Director of Public Prosecutions v Kenyeres
[2019] VCC 1316
•16 August 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR-19-00072
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ZSOLT KENYERES |
‑‑‑
| JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 19 July 2019 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 August 2019 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Kenyeres |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1316 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
‑‑‑Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – Pleas of guilty – Obtain financial advantage by deception (10 charges) – Obtain property by deception ( 5 charges) – Some charges relate to criminal enterprise offences – Offending occurred over period of 17 months – Seven victims – Offending related to sham investment schemes – Importation of car parts and purchase of Porsche motor vehicles
Sentence:Convicted and sentenced to 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years’ imprisonment – 291 days’ pre-sentence detention declared as having been served as part of the sentence imposed – s.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991- Ancillary orders - Compensation
‑‑‑
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr A. Sprague | Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms E. Clark (Plea) Ms K. Rolfe (Sentence) | Stary Norton Halphen |
HER HONOUR:
1Zsolt Kenyeres, also known as George Kenyeres, you have pleaded guilty to ten charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception and five charges of obtaining property by deception. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is ten years’ imprisonment, but in the case of Charges 1 through to 6 inclusive, 8 through to 10 inclusive, and 12 and 13, as these are criminal enterprise offences involving a sum exceeding $50,000 in the course of one transaction, the maximum penalty for those offences is twenty years' imprisonment.
2In sentencing you, I must take these maximum penalties into account, as they reflect the seriousness with which Parliament regards each of the offences.
3I was told that you were born in Hungary in 1965 and came to Australia in 2007, initially on a tourist visa. You were 51 to 52 at the time of the offending, and you are now 54 years old. At all relevant times during the offending, you were on a bridging visa E (sub-class 050), with a condition of no work or study.
4I understand that you are the subject of an outstanding extradition request from Hungary in relation to alleged fraud offences. The extradition proceedings have been postponed until this matter is finalised.
5While living in Australia, you established several businesses including:
(a) Cheapest Car Parts Australia (ACN: 155 560 393) registered on 7 December 2012;
(b) Price Pressure Australia (ACN: 164 454 377) registered on 28 June 2013;
(c) President Limos Australia (ACN: 169 019 587) registered on 9 April 2014;
(d) World Wide Price Pressure (ACN: 602 953 248) registered on 19 November 2014;
(e) Worldwide Performance (ACN: 601 139 413) registered on 7 August 2014; and
(f) Kenyeres, Zsolt (ABN: 76 727 653 310) registered on 1 June 2010.6You met the victims in this matter through your businesses- in particular, President Limos Australia and Price Pressure Australia, of which you were the director.
7At the time of the offending, you were living at an address in Potter Street, Black Rock. In December 2016, you leased a factory located at 13/120 Talinga Road, Cheltenham in order to store vehicles for your business, President Limos Australia.
8Relevant to the offending, you held and operated the following ANZ bank accounts:
(a) An account in the name of ‘Price Pressure Australia Pty Ltd’, with account number 1899-13531 (‘PPA ANZ account 13531’).
(b) An account in the name ‘President Limo Australia Pty Ltd’, with account number 1939-41455 (‘President Limo ANZ account 41455’); and
(c) An account in the name ‘Zsolt George Kenyeres trading as ‘President Chauffeur Limousine Corporate Car Service Australia ABN 76 727 653 310’, with account number 2058-64769 (‘Kenyeres ANZ account 64769’, or Kenyeres’ bank account).OVERVIEW OF OFFENDING
9Over a period of seventeen months between October 2016 and March 2018, you induced seven victims to pay large amounts of money to you by falsely representing that those amounts were for investments in schemes primarily relating to the importation of car parts and the purchase of Porsche motor vehicles. All of the victims paid money to you for various overseas and European automotive parts investments, which were fraudulent.
10Department of Home Affairs records do not show any substantial importations by you or your business entity between 2016 and 2018.
11You also obtained money from three of the victims, purportedly for the deposit and purchase of a Porsche 2018 911 Turbo S Exclusive vehicle, which you stated was to be sold for a substantial profit. Only seven of these vehicles were available and purchased in Australia and none of the owners had been approached by you to purchase their car and they made no agreement to sell these.
12You promised the victims significant returns on the various investments, however the claim schemes were a sham, and you used the money for your own purposes, including large cash withdrawals from your accounts. Some victims received small amounts back from you, over the course of their relationship with you. The prosecution says, however, that this was to encourage them to continue to invest and assuage their demands for repayment.
13The victims and amounts fraudulently obtained by you from each victim were summarised in a table indicating as follows:
Relevant charges
Victim
Subtotal
1, 4
Steven Kwok
$240,250
2, 5
Tuan Hoang & Thi Thu Ha Le
$189,250
3, 6, 7, 8, 9
Stephen Davis
$655,000
10, 11, 12
Brian Jamieson
$450,000
13, 14, 15
Christopher McUtchen & Simone Evans
$132,156.94
14The total amount obtained by deception, which is the subject of all of the charges, is $1,666,656.94.
CIRCUMSTANCES of the OFFENDING
Victims: Steven KWOK (Charges 1 & 4) and Tuan HOANG / Thi Thu Ha LE (Charges 2 & 5)
15I come now to details in relation to the offending. Firstly, the basis for Charges 1 and 4, which concern the victim Steven Kwok and Charges 2 and 5, which concern the victims Tuan Huang Hoang and Thi Thu Ha Le. The bases for Charges 1 and 4 (Steven Kwok) and Charges 2 and 5 (Tuan Hoang) are as follows:
16Steven Kwok and Tuan Hoang were the owners of a company called Complete Financial Solutions Pty Ltd. In mid-2016 they met you through a client of theirs.
17Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang decided to invest with you, with two separate investments, one being the purchase of luxury vehicles for you to lease, and the other purchasing car parts from overseas through your company, Price Pressure Australia.
18The first of these, the purchase and lease of luxury vehicles, was not directly related to the charges. Between August 2016 and March 2017, Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang purchased four vehicles (three BMWs and one Porsche), which you agreed to lease from them for your chauffeur business for between $5,000 and $9,000 per month. Mr Kwok did receive three of these lease payments of $5,000 each between September and October 2016, as well as some further payments in December to January 2017 (refer to paragraph 3 below).
19Relevant to the charges, in October 2016 Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang agreed to an investment with you which involved you purchasing Porsche car parts from overseas through your company, Price Pressure Australia, and selling them in Australia for profit.
20You provided a ‘Price Pressure Investor Agreement’ for this investment, listing Mr Kwok as the investor for an ‘Auto Parts Investment’, being a ‘Loan of $50,000’ with a stated ‘Return on Investment’ of $30,000 over a six-month term from 21 October 2016 to 21 April 2017. On this agreement, a vehicle was listed as security, namely a ‘Bentley Continental Flying Spur 2006’, with a particular registration number and VIN number. However, this car did not exist. A special condition to the investment was that the victim would own a 1 per cent share in Price Pressure and another 1 per cent on the next $50,000 invested. The victim and you signed this agreement.
21Mr Kwok paid $50,000 for this investment by transferring the money into the PPA ANZ account in five transactions between 19 and 27 October 2016. This in part gives rise to Charge 1.
22Mr Hoang and his wife Thi Thu Ha Le, who also goes by the name Minnie Le, decided to list Ms Le as the investor. You provided a ‘Price Pressure Investor Agreement’ in similar terms to that signed with Mr Kwok, but with an investment amount of $100,000 and a stated ‘Return on Investment’ of $50,000 over the six-month term, with $10,000 to be paid monthly. The ‘Bentley Continental Flying Spur’ vehicle was again listed as security. The agreement was signed by you and Mr Hoang on behalf of Ms Le.
23On 20 October 2016, Mr Hoang and Ms Le paid the amount of $100,000 for this investment from their joint bank account to the PPA ANZ giving rise to Charge 2.
24Mr Hoang received $10,000 per month for his investment over the next five or so months and believed everything was going fine with the investment.
25On 22 and 23 November 2016, the victim, Mr Kwok, transferred a further $16,000 for the parts investment to the PPA ANZ account in two transactions. These are also encompassed by Charge 1.
26On 15 December 2016, Mr Kwok entered into another investment with you. A second ‘Price Pressure Investor Agreement’ was prepared and signed listing Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang's company, Complete Financial Solutions Pty Ltd, as the investor for an ‘Auto Parts Investment’, with a loan of $50,000 for the principle investment and a stated ‘Return on Investment’ of $15,000 over a term from 15 December 2016 to 15 February 2017.
27On 12 and 13 December 2016, Mr Kwok transferred a total of $50,000 for his investment into the PPA ANZ account 13531 in three transactions. These are also part of Charge 1.
28Between December 2016 and January 2017, Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang received approximately $22,000 from you for the leasing of the BMW vehicles.
29On 26 March 2017, you took Mr Kwok to the Melbourne Grand Prix, where you showed him around the Porsche pit and seemingly had a good relationship with the Porsche representatives.
30Whilst you owed them money, Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang continued to invest as you assured them that you would pay the money back. At one time, you logged into your internet banking account and showed Mr Kwok that you had 5.5 million euros in the account. You told Mr Kwok that your account had been hacked and you could not access this money just yet.
31Between January 2017 and June 2017, you did not return any money to Mr Kwok for his investments.
32In June 2017, Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang started chasing you for the money you owed them from the three vehicle leases and the investments. They confronted you regarding the money owed and you gave a number of reasons as to why it was not being repaid. These reasons included you saying that you had sold the patent for Price Pressure for 18.5 million euros and showing Mr Kwok a bank statement which displayed 18.5 million euros in an overseas account. You told Mr Kwok the money was tied up overseas, but you would be able to access it soon.
33Accepting these explanations, Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang agreed to your encouragement to enter into another investment. You told them that a car park company in Germany was going bankrupt and you had the opportunity to purchase their stock list worth more than $800,000. The victims hoped that the money from this investment would pay off some debts from the other investments.
34It was decided Mr Kwok's 50 per cent share of the investment would be divided up between Mr Kwok, Mr Hoang and Mr Hoang's brother, Tuong. Mr Kwok, Mr Hoang and you agreed that Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang would only physically contribute $89,250 each because of their respective $139,517 investments, with the remaining money being supplied by you in recognition of the money you already owed to them.
35You again prepared investment agreements between them, which were subsequently signed by you and the victims, Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang. Each agreement listed a ‘Return on Investment’ of “Initial sale of 750,000 euro”’ and referred to the stock list under ‘Security’.
36The agreements also included a special condition that the balance of overdue payments from the Porsche parts investment and limo lease would be paid to Mr Kwok by 25 July 2017.
37On 20 and 21 June 2017, Mr Kwok transferred a total $35,000 in two payments, (one for $20,000 and one for $15,000) into your PPA ANZ account. On 28 June 2017, Mr Kwok paid $89,250 from his ANZ bank account into your PPA ANZ account. These three transactions give rise to Charge 4.
38On 28 June 2017, Mr Hoang deposited $89,250 into your PPA ANZ account giving rise to Charge 5.
39In November 2017, Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang had still not received any money from you for their investment agreements. In addition, you still had the three leased vehicles in your control for which the victims were still paying finance.
40The pair met with you and you gave Mr Kwok two cheques for $100,000 and $150,000. You asked that the $100,000 check not be banked for two weeks and that the $150,000 check be banked a month after that.
41Mr Kwok complied with the request and banked the $100,000 cheque two weeks after the meeting. A short time later he was informed that the check had bounced and that the bank encouraged him not to deposit the $150,000 cheque because funds were not in the account.
42Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang contacted you and another meeting was arranged. They told you that they were going to record the conversation. The pair spoke to you about the money you owed them and you agreed to repay the money.
43Between that meeting and February 2018, Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang had not received any money as part of their last agreement with you.
44In February 2018, Mr Kwok enlisted the assistance of a solicitor to draw up agreements to arrange payments to be made by you. The pair met again with you and you agreed to the terms of ‘Settlement Agreements’ and the deadline for payment. However, you still failed to pay the money that you owed to Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang.
45In June 2018, Mr Kwok was discussing the money you owed with an acquaintance, Christopher McUtcheon. Mr McUtcheon told him that he was dealing with the police regarding money you owed him. Mr Kwok decided to contact police regarding his dealings with you.
46Relevant to Charges 1 and 4, in total you obtained $240,250 from Mr Kwok by deception.
47Relevant to Charges 2 and 5, in total you obtained $189,250 from Mr Hoang and Ms Le by deception.
48Your bank records reveal the dispersal of the funds, which you had fraudulently obtained from Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang and Ms Le. These were set out in a table in the opening and I have taken all of these into account in sentencing you. In particular, I note that on 20 June you transferred $11,000 to Preston Motor Racing and a further $11,000 to an account called ‘Porsche Carrera Cup’. You transferred $50,000 to the Kenyeres’ bank account from which you transferred $33,000 to American Express and a total of $13,000 to two other people or entities. Between 24 October 2016 and 2 November 2016, you transferred a total of $50,000 to an entity called ‘Batman Group’. Between 31 October and 8 November 2016, you transferred $33,000 to your Kenyeres’ bank account. On 7 November you withdrew $2000 in cash from the ATM.
49On 22 November 2016, you transferred a total of $27,500 to your Kenyeres’ bank account in two separate transactions.
50Over the course of about a week in December 2016, you transferred a total of $51,700 to various payees including $18,000 to your own account and $11,000 to ‘Porsche Carrera Cup’. Of this total, $5,000 was paid to the company account for Mr Kwok and Mr Hoang.
51On 21 June 2017, you transferred $35,000 and on 28 June 2017, you transferred $169,500 to your Kenyeres’ bank account. That same day you withdrew the following amounts from different ANZ branches as follows:
(a) the Southland branch of the ANZ Bank $60,000;
(b) the branch at 293 Collins Street $50,000;
(c) the branch at 388 Collins Street $10,000;
(d) a branch in South Melbourne $10,000; and
(e) a branch in Hampton $5,000.
52There is also a record of a visa debit of $9,287.15 at the Porsche Centre and a record of another debit of $15,144.13 to another payee listed as ‘EB13483’.
Victim: Stephen DAVIS (Charges 3, 6, 7, 8, 9)
53I come now to Charges 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9, where the victim is Stephen Davis. The victim in relation to these charges, as I have said, is Stephen Davis who is a lawyer and chief executive partner at a boutique law firm in Melbourne. He first met you in late 2015 after an acquaintance met you at a car wash and you suggested that some of the cars owned by Mr Davis could be used in your car hire business.
54Initially, from March 2016, you borrowed cars owned by Mr Davis at weekends for weddings and paid for the use of these vehicles.
55Subsequently, between March 2016 and July 2016, Mr Davis purchased four cars being (two Porsches and two BMWs) which were to be used by your car business with a monthly lease to be paid by you to Mr Davis. This arrangement continued for some time until November 2017, when you stopped paying the monthly payments.
56In December 2016, you told Mr Davis that you were heavily involved in the Porsche Club and the Carrera Cup and had a race car in the Carrera Cup with your own driver. You showed Mr Davis photographs and videos of your car and subsequently labelled the car with the name of Mr Davis' firm, ‘Davis Advisory’.
57You told Mr Davis, in late 2016, that you bought a lot of car parts for Porsche racing cars, which were purchased by Carrera Cup participants through your cheapest car parts company. You said that if Mr Davis invested $75,000 into the next parts order from overseas, it would yield 30 per cent in three months.
58On 5 December 2016, Mr Davis transferred $75,000 from his account to your PPA ANZ bank account. This gives rise to Charge 3.
59This money was ‘rolled over’ into purported later parts orders proposed by you. However, ultimately when Mr Davis requested the return of his $75,000 plus profit, he was never repaid.
60In July 2017, you approached Mr Davis with an offer, to invest in the purchase of car parts from an Audi parts dealer going bankrupt overseas. You said the parts were to be sold both in Europe and Australia for a significant profit, through Cheapest Car Parts Pty Ltd. Mr Davis agreed to pay $350,000 towards the inventory, with you to fund the rest. Mr Davis was told this investment would yield a return of $500,000 to $550,000 initially, by the end of November, on top of the principal investment of $350,000, and another $200 to $250,000 profit in early 2018. You proposed this investment after Mr Davis told you, he needed additional funds to renovate his house.
61On 7 July 2017, Mr Davis transferred $350,000 from his account to your PPA ANZ bank account 13531, giving rise to Charge 6.
62In early July 2017, you offered a further investment opportunity to Mr Davis, being a 10 per cent share of the Kimcar Corporate Chauffeur business for an investment of $40,000. You said you were buying the business for $400,000 and that for Mr Davis' 10 per cent share, he would receive 10 per cent profit or $2,500 to $3,000 per month.
63Mr Davis paid the $40,000 to you for the share of Kimcar but never received this money or any profit payments. This is the basis for Charge 7.
64In July 2017, you offered Mr Davis the opportunity to invest in purchasing a 2018 Porsche 911 Turbo S Exclusive. You said that these cars were extremely rare both globally and in Australia, as there are only eight of them coming into the country. You said that the purchase price would be about $550,000, and that you and he could sell it for $1,000,000. You told Mr Davis that you had done this previously with another Porsche, GT3 vehicle and had made a profit of $400,000.
65You later indicated that you were unsuccessful in being allocated a 911 Turbo S Exclusive as they were given to Porsche's top customers. That you were one of these but that you were not at the top of the list. However, you said that an elderly gentleman who was a customer of Porsche Brighton, had recently died and that you had a chance to take over this person's allocated vehicle. The vehicle was to be delivered in March 2018.
66You requested an initial investment from Mr Davis of $90,000 being half of the initial down payment of $180,000. Mr Davis transferred the $90,000 to you, giving rise to Charge 8.
67Mr Davis asked for some evidence of his deposit and you sent him a scanned copy of a signed contract for the 911 Turbo S Exclusive vehicle from Porsche Brighton, showing a part settlement of $180,000 and stating that the balance of $450,130.28, was to be settled by delivery with an estimated delivery date of 25 February 2018. On the invoice there also appeared a typed and signed acknowledgment from you in relation to your receipt of $90,000 from Mr Davis.
68In fact, on 3 July 2017, you did obtain a contract to purchase the upcoming Porsche 911 Exclusive, however, no deposit was taken and it was ‘subject to availability’ as it constituted one of a number of expressions of interest to purchase this vehicle. Porsche Brighton later told you that they could not supply you with this vehicle, as they were only able to get one which had been sold to someone else. The original contract dated 3 July 2017 shows a zero balance next to ‘Part Settlement’, estimated delivery date of 1 September 2018 and it was not signed by you. The ‘Part Settlement’ details and delivery date on the copy of the contract provided to Mr Davis were altered by you.
69Finally, you also induced Mr Davis to invest in a purported shipment of 50,000 magnetic car phone charger cables which you said BMW had already committed to purchasing. You showed Mr Davis one of the charger cables.
70You said that you were putting in a large component of the money and asked Mr Davis to match this with a contribution of $300,000. Mr Davis said that he would contribute $100,000. You indicated the investment would produce about 60 per cent profit over a three month period.
71On 3 August 2017, Mr Davis transferred $100,000 into your Kenyeres’ ANZ account 64769, giving rise to Charge 9.
72BMW Australia confirmed that there was no arrangement with you or your company to purchase magnetic charging cables, nor do they have any business relationship with you or your companies, apart from using President Limos to provide transfer services on occasions in 2016 and 2017.
73When all payments from you stopped around November 2017, Mr Davis' requests were met with various excuses from you including the following:
(a) that your brother had been kidnapped by the mafia in Hungry and that unless you paid them several million dollars he would be killed and so you had made up various investments to get money for your brother;
(b) that the money had been ‘hacked’ in your ANZ account and had disappeared;
(c) that you presented Mr Davis with cheques for money owing on two occasions which subsequently bounced;
(d) you said that the money from the car park acquisitions in Germany had been paid into your bank account in Germany, Sparkasse, and would be transferred to Mr Davis in Australia. You showed Mr Davis the account with the money in it and a transfer slip. However, the victim's bank in Australia said there was no record of the transfer;
(e) that you had won $20million in ‘Lotto’ and you would now be able to repay Mr Davis. You presented what appeared to be a Lotto winning slip;
(f), that you had borrowed money from a bikie gang, the Comancheros, and that you wanted to transfer the money back to Mr Davis, but that the bikie gang could see your ANZ account and so your lives would be at risk if you transferred the funds. You also said that the Comancheros had already taken $5million of the ‘Lotto’ winnings and they would take more if you tried transfer money to Mr Davis.
74In March 2018, Mr Davis was contacted by your son-in-law, Robert, who advised that you had been arrested and were in custody.
75In total you obtained $655,000 from Mr Davis by deception.
76Your bank records revealed how a total of $62,250 was dispersed from between 5 December 2016, when Mr Davis deposited $75,000 to 8 December 2016. By far, the largest amount was transferred to your Kenyeres’ ANZ account of $25,000 and you also withdrew $2,000 cash from an ATM.
Victim: Brian JAMIESON (Charges 10, 11 & 12)
77I come now to the charges concerning the victim, Bryan Jamieson, being Charges 10, 11 and 12. Mr Jamieson is a business man who often travelled to the airport for work and he met you through the use of your chauffer business. During these trips you would often tell Mr Jamieson about your other business, which included importing luxury car parts from overseas.
78You told Mr Jamieson several times that he could invest in your car part imports. However, Mr Jamieson initially declined.
79At one stage you took Mr Jamieson to your rented warehouse at 13/120 Talinga Road, Cheltenham where he observed several luxury vehicles, including a Porsche, a BMW and a Rolls Royce.
80One day when Mr Jamieson booked an airport transfer, you called him back asking if he was interested in purchasing a special Porsche, of which only eight were being brought into Australia. You said you had already purchased one from Brighton Porsche, but there was an opportunity to purchase a second vehicle, as the original buyer had passed away prior to delivery. You told Mr Jamieson you had paid the $280,000 deposit for the vehicle and if Mr Jamieson was to go ahead with the purchase, that he would need to pay the $280,000 directly to you, not to Brighton Porsche. You told Mr Jamieson that Brighton Porsche was doing you a favour because you had purchased 29 Porsche vehicles from them in a two year period.
81Mr Jamieson decided to go ahead with the purchase of the Porsche and on 16 August 2017, you emailed him a contract from Porsche Centre Brighton for a Porsche 911 Turbo S Exclusive Series, Yellow Gold Metallic Coupe. This contract showed a deal date of 16 August 2017, an estimated delivery date of 1 March 2018, a total purchase amount of $630,130.28 and a part settlement amount of $280,000, with the balance of $350,130.28 to be settled by delivery. Also on the document was an acknowledgement by George Kenyeres, that the $280,000 down payment was paid by Mr Jamieson and that upon delivery and full payment, the car would be registered to Brian Jamieson as first owner.
82As with the offending against Mr Davis, which gave rise to Charge 8, you had, in fact, provided a forged version of the original ‘expression of interest’ contract from Porsche Brighton in relation to which no deposit had been paid.
83After selling shares and transferring money from his superannuation fund on 21 August 2017, Mr Jamieson arranged for two cheques to be paid to George Kenyeres; one for the sum of $211,000 and one for $69,000. Mr Jamieson gave the cheques, totalling $280,000, to you and asked that you sign the Porsche contract to confirm that the $280,000 had been paid. These facts give rise to Charge 10.
84The basis for Charge 11 is that between August and November 2017, you asked Mr Jamieson if he would like to invest in the spare parts business. The proposal was that Mr Jamieson would invest $30,000 and receive a 25 per cent return. Mr Jamieson agreed and on 3 November 2017, he gave two separate cheques to you: one for $10,000 and one for $20,000.
85A short time later, Mr Jamieson received $7,500 in cash from you, which Mr Jamieson understood to be the 25 per cent return on the $30,000 investment. You told Mr Jamieson that you had the other $30,000, but asked if he would like to re-invest the original $30,000 into a new spare parts deal. Mr Jamieson agreed as a way of having money put aside for the Porsche deal.
86One day you and Mr Jamieson went to the Sandown race course where you said you had two Porsches racing. Mr Jamieson was introduced to the drivers and everyone in the marquee seemed to know you.
87In January 2018, you asked Mr Jamieson if he would be interested in investing in the purchase of another Porsche, which was to be on-sold for a profit to someone who wanted a racing Porsche. The agreement was that Mr Jamieson would pay $140,000 for half of the Porsche GT3, which was owned by you, which would then be sold and the profit split fifty-fifty between you and Mr Jamieson.
88On 24 and 25 January 2018, Mr Jamieson wrote out two cheques to you, each for $70,000. Mr Jamieson met with you and gave you the two cheques, totalling $140,000 for his share of the Porsche GT3. These events and payments give rise to Charge 12.
89Mr Jamieson was given an invoice by you, which purported to be from President Limo Australia dated 24 January 2018, for the purchase of a 2018 Porsche 911 GT3 Carrera Cup car for $368,500. You signed the bottom of the document twice in relation to the receipt of the two cheques.
90At one point in your dealings with Mr Jamieson, you told him that you had sold one of your spare parts businesses and the money was tied up waiting for tax clearance from Hungary. You showed Mr Jamieson a photo of the overseas transactions, which depicted a total amount owed on 11 million euro.
91In early March 2018, Mr Jamieson contacted you and asked you about the arrival of the Porsche 911 Turbo S Exclusive in Australia. Mr Jamieson was told the vehicle had been delayed and he would be informed when pick up was available. He explained to you that he was not going to keep the car, as he needed money to assist his family and you informed Mr Jamieson that you had a buyer for the vehicle who was willing to pay $1.1million.
92Mr Jamieson was subsequently informed by your son-in-law, Robert, that you were in custody and awaiting extradition to Hungary. Mr Jamieson spoke to Robert and your daughter, Tamia, multiple times and over the phone you told Mr Jamieson there was nothing you could do, as all your assets were frozen. It became apparent to Mr Jamieson that there was no chance of getting his money back from you and he reported the matter to police in July 2018.
93In total you obtained $450,000 from Mr Jamieson by deception.
94Your bank records reveal various dispersals of the funds fraudulently obtained from Mr Jamison. After his cheques were deposited to your Kenyeres’ account on 21 August 2017, over the next two days you withdrew a total of $152,000 in cash in three separate episodes at the ANZ bank in Southland, and from one visit to an ATM. You transferred the balance of this total to various payees including the ‘Batman Group’ and BMW AusFinance. So, after he paid you the $30,000 on 3 November 2017, you transferred $26,000 of this to your President Limo account, and from there you withdrew a total of $21,500 over a two-day period. After he paid you the cheques for $140,000, you withdrew a total of $92,000, all on 29 January 2018, either at the Southland Branch of the ANZ, or from an ATM. You paid $15,000 to a business advisory business, on 1 February 2018.
Victims: Christopher McUTCHEON and Simone EVANS (Charges 13, 14 & 15)
95I come now to the basis for Charge 13, 14 and 15, which concern the victims Cristopher McUtcheon and Simone Evans. Christopher McUtcheon was a businessman who often travelled to the Melbourne Airport for work. About six years ago, he began regularly using President Limos Australia for transport to and from the airport, and on occasions the driver was you. Mr McUtcheon would communicate directly with you to book transport.
96Over the course of these six years during which you interacted with Mr McUtcheon, he and you struck up a friendship. You would often discuss your businesses, including the importing of luxury car parts from Europe, and Mr McUtcheon had been to your warehouse in Cheltenham, where he saw numerous luxury vehicles. Mr McUtcheon had no reason not to trust you.
97On 1 March 2018, you picked Mr McUtcheon from the airport in a Porsche Panamera Turbo S. You had a conversation about this car. You told Mr McUtcheon that you had a rare Porsche 911 coming into Australia, and asked if Mr McUtcheon would like to invest in it. You told Mr McUtcheon that only 8 of these vehicles were coming to Australia, and that the vehicle would be delivered to Brighton Porsche, and then on sold to investor on the Gold Coast for $1.1million. You told Mr McCutcheon that you needed the money that night, and that the deal was happening 'right now'.
98Mr McUtcheon agreed to invest US$65,000 in the vehicle, with the agreement that he would receive US$65,000 return on his money within six weeks. You provided Mr McUtcheon with an investor agreement via email, which listed Mr McUtcheon as the investor in the amount of US$65,000, with a return on investment of $65,000 over a term of six weeks. The Porsche 911 Turbo S Exclusive was listed as security.
99On 2 March 2018, Mr McUtcheon transferred US$65,000 by telegraphic transfer to the Kenyeres’ ANZ account 64769. The Australian equivalent to this sum was $82,206.47. This gives rise to Charge 13.
100In the afternoon of 2 March, you messages Mr McUtcheon to confirm the money had been received, and told him that you had already paid the down payment for the car. You then asked if Mr McUtcheon wanted to join in a car parts investment, for which you had an order that day.
101Multiple messages were exchanged, with you seeking an investment of $20-30,000, but ultimately you agreed to Mr McUtcheon's offer of $10,000. You said that you would stretch yourself a bit more to make the deal happen, since Mr McUtcheon was putting in a smaller amount. When Mr McUtcheon agreed to invest $10,000 for a return of 25 per cent, you said that you just hung up with the German guys. The deal was done, everything was ensured, and the down payment was just made. When Mr McCutcheon asked for assurance that you were a trustworthy partner, you responded - “I would not ask you for anything if I would have any chance to lose. All secured, insured, and we will always have the parts until fully paid”.
102You again emailed an ‘Investor Agreement’ for this investment, or supposed investment, and on 5 March 2018, Mr McUtcheon transferred A$9,968.66 to the Kenyeres’ bank account 64769. The amount received into your account after fees, or into this account after fees, was $9,950.47, giving rise to Charge 14.
103Mr McUtcheon and you exchanged multiple text messages over the next few days. On 15 Mach 2018, you messaged Mr McUtcheon in reference to the Porsche deal, stating that the car had arrived, the buyer would be back from overseas in April, and had already paid you $200,000. However, you said that you now had to fully pay for the car, being a remaining $380,000 total, and sought additional investors to provide the outstanding funds for a quick return. In the process, you assured Mr McUtcheon that all investments were on track as agreed. Mr McUtcheon provided some names of potential other investors.
104The next day, Mr McUtcheon spoke to you by phone and indicated his partner, Simone Evans, had $40,000 in a bank account. It was agreed that Mr McUtcheon and Ms Evans would pay you an additional A$40,000 to assist in getting the ‘deal done’ for the Porsche.
105You provided Mr McUtcheon with another ‘Investor Agreement’ regarding the $40,000 which stated they would receive a $25,000 return on the investment over the investment term of four weeks. The Porsche 911 Turbo S Exclusive was against listed as a security.
106On 17 March 2018, Ms Evans and Mr McUtcheon attended the bank, and Ms Evans transferred A$40,000 to your Kenyeres’ ANZ account 64769. This gives rise to Charge 15.
107Also that day, Mr McUtcheon requested that you send him a picture of the Porsche, since it had arrived. On 18 March, you sent seven photographs depicting a gold Porsche 911 Turbo S Exclusive in a showroom, bearing registration plates with a particular number. Subsequent investigations revealed that this vehicle in fact belonged to another person, and after its purchase in February 2018, the car had been back to Brighton Porsche as a display vehicle, including for open nights. The owner had never met you, and at no point was the car for sale.
108On 24 March 2018, Mr McUtcheon attempted to get in contact with you, in relation to his investments, but was unable to do so. Mr McUtcheon eventually contacted your son-in-law, Robert, who informed him that you had been arrested. Robert told Mr McUtcheon that he had spoken to you, and you only wanted to look after three people who had lost money, being Mr McUtcheon, Steven Kwok and a person who lost $300,000 in super. Robert told Mr McUtcheon on several occasions he had, or was going to transfer funds to start refunding his money, but this never occurred.
109In May 2018, Ms Evans reported the matter to police.
110In total, you obtained $132,156.94 from Mr McUtcheon and Ms Evans by deception.
111Your bank records reveal the following dispersal of the funds fraudulently obtained from these victims. You withdraw a total of $58,000 cash in three separate transactions at different ANZ bank branches on 2 March 2018; you withdrew a total of $19,500 cash from two different bank branches on 5 March 2018; and on 19 March 2018, you withdrew a total of $36,428 in four separate transactions at the Southland ANZ bank branch.
INTERVIEW
112On 20 June 2018, you were interviewed by police at Port Phillip Prison.
113You were asked about your dealings with Steven Kwok, Stephen Davis and Chris McUtcheon. A detailed summary prepared by police of a lengthy interview was included in an appendix attached to the opening. However, the prosecution summarised your answers as follows. You said that:
(a) you dealt with Steven Kwok, Stephen Davis and Chris McCutcheon in relation to importing car parts and purchasing vehicles, and agreed that you had entered into various agreements and received money from them;
(b) the cars you leased from Mr Kwok and Mr Davis were used by you personally, so you did not make any money on them, and you returned them in around November, December 2017 because you could not pay them;
(c) you did not want to tell police what kind or the colour of the Porsche you were purchasing with Mr McCutcheon, and you did not want to give police the name of the owner, and you said they did not like to be in the limelight, and you used to move in the high end of Melbourne and Australia. You said that you were buying the vehicle privately, but through a dealership, and the car was at a dealership, but you had seen it at the owner's house;
(d) you had received all the money from your investors for the Porsche, and had already transferred it to the owner of the vehicle;
(e) the final $40,000 received from Mr McCutcheon was not for the Porsche. It was for you;
(f) you would pay the $180,000 part-payment directly to the Porsche owner, and denied altering the Brighton Porsche contract to add the $180,000 as part settlement;
(g) you bought the Kim Car business in mid-2017, but sold it just before you were arrested. You sold it for $55,000, and used the money for bills, such as car payments, rent and house payments, and your immigration lawyer;
(h) you refused to give the name of the car part company that went bankrupt in Germany;
(i) you admitted that you never had the other $400,000 for the car part investment with Mr Davis, but said that you were going to get it from Mr Kwok;
(j) you maintained the car party deal was already paid for, and the shipment was waiting in Munich – in Munich, Germany;
(k) the victims had received a lot of money form you over the past two years, but claimed they would not tell police because it would get them into money with the Australian Tax Office;
(l) you said Mr Davis and Mr Kwok already made millions with you over the last two to three years;
(m) you said you did these deals to make some extra money to provide something for living, because you could not work; and
(n) that you still owed money to Mr Kwok, Mr Davis and Mr McCutcheon, and had no money in your accounts to pay them back, but once you had done the deal, you would have the money.
114You later declined to be interviewed further in relation to the victims, Tuan Hoang and Brian Jamieson.
115You were charged on 20 June 2018.
116Mr Kenyeres, your offending is most serious, and is deserving of a punishment which is just in all of the circumstances, and your conduct must be firmly denounced. You engaged in elaborate and ongoing deceits of each of the victims, relying on their trust of you in order to extract large sums of money from them. These people were not unworldly by any means, which highlights your skill as a con man in extracting large sums of money from them. It is not known as to where all of this money ended up. You instructed your counsel that you had to pay large sums to bikies who you owed money, and your bank records show some payments to others, but you are such an adept liar, who would know what became of all of the money. Certainly, you withdrew large sums of cash, apparently trying to hide your tracks on occasion, by attending different branches of the same bank on the same day. The only thing that can be said is that the money is gone. Only you know where. Your counsel told me that she had no instructions about this, but that you had no assets in Australia.
117These victims trusted you to do the right thing by them. In some cases, you knew very well that the victims were in need of the money in order to fund other needs. Mr Jamieson told you that he needed funds to help his family, and Mr Davis told you that he needed money for house renovations. You did not care that any of the victims could ill-afford to lose these large sums of money. You altered documents, invented scenarios, including lavish cars that either did not exist or were not yours, and generally groomed the victims into getting what you wanted from them. In saying this, I do not find that you established relationships with any of the victims in order to defraud them, but certainly you took full advantage of the relationships that you had established with them in order to extract money from these individuals.
118You seemed to have a deluded sense of entitlement to other people's money, and your lies just arrogantly rolled off the tongue in order to secure the next influx of funds. Even when you were interviewed by the police, you continued to try to brazen it out in many ways, lying to them on many occasions, or else refusing to give details, which no doubt you knew would reveal your deceits.
119In assessing the seriousness of your offending, I accept that your offending was not overly sophisticated in itself, and it was inevitable that you would be found out eventually. However, you were able to keep the deceptions going for so long, and for such large sums of money, because of the trust that the victims placed in you. Some of them even considered you to be their friend.
120I regard the significant breach of trust in the relationship that you had with each of the victims as an aggravating feature of your offending.
121I take into account the impact on the victims.
122Mr Kwok said that he had many mixed emotions about how your offending had impacted upon him. He felt ashamed and guilty for involving others in what he said was ‘this mess’, and for losing so much money. He said that it had affected his confidence in making decisions, and that he had lost the trust of those he had involved in your schemes. He said it had killed him inside when he learned of how badly it had affected these people, and their relationships. He had been through a stage of anger as to why this had happened to him, that he had always treated others with respect, honour and trust, and could not understand what he had done wrong for this to happen to him. He was also angry with himself, as he now could not afford things that he needed for his children, so their lives had been affected too. He spoke of the financial burden that he still bears, as he has to repay the monthly loans for cars, and is unable to afford to sell these as the payout on the loan is so high. He asked that you give him back even a small amount of his money, and asked how you could do this to people.
123Mr Hoang said that since he learned that you were a scammer, he had been unable to sleep, and he berates himself for having trusted someone like you to hopefully secure his family's future. He spoke of the immense strain that your actions had placed on his marriage, but that he and his wife had decided to stay together for the sake of their two children, aged 1 and 3. He said the relationship had not been the same, and they had lost the love and respect for each other. He felt that he had failed his family as a father and husband, and suffers immense feelings of depression and anxiety about the financial position he had placed his family in. He considered that the impacts of your actions upon him, both emotionally and financially, would be similar to a life sentence.
124Mr Davis spoke of the significant emotional impact that your offending has had on his marriage. He said that the money that you stole was to be used for his wedding. You had told him that you would pay the money back, including paying for the reception venue, but that on the morning of the wedding, with 400 guests invited, you had still not done so. They were being hounded for payment by the reception venue, and so they had to borrow the money form his mother, who is a pensioner, as they faced the real prospect of the venue being cancelled. He said that the days before the wedding were so stressful, as they were so concerned about having to pay for their wedding. He said that they had lent the money to you on the promise that part of the profit would pay for the wedding, but this did not happen. And what is more, you were a guest at the wedding.
125He also attributed the stress caused by your offending on his wife's inability to conceive children. He said that your breach of trust had left them doubting everyone, as you were someone that they considered a friend.
126He said that he had nearly lost his business and his house, and had become bankrupt. He said that he has developed high blood pressure, and has had to work 13 to 18 hour days in a bid to repay the debts your conduct has left him with. Mr Davis said that he and his wife suffer from stress and sleeplessness, when their finances run low, due to the financial stress that your offending has caused them.
127He said that he has come very close to losing his business, which would impact not only on him, but on 30-plus people who work there. He has to pay over $18,000 per month for the six cars that you have left him with, and they were in his name. He is still trying to sell these. He said that this meant that they came close to the poverty line sometimes.
128They have put investment properties on the market in order to stay afloat, as the bank had become concerned about the reduction in their finances. They nearly lost their home, at a time when their baby was only 6 months’ old. They had planned to renovate, but could no longer afford to do so, and they have had to rent another property around the corner from their own house.
129He also said that you would talk about owing bikie gangs money, and what they might do to Mr Davis and his family if they pushed too hard for repayment- That led to his wife being very frightened. She still felt very unsafe, and wanted to move away, but they could not afford to do so.
130Mr Jamieson said that he had shared some very personal matters with you, because he thought that he had a solid relationship with you. He said that he had done what he could to support your business, and to obtain new customers for you, but now felt very upset that you betrayed his trust in you. He spoke of the fact that he had told you that he needed money to help his daughter buy her estranged husband out of the family home when they separated. But that you talked him into giving you the money, so you could return a profit on it from buying the Porsche. He spoke of the humiliation of falling victim to this hoax, and the embarrassment, personally and financially, in having to explain to his wife why he had to draw on his superannuation in order to help their daughter. This debt will now negatively impact on their ability to enjoy their retirement. He said that your offending had made him a different person in dealing with others, and he was now second-guessed by his family, when making financial decisions. He asked that you return his money, which might help you with your shame.
131Mr McUtcheon said that at the time that you offending against him, he and his partner, Ms Evans, were expecting twins. He said that the stress of your offending and its financial, psychological and physical impact on them, referring to exhaustion, added to an already stressful situation with the impending birth of their twins. He spoke of the lengthy periods that he has had to spend away from his family, referring to extensive absences from his 3 and 4-year-old children, in order to earn income. He said that you knew how important his family's welfare was to him, but without any concern, you took over $100,000 from him. He referred to the fact that he had supported you in your business for six years. He said that he now had trouble sleeping, and often when he hugs his children he bursts into tears. He said that the money that you stole from him was to be for his children's education, to buy a house, and to build a future for his family. He spoke of your daughter and son in law also encouraging him to invest. He said that he feels angry because he had worked incredibly hard to save the money that you had taken from him. He spoke of the subsequent months of ongoing stress, and intense feelings of sadness and disappointment. He said that he will now have to miss more of his children's childhood, because of the need to work even harder than before, in order to try to recover financially from what you have done.
132Ms Evans spoke of the terrible toll that your offending had had upon her and her partner. She likened what they had been through to the various stages of grief, although acknowledging that this was not like losing a loved one. She said that she had felt angry towards her partner for trusting you, but she was also angry at herself for contributing her money, which she had worked long and hard to save. She said that the money that she gave you was meant to be paid to her parents, so this added to her sense of failure and disappointment. She also spoke of the heartache of seeing her partner being so low, and that with two more children on the way, they had lost the money that would have been the deposit on a house, and were back at the beginning. She spoke of her despair at the position you had placed them in, and her lack of sleep. However, she said that – that she decided that your offending would not continue to affect her and her family more than it already had for the sake of her children. She said that she and her partner were very caring and trusting people, which was possibly why they were deceived by you, but that her outlook toward other had now changed, and she now viewed people with suspicion.
133These are the very really and devastating effects that you have had on the lives of your victims, Mr Kenyeres, with your offending. It is with great concern that I note that in a number of cases, the perception of the victims was that you knew very well as to how taking their money would affect them and their families, but you callously went ahead anyway.
134There was no impairment of mental capacity which played a role in your offending- So, in all of the circumstances, I find that your moral culpability is very high.
135You have no prior convictions, which is relevant to my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation; however in circumstances where you were able to use your apparent good character in order to defraud the victims, I give this aspect less weight than would otherwise be the case.
136In your favour, I allow for a fairly significant discount in the sentence that you would otherwise receive because of your pleas of guilty, which were entered at a fairly early stage. Your case was listed for a contested committal hearing, and the victims had attended court with the expectation of being cross‑examined. However, the matter resolved without the need for them to give evidence. In taking the course that you did, you ultimately saved the witnesses the time and trouble of giving evidence at contested proceedings, and you saved the community the considerable time and expense of these.
137Your counsel submitted that you also have remorse for your actions, pointing to the stage at which you pleaded guilty, and a letter from your daughter who said that you had told her you were sorry for what you had done. As against this, your offending conduct was relentless and callous. It was no spur of the moment decision to offend, but an ongoing determination to extract money from your trusting victims, regardless of how it might impact on them. I have also considered your record of interview, which is certainly not filled with regret in my view, and also that the matter resolved at a point where all of the victims were required to give evidence at a committal hearing, albeit that this did not occur. Further, when asked as to where all the money was at the plea hearing, your counsel told me that she had no instructions, initially, although she later said that you instructed her that you had to repay some bikies. In the end, while I accept that you are sorry that you were caught, and that you are now in such a predicament, I am not able to find that you have much in the way of heartfelt remorse for your victims. This finding is relevant to my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation, as well of protection of the community and specific deterrence.
138As I have said, you have no prior convictions, which is a matter in your favour, and this is your first time in gaol, which, according to your daughter's letter, was initially stressful and negatively impacted your health.
139I understand that you have contributed to various charities over the years, both financially and helping them to deliver food and clothing to the needy. I have taken into account these matters in support of your otherwise good character, in your favour, insofar as I can in all the circumstances.
140I take into account your background: You were born in Hungary, and have one brother who still lives there. After completing high school, you went on to join the police force in Hungary. Then you became a member of the Secret Service, investigating government corruption. You fled Hungary in 1996, living in the USA for a time, then in 2003, you returned to Hungary. I was told that when you were in the USA, you were detained for a time, then returned to Hungary. You were able to migrate to Australia in 2008, after visiting your daughter who came here on a student visa the previous year. You started up the various businesses to which I have previously referred, and initially you ran these legitimately.
141You obtained permanent residency in 2010, but this was revoked in 2013 due to some problems with your Migration Agent and some matters that were not declared. You were then placed on a bridging visa, and to cut a long story short, you have until 4 October this year to make submissions in respect of your review application before the AAT, in relation to a decision to cancel your Subclass 121 Employer Nomination Visa. I was told that once your residency visa was cancelled, you were unable to work, but this did not prevent you from doing so, as the prosecution opening reveals.
142I was told that your mother died in 1996, and your father in October last year. You met your wife when you were 16, and married a short time later. You have two children, Mark Kenyeres and Tamia Rosner. You have two grandchildren.
143I was told that in November last year, your son-in-law, Robert, left your daughter and has returned to Hungary. Your daughter now has the sole care of their 22-month-old daughter. Although your family remains supportive of you, no one was able to attend the plea hearing, as your wife and daughter needed to stay home to look after your grandchildren. Apparently your son had some other commitment. I understand that your wife now lives with your son and daughter-in-law.
144While you have been in custody, you have been working in the laundry. I have factored in that you suffer from diabetes, and according to your daughter, you have been experiencing pain from an undiagnosed ailment. Your health issues are being appropriately managed in gaol, insofar as they can be.
145Your ability to return to Australia after you have served your sentence here, and are extradited to Hungary, is most uncertain. It depends on the outcome of the proceedings in Hungary, and also the outcome of your visa difficulties here. In all the circumstances, I give some weight to your anxiety about the prospect of your being able to ultimately return to Australia, and to live here with your wife and family. I also allow that time in gaol will be harder for you because of your concern for your family in your absence.
146In view of the nature of your offending, your lack of insightful remorse, but also factoring in your lack of prior convictions, your pleas of guilty at a fairly early stage, your family's support, and the fact that you face the prospect of extradition to Hungary after serving your sentence here, with uncertainty as to whether you will ever be able to return. I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as fairly good, and I place minimal weight on specific deterrence and protection of the community. However, I place strong weight on general deterrence in a bid to deter others from offending in the way that you have.
147In sentencing you, I have factored in that you have been in custody for 131 days in respect of your extradition alone. While these days cannot be included as pre-sentence detention as such, I have taken them into account when applying the totality principle.
148Totality is an important principle in your case, and in sentencing you, I have been most mindful of it. I am also mindful of the fact that, like current sentencing practice, which I have also considered, the maximum penalty is but one matter to take into account when sentencing you, and is not a controlling factor, nor is it axiomatic that you are to be sentences to a greater penalty where you have committed a continuing criminal enterprise offence, which has double the maximum penalty for an offence which is not a continuing criminal enterprise offence. Where I have sentenced you to a greater gaol term in respect of any of the continuing criminal enterprise charges, I make it clear that I have not taken this approach. Of course, the sum of money that you took in respect of any particular charge is the most relevant matter, as is the separate impact on each of the victims, and separate episodes of offending.
149In sentencing you, I have taken the approach of imposing periods of imprisonment that I consider are appropriate in all of the relevant circumstances in relation to each of the charges, and I have imposed levels of cumulation that I also consider are appropriate. However, I have then stepped back and adjusted the levels of cumulation, to arrive at a sentence which does not offend the principle of totality in my view.
150Please stand up, Sir.
151You are convicted of each of the offences and I make the compensation orders in respect of each of the applications made by the victims which are not opposed by you.
152You are sentenced to the following terms of imprisonment:
153Charge 1, three years; Charge 2, four years; Charge 3, two years; Charge 4, four years; Charge 5, two years; Charge 6, five years, which will be the base sentence; Charge 7, 12 months; Charge 8, two years; Charge 9, three years;, Charge 10, four years six months; Charge 11, twelve months; Charge 12, three years; Charge 13, two years; Charge 14, six months; Charge 15, twelve months.
154I direct that eight months from the sentences on Charges 2 and 4; nine months from the sentence on Charge 10; four months from the sentence on Charge 13; and one month from the sentence on Charge 15 be served cumulatively with each other, and with the base sentence, producing a total effective sentence of seven years, six months' imprisonment, and you are to serve five years’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
155If not for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of nine and half years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years’ imprisonment. I declare that you have already served 291 days by way of pre-sentence detention.
156Please take a seat, Sir.
157Is there anything arising out of those remarks?
158MR SPRAGUE: No, Your Honour.
159MS ROLFE: Not at this stage, Your Honour.
160HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. You can remove Mr Kenyeres. Yes, thank you, we'll now adjourn.
- - -
3
0
0