Director of Public Prosecutions v Paras

[2019] VCC 1139

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA  Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-17-01382

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ZOI PARAS

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE GWYNN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 July 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Paras
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 1139

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:Obtain financial advantage by deception; obtain property by deception.

Catchwords:    Family business, family trust, forged signatures
Legislation Cited:  Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:
Sentence:  30 months imprisonment suspended for a period of 2 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr A. Sharp
For the Accused	Ms J. Swiney

HER HONOUR:

1Zoi Paras, you have pleaded guilty on indictment to charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception and obtaining property by deception.

2The first of these offences, obtaining financial advantage by deception, occurred between 18 October 2012 and 7 November 2012 and involves an amount of $356,000.  The second charge, obtaining property by deception, occurred between 9 February 2012 and 11 July 2012 and involves the amount of $432,000.

3Each of those offences carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, reflecting the gravity with which Parliament regards these offences.

4The circumstances of your offending are set out in a document entitled Summary of Prosecution Opening for Sentence Indication, dated 20 June 2019.  It is a detailed document involving complex financial arrangements and will be annexed to these reasons as an agreed document.

5In short compass, the direct victim of your offending is the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, but in reality your victims include Helen and Arthur Grosdanis, and George Pateras.  Helen Grosdanis and George Pateras are your siblings, Arthur Grosdanis is your brother-in-law.

6During the relevant period you resided at an address in Shepparton and then at an address in Docklands with your husband, John Paras.  At various stages there were companies set up by various family members to play various roles.  These include HGZ Saretap, which was created in February of 2000 to administer a family trust for the Pateras family.  You, Helen Grosdanis and George Pateras were beneficiaries under that trust.  HGZ owned property at
K Road, Werribee; the “Werribee property”, which was mortgaged to the Commonwealth Bank.

7JSTC Pty Ltd was registered to an address in Shepparton in June 1996.  You were one of the directors from 2008, along with other family members, and at various times had been a shareholder, also along with other family members.

8Benalla Road Pty Ltd was registered to an address in Shepparton in September 2002.  It was created to purchase and administer property for development in the Shepparton area.  HGZ and JSTC were equal shareholders.  Benalla Road Pty Ltd owned property in Shepparton, which was also mortgaged to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.  That property was purchased in 2005 by Benalla Road and was funded by mortgage to the Commonwealth Bank as well as moneys obtained from HGZ and JSTC.

9Finally, Paras development group was registered in 2009 to an address in Shepparton.

10In May 2005 the Commonwealth Bank extended an approximately $2.9m a year business facility secured against the Shepparton property.  The business facility had been guaranteed by you, JSCT, HGZ, Helen Grosdanis, George Pateras, Thomas Paraskevas, John Paras and Christine Paraskevas.

11The Crown opening refers to uncharged acts which occurred in 2010 and 2011.  These are referred to in order to set out how you established trust with the bank, which then allowed you to commit the offending with which you were charged.  It is also designed to assist me to establish the objective gravity of that offending, in that it was not an isolated event.  You will not be punished for the uncharged acts.

12In terms of Charge 1, obtaining financial advantage by deception, on October 2012 a letter of offer was sent to the secretary of Benalla Road to extend the business facility by $356,000.  Forms were required to be signed and were so signed, purportedly by Helen Grosdanis and Thomas Paraskevas, and this led to the extension of the business facility by the Commonwealth Bank.  These signatures were forged, which was known to you, and you obtained a financial advantage in the amount of $356,000 for the charged period.

13In terms of Charge 2, in January 2012, you and Thomas Paraskevas requested $300,000 from the HGZ trust.  Helen Grosdanis and George Paraskevas refused to consent to the withdrawal.  Yet on 9 February 2012 $300,000 of special repayments were withdrawn with the withdrawal slipped signed by you and Helen Grosdanis.  That same day $300,000 in cash was deposited into your personal account and a later stage $250,000 was withdrawn.

14Four months later, on 2 April 2012, $120,000 in special repayments were withdrawn from one of the “Werribee property” investments with those moneys being deposited into your personal account and $80,000 later withdrawn.

15Three months after that, on 11 July 2012, a further $12,000 in special repayments were withdrawn against the “Werribee property” investment with the withdrawal slips signed by both you and Helen Grosdanis.  These moneys were also deposited into your personal account.

16The purported signings of relevant documents by Helen Grosdanis were forgeries, which was known to you, and in total, over the charged period, allowed you to obtain $436,000 in funds, which you were then able to put your own use.

17Your crimes were deliberate, calculated and carefully designed, relying on your family relationships and the trust that family members had in you for you to be able to execute your offending.  You breached the trust of your family members and purposely so.

18It is not possible, of course, to know how many persons may be deterred from succumbing to similar temptations from a consideration of the consequences for an offender, but general deterrence in such cases is important and must be reflected in any penalty imposed.

19I have received a victim impact statement from your sister, Helen Grosdanis.  The purpose of a victim impact statement is to give those affected by your crime the opportunity to participate in the criminal justice process by informing the court about the effects of the crime upon them.  I have got no doubt you have been taken through that document, in which your sister speaks of the financial loss, emotional trauma and impact on her own wellbeing of your offending.

20This offending has led to a breakdown in family relationships and you no longer have a relationship with your sister or brother, which whilst perhaps in the circumstances is unsurprising, is not without its enduring impact on the family as a whole.

21The charges were listed for trial, starting on 3 June 2019, at which stage there were two co-accused.  The matter subsequently proceeded by way of sentence indication before me on 24 June 2019.

22A sentence indication is a process that permits a judicial officer to give a defendant a general indication of the sentence that would likely to be imposed if the defendant chose to plead guilty at that stage.  It is a process which can resolve some concerns about the likely sentence that may be causing a defendant to defer entering a plea of guilty or to elect to proceed to trial.

23On your sentence indication both parties submitted a range of matters, but also that a wholly suspended sentence would adequately reflect all relevant sentencing considerations, should the matter proceed to a plea of guilty.  I note the Crown say they are unable to establish any loss as a result of your offending.

24Considering all the matters raised, the sentence indication given by me was that, should the matter proceed by way of guilty plea, an immediate term of imprisonment would not be imposed.  That sentence indication led to a resolution of the matter and you were arraigned on 24 June 2019, at which time you entered pleas of guilty to the two charges.

25I do accept that your plea has utilitarian value and has saved the court time and expense, as well as witnesses that need to subject themselves to
cross-examination, in what would have been a lengthy and complex trial.

26I also accept that your plea is a taking of responsibility for your actions, but note also that the court is required to take into account in any sentence the stage at which an offender pleaded guilty or indicated an intention to do so.  Clearly your plea came very late in the piece.

27I take into account your personal circumstances, as I am required to do.  You are presently aged 57 years and are the youngest of three siblings.  As I have already referred you no longer have a real relationship with either of your siblings.

28At the age of 17 years you married John Paras and remain married to him some 40 years later.  Your husband was originally an electrician by trade and he and his brother went into business in electrics, followed by property development.  You worked in the administration side of that business.

29You and your husband have two children:  Meagan aged 37 years and Aaron aged 35 years, both of whom reside in Melbourne and with whom I am told you have a good relationship.

30You presently reside in Queensland with your husband, with your father living in close proximity.

31I am told that your offending occurred in the context of complex family trusts and family business.  At the time of your offending there was pressure placed on you as the family business run by your husband and his brother was in financial difficulties.  The offending occurred with you trying to keep their business afloat and in the belief that you would ultimately be in a position to repay the moneys actually obtained.  Whilst placed in a position of divided loyalties you made your choice.  A choice which has had significant and ongoing effect.

32I do find your moral culpability to be high and the objective gravity to be at a serious level.

33Your counsel relies on the delay between the offences being committed and your plea.  Whilst the offending occurred in 2012 it was not identified by family members until 2014, at which time it was reported to police.  You were interviewed in January 2015, but not charged at that time, which is not surprising given the complex nature of the then allegations.

34You were ultimately charged in May 2016, with contested committal proceedings held in July 2017 in which you maintained the position that the alleged forged signatures were genuine.  Your first trial date was not allocated a judge as you were then unrepresented.

35One aspect of relying on delay in cases such as this is the inherent difficulty in identifying, investigating and prosecuting these kind of offences, making general deterrence all the more important.

36An offender such as you often holds a position which makes it possible or has the ability to disguise or camouflage the conduct in question.  You relied on your family relationships to avoid detection.  This in itself makes detection difficult and, once detected, the investigation of the crime both lengthy and complicated.  In these circumstances, in my view, less weight should attach to any delay.  Up until June of this year you were maintaining your innocence.

37I can only take into account delay in a very general sense.  I do accept, however, that the period between your offending and now, some seven years, offers a period in which to assess your prospects for rehabilitation.

38You have come before this court with no prior criminal history prior to this offending in 2012 and nothing subsequent in the seven years since.

39I am told you have stable accommodation and good family support from your husband, father and two children.  You have no drug or alcohol issues or any mental health or physical difficulties.  Taking all of these matters into account it would appear that your prospects for rehabilitation are good, if not excellent.

40There have been complicated legal proceedings undertaken in the Supreme Court which has led to the resolution of the areas of dispute, at least in a financial sense, within the family.  This further reduces any future risk.

41In terms of the basic purposes for sentence, a court must consider punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community.

42In sentencing you I am required to have regard to a range of matters, such as the seriousness of the offending, your culpability for it, your personal circumstances and those of your victims.

43I am also required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct, with the interest the community clearly has in seeking to ensure as far as possible that offenders are rehabilitated in reintegrated into society.

44I have taken into account where relevant the sentencing guidelines referred to in s.5 of the Sentencing Act.  I have also taken into account current sentencing practices for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty.

45In terms of Charge 1, obtain financial advantage by deception, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

46In terms of Charge 2, obtaining property by deception, you are convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment.

47This is the base sentence.  Six months of Charge 1 is cumulative on Charge 2. 

48This is a total effective sentence of 30 months imprisonment.

49In determining whether it is desirable to suspend that sentence of imprisonment I have taken into account the need to ensure that the sentence adequately denounces your conduct, is capable of deterring you and other persons from committing the same or similar offences, reflects the gravity of the offences and reflects the degree of risk that you will commit another offence punishable by imprisonment during the operation period.

50A suspended sentence is a prison sentence that is not put into immediate effect.  A suspended sentence allows a judge to decide that the offence is serious enough for a gaol term, but in the particular circumstances of the case the imprisonment should be suspended.  I have formed that view in your particular case.

51The term of 30 months imprisonment will be suspended for an operational period of two years.  I have reduced the operational period to reflect your period of good behaviour since the offending.

52You should be under no illusion that for all intents and purposes you have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.  You will not be required to serve that term of imprisonment unless during that operational period of two years you commit a further offence which is punishable by imprisonment.  Should that occur you will be required to establish that exceptional circumstances have arisen since the imposition of the suspended sentence to avoid being required to serve, in an actual sense, the two and a half years imposed upon you this day.

53Section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act requires me to state the sentence that I would have imposed if you had not pleaded guilty to the charges.  If not for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to a similar term but required it to be served immediately with a non-parole period of 18 months.

54All of that make sense?

55MR SHARP:  Yes.

56HER HONOUR:  Any further matters?

57MR SHARP:  No, Your Honour.

58HER HONOUR:  There were no ancillary orders sought?

59MR SHARP:  No, Your Honour.

60HER HONOUR:  All right.  Well, I thank each of you for your assistance. 
Ms Paras, in the nicest possible way, I hope I never see you again.  All right, thank you.  We will close the court till 10 tomorrow, thank you very much.

‑ ‑ ‑