified by Van Steensel that Mr. Verandah still had significant outstanding aged invoices.

14On 24 July 2019, Mr. Dimos attended the Clayton NAB branch to make enquiries as to why Van Steensel was not receiving the money in their business account. The teller advised Mr. Dimos that because the transfers were being made with your personally issued login, Ms Gundry, they were unable to disclose details about the transactions to him, as your authority was required.

15On 25 July 2019, Mr. Dimos had an accountant attend the Mr. Verandah office to make enquires about the transactions. You were asked to login to your account, however, stated you had tried to login but were unable to. Your login details were passed on to the accountant, who advised he would try to login later and would advise Mr. Dimos of the results.

16On 30 July 2019, Mr. Dimos had not heard back from the accountant, so he asked you to accompany him to the Clayton NAB branch. You attended the bank with Mr. Dimos, and:

(a)   You gave the teller your login details and gave permission to access the account and view the transactions in question.

(b)   The teller advised you and Mr. Dimos that she could see all the suspicious transactions were being transferred into another NAB account.

(c)   The teller explained to both of you that all the suspicious transactions had been transferred into the account you owned with Rand;

(d)   You said words to the effect of “that’s impossible, that account was closed a long time ago”.

(e)   The teller advised that the account was active until the previous day, when the remaining money was withdrawn and the account was closed by Rand;

(f)    The teller began printing statements of yours and Rand’s joint account and you then abruptly left.

17Mr. Dimos contacted his solicitor, Brendan King of Belleli King & Associates, and advised him of what he had discovered. It was decided that Mr. King would organise a meeting with you to speak to you about the transfers and terminate your employment.

18On 31 July 2019 you attended Mr King’s office in Dandenong to discuss the anomalies in the bank transactions. Mr. King audio recorded the conversation with your knowledge and consent.

19You denied having stolen the money by transferring it into your own bank account and suggested that your partner, Rand, had accessed the account and taken the money. You hinted that Rand had an addiction problem, however, would not go into any further detail.

20You also denied closing the joint account the previous day, stating you were at work at the time. You offered Mr. King your phone to show that you had not contacted Mr Rand to get him to close the account. With your consent Mr. King took several photos of text messages between you and Rand, which revealed that you and your partner had communicated about the matter.

21Your employment with Mr. Verandah was then terminated effective immediately.

22On the 31 July 2019, Ms. Vallak sent you a text message in relation to a holiday house owned by her and Mr. Dimos in Warburton, as you had plans to stay that coming weekend. Ms. Vallak advised you that you were no longer able to stay there, and other guests had been booked in your place. You responded to the message by text which appeared to acknowledge your wrongdoing, and to repay the money you had taken.

23Mr. Dimos reported the matter to Police on 21 August 2019.

24Police investigations revealed that between 18 May 2015 and 12 July 2019, you transferred a total of $178,252.00 from the Mr. Verandah account into accounts belonging to you and Rand.

25When making these unauthorised transactions, you disguised the transactions by changing their descriptions to include the names of various suppliers of Mr. Verandah, including Van Steensel, Bunnings, Hanson, and others, so as not to alert Mr. Dimos and Ms. Vallak that the transfers were going into your own account.

26On several occasions, you referenced unauthorised transfers with “CC pay,” referring to payments that should have been made on Mr. Dimos and Ms. Vallak’s company credit cards, doing so to avoid suspicion.

Nature & Gravity of Offending

27The victim company is a small, family owned and operated business. The owners held you in high regard, entrusted you with access to the company’s bank accounts and credit cards, and gave you a secure login and password. You were responsible for paying others and yourself. Your offending involves a significant breach of that trust.

28Your offending involves one rolled up count of theft, involving multiple transactions over a period of approximately four years. It was pre-planned and quite sophisticated. You utilised methods to conceal your offending, such that you avoided detection for a number of years.

29$178,252 is a significant proportion of revenue for a small business. It is a significant theft, by any reckoning.

30You were personally enriched by your offending for more than just need. For example, some of the funds were obtained whilst you were on holiday in Bali.

31Once irregularities were detected by Mr Dimos, you took steps to further conceal your offending by first lying and later pretending your login did not work and attempting to deflect blame to your partner.

32You have made no recompense to the victim, but I understand that the victims’ received approximately $30,000 net from your trustee in bankruptcy after your assets were realised.

33Whilst it is protracted offending involving a significant sum, I do not accept that yours was a “large scale” fraud as submitted by the prosecution. Having regard to the broad range of offences of this type commonly coming before the courts, I conclude that it is appropriately characterised as `mid- range’.

34Your offending was not an impulsive act of impaired judgement on a single occasion.  It was premeditated, carefully planned, and protracted. You understood the nature and deceit involved, and you knew your employers personally. Your objective moral culpability is high.

35Victim impact statements from Mr Dimos and Ms Vallak were read aloud in Court.   

36Mr Dimos reports that your theft from his business has had a devastating impact. Your actions have put a strain on his financial situation, his marriage, and his health. Mr Dimos notes that you were a colleague and friend, and your betrayal of his trust has caused him a great deal of pain.

37Ms Vallak reports the challenges associated with trying to ‘sort out the mess’ that the theft has left the business in. She and Mr Dimos have had to work significant overtime, pay an independent bookkeeper, and lean on family for additional support to recover from the damage you caused.

38Your offending has caused Ms Vallak to postpone her retirement plans. She now does not trust anyone else to handle the financial side of the business and so will continue working for as long as the business operates.

Personal Circumstances

39You are currently 44 years of age.

40You were born in Victoria and have lived here all your life. Until recently, you lived in the house you formerly owned throughout your offending. This has now been sold and you live in a rental property.

41You come from a close family and have 3 older brothers. Your parents separated when you were 17. You enjoy the ongoing support of your family, who are all aware of these proceedings.

42You have three children from two different relationships in your full-time care. Your daughter is aged 16, and your sons are 12 and four. Your daughter is from a former relationship, and Mr Rand is father to your sons.

43Your relationship with Mr Rand ended in 2019, and you are currently a single mother. Parenting orders provide for your sons to spend time with Mr Rand, however only your youngest spends four days per fortnight with him.

44You completed year 12 and hold a Diploma in Marketing and Management.

45As a student you worked in retail part-time. After graduating you worked as a receptionist at an advertising agency, as an administration assistant at a marketing company, and as a temporary personal assistant at Deakin University.

46After your employment with Mr. Verandah was terminated you struggled to find other work. You currently work casually  as a swimming teacher.

47You do not drink alcohol or use any illicit substances. You do not have a history of abuse or overuse of prescription or over the counter medication, nor was there any reference to gambling addiction or other.

48In 2021, counselling psychologist Wing Nei Lau reported you had ‘extremely severe’ anxiety,[3]  and moderate/severe depression and stress.

[3]Report of Wing Nei Lau dated 13 December 2021.

49You attended five sessions up to 15 November 2024 with psychologist Ms Kim Dowse. Ms Dowse reports that your treatment has been directed at developing insight into your offending and becoming aware of your triggers and justifications.[4] Ms Dowse observed that you have been ‘impressive’ in counselling, and that you are keen to develop safeguards to avoid re-offending.

[4]Report of Kim Dowse dated 15 November 2024.

50Forensic psychologist David Ball, in his report dated 27 November 2024, opines that you do not meet the criteria for any mental illnesses, substance use disorders, or mood disorders. Mr Ball did note that you reported feelings of anxiety and lowered mood related to these proceedings.

51As a result of your offending, civil proceedings were brought and judgement was entered against you and Mr Rand. You declared bankruptcy and ownership of your Seaford residence was transferred to Mr Rand’s mother and your brother. You continued to live in the premises until recently. Other property including your Range Rover was liquidated by the trustee in bankruptcy.

52Your longstanding close friend Rhys Jackson described in his reference tendered to the court that you are a ‘fantastic mother’ to your three children.[5]  Mr Jackson also emphasised the toxic nature of your previous relationship, how your health deteriorated during this time, and how you appeared to ‘lose’ yourself.

[5]Reference of Rhys Jackson dated 2 December 2024.

Sentencing Considerations

53On the day your employment with the victim was terminated, you sent a text message to Ms Vallak, saying “…I’m sorry for what’s happened and the stress on you and Chris. I need to stick by my family and will arrange paying the debt in full with [your solicitor]”.

54Whilst this suggests you felt momentary remorse for your actions, you have not made any recompense in keeping with this promise. In your interview with police, you declined to answer questions about this message and have not otherwise expressed genuine remorse for your actions.

55You pleaded guilty after a committal hearing where witnesses were examined. However, the matter ultimately settled on a basis proposed by you prior to that hearing. I accept that your plea of guilty has significant utilitarian benefit and will take this into account in mitigation of your sentence.

56You have gained insight through psychological counselling, and given your lack of prior convictions, and therefore otherwise prior good character, I accept that you have good prospects of rehabilitation, and your risk of reoffending is low.

57You are the primary carer of your three children. Whilst your four-year-old son sees his father on a regular basis, alternative arrangements will need to be made for your children’s care during your incarceration.  Whilst the hardship that this will cause to your family does not rise to the “exceptional circumstances” discussed by the relevant authorities, I accept that this is a significant matter which will weigh heavily upon you during any period of imprisonment, and I take it into account in a general sense.

58There has been significant and unexplained delay in this matter which is not attributable to you. After detection of your offending, the matter was promptly reported to police by the victim company, but you were not interviewed by police for a further three years. Charges were not laid for a further 12 months after your initial police interview. Since detection, you have had this matter hanging over your head for approximately five years. This is an important matter in mitigation of your sentence.

59Where there has been a significant breach of trust involved in the offending, general deterrence and denunciation are of paramount importance in sentencing. Online banking is a fundamental part of modern business. Whilst efficient, it is relatively simple for vulnerable people, including those who place their trust in their employees, to fall victim to theft and fraud. For that reason, it is important that it is made plain to others who are tempted to supplement their funds by helping themselves to their employer’s funds, that they will face stern punishment.

60I have been referred to a range of cases said to be comparable by both prosecution and defence counsel. Those referred to on your behalf involved cases of theft in the course of employment with a similar quantum, where a Community Correction Order without any term of immediate imprisonment was imposed. Significantly, many of the offenders in those cases had made either full or partial restitution to their victims. This demonstration of remorse is absent in your case. You chose not to enter any agreement to repay the victims in this case. They were forced to institute civil action in order to recoup some of their loss. They only received a fraction of what you stole from them after your estate was realised.

61The guideline judgement of the Court in Boulton[6], stressed that a Community Corrections Order with appropriate conditions can be suitably punitive even in cases of serious offending. It is open to the Court to impose a combination sentence of a term of imprisonment of up to 12 months with your release on a CCO. The Crown submit that a term of imprisonment with a head sentence is the only appropriate sentencing disposition, and a combination sentence would be inadequate. Having regard to the gravity of your offending and all relevant sentencing considerations,[7] including the comparable cases to which I was referred, I agree with the Crown’s submissions.

[6]Boulton v R [2014] VSCA 342.

[7]Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5.

62Whilst you have no prior convictions, pleaded guilty, have good prospects of rehabilitation, and you are the sole parent of three children, the objective seriousness of your offending and high moral culpability demands the imposition of an immediate term of imprisonment. A CCO alone or in combination is wholly inadequate to meet those various sentencing objectives.

Sentence

63Louise Gundry, I sentence you as follows:

64On charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

65I order that you serve 12 months before being eligible for parole.

66You have no presentence detention.

67Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty after trial, I would have sentenced you to a term of 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years.