DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS vGAURAV MALHOTRA
[2025] VCC 244
•13 March 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-23-00405; CR-23-01100
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| GAURAV MALHOTRA |
---
| JUDGE: | KELLY |
| WHEREHELD: | Melbourne |
| DATEOFHEARING: | 18 February; 4 March; 12 March 2025 |
| DATEOFSENTENCE: | 13 March 2025 |
| CASEMAYBECITEDAS: | DPP v Malhotra |
| MEDIUMNEUTRALCITATION: | [2025] VCC 244 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception — Using False Document — Attempt to Obtain a Financial Advantage by Deception — Deal with Property suspected of being proceeds of crime — Continuing Criminal Enterprise — Total quantum of
$11,464,093.90 — Early Plea — Delay — guarded prospects of rehabilitation – Disparity in sentences with co-offender – comparable cases – deterrence
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991.
Cases Cited:DPP v Sharma [2023] VCC 1746; Zaia v The Queen [2020] VSCA 9; Arthur v The Queen [2018] VSCA 58; Mao v The Queen [2022]
VSCA 211; Hassan v DPP [2024] VSCA 212.
Sentence: 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
FortheDPP | Mr M. Cookson | Office of Public Prosecutions |
FortheAccused | Mr S. Thomas (plea) Mr J. Levine (further plea and sentence) | Vasilaras & Co Lawyers (plea) Frank A Sanna Solicitor (further plea and sentence) |
COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
250 William Street, Melbourne
HIS HONOUR:
1Gaurav Malhotra, you have pleaded guilty on Indictment P10042810.1 to one charge of Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception and a related summary offence of Deal with Property Suspected of being the Proceeds of Crime.
2You have also pleaded guilty on Indictment N10734073.1 to one charge of Using a False Document, three charges of Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception, two charges of Attempt to Obtain a Financial Advantage by Deception, and one related summary charge of Deal with Property Suspected of being the Proceeds of Crime. These offences carry maximum penalties as follows:
·Using a False document — 10 years’ imprisonment.
·Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception — 10 years’ imprisonment.
·Attempt to Obtain a Financial Advantage by Deception — 5 years’ imprisonment.
·Deal with Property suspected of being proceeds of crime — 2 years’ imprisonment.
3As you have pleaded guilty to four charges of Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception, namely charge 1 on Indictment P10042810.1 and Charges 2, 3 and 6 on Indictment N10734073.1, these offences qualify as Continuing Criminal Enterprise offences pursuant to section 6H(1) of the Sentencing Act. The maximum penalty is doubled for these charges, producing a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years for each of those charges.
Circumstances of Offending
4Your offending was summarised by the prosecution at your plea. The Openings are voluminous. Both Openings are annexed to these remarks.
5In short, throughout your offending you ran a mortgage brokerage firm named JBR Financial Services with your wife Reena Malhotra. You were not a licenced finance broker, but your wife was. She employed you as a ‘loans administration assistant’ in the business. JBR was registered with the aggregator Australian Financial Group, and the business involved filing applications for home loans on behalf of clients with AFG’s authorisation, and upon approval of the loan 85% of the commission paid to AFG was forwarded to JBR. You were on occasions also paid cash directly from clients for the provision of your services.
6Indictment P10042810.1 concerns one rolled up charge of obtaining a financial advantage by deception between the 30th of May 2014 and the 4th of April 2016. In 14 mortgage applications you fraudulently obtained a total of $5,524,522.68 in finance from Macquarie Bank for various clients of JBR. You altered PAYG slips provided to you by clients to inflate incomes or to provide falsified work histories, and created fake bank statements purporting to be from other lenders. These documents were filed with the loan applications. You thereby induced Macquarie Bank to provide mortgages to people who would not otherwise qualify.
7As an example, in 2014 you obtained a loan for Mary Adam (incident two). You met Ms Adam and her husband at a café, where she provided you with copies of her driver’s licence, Medicare card, immigration documents, bank statements and payslips, as well as $2,500 for your services. In 2021 she identified as false a number of PAYG slips and bank statements you submitted on her behalf. She had not provided these documents to you. Both her then employer and the Commonwealth bank confirmed that the information contained in these payslips and bank statements was falsified.
8You obtained a total of $38,847.88 in commissions. The handling of these commissions constitutes the related summary offence of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
9Indictment N10734073.1 concerned offending between the 22nd of June 2016 and the 3rd of February 2018. In 39 mortgage applications you deployed the same tactics that succeeded between 2014 and 2016. You obtained a financial advantage in the form of loans totalling $4,679,188.22 from ANZ Bank, which constitutes the rolled-up charge 2, $744,223 from AMB Bank Limited which constitutes the rolled-up charge 3, and $516,150 from MyState Bank Limited (charge 6). Between the 24th of October and the 7th of December 2016 you also attempted to fraudulently obtain loans for clients from AMP Bank Limited totalling
$993,088, the rolled-up charge 4, and on the 12th of January 2018 you attempted to obtain a fraudulent loan for a client in the amount of $432,329 (charge 5).
10Each successful or attempted loan application involved the use of false payslips, PAYG summaries, bank statements and/or statutory declarations, and your creation and use of these documents forms charge 1 on the indictment, a rolled- up charge of Using a False Document.
11As an example, in 2016 you obtained a home loan for Taha El Hawli (incident 15). You met Mr El Hawli and his wife Nada and collected copies of their passports and rates notices. You obtained a loan from ANZ Bank for $960,000, and you were paid $2,500 by the El Hawli’s. In 2021 Mr El Hawli reviewed the loan application you submitted on his behalf, and observed it included payslips and a PAYG summary sheet which falsely showed his income as higher than it was at the time of the application. Mr El Hawli attested to police that neither he nor his wife had provided these documents to you.
12The amount you obtained for clients on this indictment was $5,939,571.22, and you attempted to obtain an additional $1,425,417.
13You received a total of $126,143.07 in commissions and it is this handling of “commissions” which forms the basis of the summary charge dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
14You obtained $11,464,093.90 in total by way of mortgages secured through filing false financial records.
Circumstances of Offender
15You were born in India, the oldest of three siblings. Your father was a businessm an who ran a poultry farm and your mother was a caretaker in the home.
16Your father passed away in 1998 and I am told you cared for your family upon his death, paying off your father’s loans. You obtained a master's degree in business administration from the Jakarta Institute of Management Studies. You held a number of positions in finance and accounting. You moved to Darwin in 2000 to work, first as a general manager of a cattle station and then as an accountant.
17In September 2004 you were sentenced to three years, six months gaol in the Darwin Supreme Court, with a non-parole period of 21 months gaol for the offence of stealing. On 14 April 2005 you appeared before the Darwin Court of Summary Jurisdiction where you received a gaol term for the offence of Fabricating Evidence. These thefts were committed against your employer, Horvath Accounting. The fabrication relates to a bogus medical report you provided to the Supreme Court from a fictional doctor attesting that you had paid for your mother’s fictional liver transplant. Until your forgery was detected by the prosecutor, you relied on this document to persuade the judge that you did not benefit from your thefts and that they were committed to save your mother’s life.
18Once your forgery was detected, you resorted to traducing your mother, complaining that you had stolen from your employer because she bullied you into sending money to her in India. An analysis of the electronic transfers you made demonstrates that little of what you stole went to India. Bailey J described your thefts as motivated by greed. Nothing has been provided to me that justifies revisiting this assessment of your motivation.
19Upon your release from gaol in Darwin, you began working in Melbourne in 2006 and moved from job to job. You incurred a number of debts and borrowed approximately $40,000 from your friends and family.
20You have two children who are currently studying at university. Your wife suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome which apparently limits her ability to work. Since 2019, you have been employed at the Independent Vehicle Inspection Centre Pty Ltd as a manager.
Defence Submissions
21Mr Thomas appeared on your behalf at the plea hearing on 18 February. He submitted that a combined sentence with a lengthy Community Correction Order was within range having regard to the limited loss suffered, the delay you have experienced, your prospects of rehabilitation and the fact that you have not reoffended in 7 years.
Prosecution Submissions
22Mr Cookson on behalf of the Prosecution submitted that a combined sentence is not within range and that a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period is the only available disposition given the objective gravity and sophistication of your offending.
Objective Gravity and Moral Culpability
23Mr Cookson submitted that the offending is serious and sustained, spanning 4 years and over $11 million dollars. He conceded that you received a comparatively modest personal benefit and there was no evidence of loss to the banks by loans defaulting. He nonetheless submitted that the offending is objectively grave given its sophistication, the quantum and the period over which your offending was committed.
24Mr Thomas conceded that your offending was serious but emphasised that none of the loans you secured defaulted.
25The two charges of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime are mid-range. The sums are substantial and you were not entitled to levy these “commissions.” The money was banked for your benefit and you knew these sums had been generated by false representations you had made to the lenders you were purporting to help.
26The four charges of obtain financial advantage by deception are also mid-range examples of their type. The sums are very substantial and your dishonesty in securing these loans was persistent, sophisticated and ambitious.
27The same can be said of the two attempts to which you have pleaded guilty.
28You were interviewed in 2018 and released without charge. Your offending generated two briefs: you were charged on the MARSDEN brief on 30 March 2022 and the TAYLOR brief on 31 January 2023.
29You were bailed at the conclusion of your committal proceedings on 28 June 2023.
30Your then legal representative indicated that there would certainly be a plea of guilty.
31Your matter was first listed for plea on 6 September 2023. On 1 September, you applied for an adjournment to make restitution to the banks. This was not opposed by the Prosecution and your plea was administratively adjourned to 14 February 2024.
32Your solicitors requested a further adjournment on 31 January 2024, indicating that you had not placed them in funds for your upcoming plea hearing. I granted an administrative adjournment until 8 May 2024, noting that I had sentenced your co-accused and each party asked that your plea proceed before me.
33The matter was administratively adjourned again to 13 May due to the court’s incapacity to hear your matter on 8 May 2024.
34On 6 May 2024, your legal representatives indicated that they were no longer acting on your behalf as you had not placed them in funds.
35On 10 May 2024, Mr Sam Angelatos notified the court that he was now acting on your behalf and requested an adjournment of one month. You had yet to place him in funds. A funding mention was listed for 29 May 2024. At that time, you indicated that you needed four weeks to settle a loan and obtain funds. I granted an adjournment and fixed your plea for 9 July 2024.
36Mr Angelatos contacted the court on 8 July 2024 to indicate that you had difficulties obtaining your loan. A funding mention was fixed for 17 July 2024. At that hearing, your matter was fixed for plea again on 9 August 2024. On 8 August, Mr Angelatos sought leave to cease acting. You and your solicitor appeared at odds over the provision of an affidavit you had deposed attesting to your financial position. On that day, you engaged another solicitor, Mr Ian Hone who assisted you with filing your affidavit. On 9 August, this matter was called on again for funding mention. The court requested a VLA representative be present in order to assist given the procedural history to that point. Your plea was listed for the seventh time on 17 September 2024.
37Mr Hone, your third solicitor on record, corresponded with the court on September
16 to indicate that you had engaged a fourth solicitor, Mr Nelson Pinto. On September 16, your counsel Mr Thomas made another application for adjournment, on the basis that he had only been briefed that morning. Agreement was reached and the Prosecution did not oppose a further adjournment to 24 October 2024 with the expectation that you would be arraigned on that day.
38On 24 October 2024, Mr Thomas indicated that the parties were in discussions regarding the summary charges and requested another adjournment. The matter was adjourned to 28 November 2024 for arraignment.
39On 26 November 2024, the Prosecution indicated that the summary offences remained unresolved and your arraignment could not occur. The matter was administratively adjourned to 10 December 2024.
40You were formally arraigned on 10 December 2024. Your plea was heard on 18 February 2025 and you were then remanded into custody.
41On 28 February 2025, the court received notice that you had engaged a fifth solicitor, Mr Frank Sanna to act on your behalf. Mr Sanna requested the court list a bail application and further plea. I was not provided any evidentiary basis in support of these applications. I indicated I would proceed to sentence on 5 March 2025. Mr Levine was briefed to appear on your behalf on 4 March 2025. He requested an adjournment to obtain a psychological report but failed to provide a cogent basis for this request. I denied this application but adjourned to 12 March 2025 to enable Mr Levine time to provide the court with materials supporting his submissions.
42On 12 March 2025, Mr Levine handed up to the court a bundle of documents including a medical certificate relating to your wife’s health and a psychological report by Ms Kim Dowse dated 7 March 2025. Mr Levine also referred me to the case of Shiv Sahay. I was not provided with sentencing remarks but I was given a letter advising of a court result in the Local Court of New South Wales, an ASIC media release statement published 17 June 2020 and what appeared to be a bundle of court documents related to Mr Sahay. These were not tendered and their value to my exercise remains opaque.
43Mr Levine submitted that your mental health had declined in the period awaiting sentence. He conceded that your depression was likely reactive to your predicament and the inevitability of a gaol term. He submitted that your wife’s mental health would deteriorate if you received a gaol term, given her dependenc e on you. He conceded that the threshold of exceptional circumstances was not met.
44Mr Levine repeated many of the submissions Mr Thomas had previously made, namely that you had good prospects of rehabilitation, that you ought to be sentenced to a community corrections order and that the banks had suffered no loss, thereby diminishing the objective gravity of your offending.
Previous Criminal History
45As referred to earlier in these remarks, on or about September 2004, you pleaded guilty to stealing in the Northern Territory Supreme Court. You were sentenced to a total of 3 years and 6 months gaol with a non-parole period of 21 months. As noted elsewhere, that offending represents a grave rupturing of your employer’s trust in you.
46You stole $120, 538.89 from Horvath Accounting. You were employed by them as a bookkeeper. They had sponsored your permanent residency application and had entrusted you with unsupervised access to their bank accounts. You stole from them over a period of five and a half months. When your supervisor questioned you about suspicious payments, you resigned the next day and did not return to work. You were arrested in Victoria and extradited to the Northern Territory. You provided the court with a forged letter from a fictional G.P. certifying that you used the stolen money to pay for your gravely ill mother’s liver transplant. You were found out by a diligent prosecutor. Your mother was not gravely ill and had not received a liver transplant. She did not have cancer, as you claimed. Bailey J found that you had used a substantial portion of the stolen money to gamble, saying that the money was ‘used entirely for your own selfish purposes.’ Months after sentencing you, Bailey J passed away. He, unlike your mother, was gravely ill when you endeavoured to hoodwink him.
47The court, unsurprisingly, found that your prospects of rehabilitation were poor given your lack of remorse and your attempt to deceive it.
Prospects of Rehabilitation
48Mr Thomas submitted that you are a valuable member of the community and you have demonstrated your commitment to rehabilitation by remaining offence free for nearly 7 years. I pause to note that there is a gap of 10 years between your offending in Darwin and the earliest of these charges.
49He relied on your significant involvement with the Point Cook Cricket Club. You have volunteered as a coach for various teams and you have acted variously as Treasurer, Vice President and President. You were awarded Volunteer of the Year in 2019 by the Wyndham City Council for your contributions to the community.
50At your plea hearing I also received a letter from Remi van de Wiel KC, who for some time employed you in a company he owned. Mr van de Wiel wrote glowingly of your knowledge and work ethic and affirmed that he still wishes to retain you as an employee despite the charges that have been laid against you. It is positive that you may have gainful employment to return to once you have served your sentence. Mr Van de Weil attended court to support you on 12 March 2025.
51Mr Cookson endorsed a dimmer view of your prospects, noting that 10 years have passed since your offending in the Northern Territory. You were imprisoned then for egregious breaches of your employer’s trust. He argued that a substantial term of imprisonment has not deterred you from committing more dishonesty offences on a grander scale and over a number of years since your release from gaol in Darwin.
52On the one hand, you have not come to the attention of the authorities for ten years and that suggests a capacity to ply the straight and narrow. On the other, knowing that detection risks imprisonment, you persisted for years in creating false documents, taking commissions to which you were not entitled and gulling banks into providing finance to people who would have been denied had their earnings, assets and liabilities been revealed, stripped of the varnish you applied.
53You are vulnerable to succumbing to dishonest stratagems to earn money you cannot earn in lawful employment. Your prospects are guarded.
Plea of Guilty and Remorse
54I accept that your pleas of guilty are useful. They have saved the time and expense of a long and possibly complex trial. You have spared a rollcall of witnesses the inconvenience of testifying. I have mitigated your sentence accordingly.
55In the psychological report provided by Ms Dowse, it appears you told her that your offending was the product of ‘blackmailing clients’ and that other mortgage brokers were engaging in similar offending. You also provided a similar explanation of your 2004 offending, blaming your mother for your offending because she would become ‘highly critical of you’ and you were seeking to appease her. This traverses Bailey J’s findings as previously noted. You have demonstrated a persistent unwillingness to take accountability for your actions. You are quick to blame others and quick to minimise your conduct. You have not betrayed any genuine regret for your offending.
Delay
56Mr Thomas submitted on your behalf that you have experienced significant delay in this matter and that ought to be regarded as an exceptional mitigating factor. Mr Thomas submitted that there were three years, six months between your offending and when you were charged and an additional 6 years, six months between when you were charged and your plea.
57Mr Cookson submitted that the Defence chronology is incorrect. He submitted that you were interviewed in 2018, but you were released pending investigation. Your offending was the subject of two briefs; you were charged on 30 March 2022 and 31 January 2023 respectively. Mr Cookson submitted that the delays since your committal proceedings have been principally generated by adjournments you sought to obtain funding or to secure fresh legal representation.
58Mr Cookson conceded that the delay between interview in 2018 and charging in 2022 is not your fault and was generated by the scale of the investigation and the Covid-19 pandemic.
59I accept that you have had these charges hanging over your head for at least three and a half years through no fault of yours. You are entitled to both limbs of delay, and I have mitigated your sentence accordingly.
60I also accept that your pleas were entered early. You are entitled to a reduction in recognition of that fact.
Disparity
61Your co-accused Mr Ravish Sharma has been sentenced for his role.1 Your counsel conceded that your offending is not so analogous that the principle of parity is invoked. I agree.
62Your offending is graver and more persistent. Mr Sharma’s offending occurred between mid-2017 and March 2018,2 a period of less than a year. Your offending spanned a period of four years. Mr Sharma obtained a total of $1,818,400 for his clients and attempted to obtain a further $1,092,000. You obtained over $11 million in loans and a further $1,425,417 in attempted loans.
63Mr Sharma’s role within JBR was very different to yours. He was an employee and through his brokerage licence became a conduit for your nefarious schemes, although he was aware of the bogus nature of the loan documents he submitted. 3 Mr Shamra was sentenced on the basis that you introduced him to these fraudulent practices and that you had developed these practices long before he came to work for you.4 You are, therefore, the principal of the scheme and Mr Sharma’s recruiter, facts which call for a disparity between you both in sentencing.5
1 DPP v Sharma [2023] VCC 1746 (‘Sharma’).
2 Ibid, [18], [21].
3 Ibid, [40]-[43].
4 Ibid, [52].
5 E.g., Zaia v The Queen [2020] VSCA 9, [94].
64Mr Sharma had an unblemished criminal record, save a driving offence from 2007. You have a very relevant criminal history from 2004. Mr Shama had demonstrated decent prospects of rehabilitation,6 and had effectively completed his rehabilitation.7 Your prospects are thornier.
65As to the proceeds of crime, whilst Mr Sharma is responsible for handling
$126,143.07 in commissions, he only received $15,973.27 of that sum personally. 8 Mr Sharma did not handle the $38,847.88 in commissions which constitutes the summary charge on indictment P10042810.1. Mr Sharma did not extract any extra commissions from his clients. You did.9
Sentencing Principles
66Pursuant to s 5 of the Sentencing Act, the purposes for which you are to be sentenced are:
(a)To punish you in a manner and to an extent which is just in all of the circumstances;
(b)To deter you or others from committing similar offences in future;
(c)To facilitate rehabilitation;
(d)To manifest the denunciation of your conduct;
(e)To protect the community; or
(f)A combination of two or more of these purposes.
67
The Prosecution has provided a few cases delineating the range of sentences available to this Court.10 This sort of offending can be committed in any number of ways with various degrees of ambition, sophistication, subterfuge and
6 Sharma (n 2) [59].
7 Ibid, [76].
8 Ibid, [33].
9 Ibid, [44].
10 E.g., Arthur v The Queen [2018] VSCA 58; Mao v The Queen [2022] VSCA 211; Hassan v DPP [2024] VSCA 212.
manipulation of others. The cases provided by the Crown have been useful, but they do not bind my instinctive synthesis.
68Your offending was sophisticated, protracted and drew in several innocent parties. The primary financial advantage you obtained was for your clients, but you charged them for your role in creating and lodging misleading financial documents. You derived a further benefit by way of commissions paid to JBR by Australian Financial Group. I have not been advised of how much you were paid by them. Whilst it was argued that none of the loans you dishonestly secured defaulted, the banks who leant substantial sums to your clients were entitled to act on the representations you made when assessing their exposure to risk. When a dishonest broker misleads a financial institution, it may take many years for the risk to crystallise into a default. It may never happen. Markets are volatile and interest rates fluctuate. Although each loan was secured against the mortgagee’s property, any shortfall upon sale of such a property impacts the cost of financial products to consumers from that point on. The effect of your offending is to erode the relationship between banks and their customers in subtle ways. The pain of such undermining is spread throughout the community of borrowers.
69Others in the community need to be deterred from committing crimes of deception against financial organisations. Ultimately, the cost of such deceptions is passed on to the consumer. There is, therefore, a central role for general deterrence in the sentence I am to impose.
70There is also a need to deter you personally. You have committed deceptions against your employer whilst working as an accountant in Darwin and you fabricated evidence which you placed before the judge who sentenced you in an attempt to sway him and mislead him as to why you stole. You had countless opportunities to reflect when committing these offences, but you persisted for four years. You were not deterred by the fact that you had received a substantial gaol
term for stealing from your former employer. I need to impose a sentence that deters you now.
71I have assessed your prospects of rehabilitation as guarded, but I intend to leave the door to your rehabilitation open.
72As you have pleaded guilty to 3 or more Continuing Criminal Enterprise offences, you are to be sentenced as a Continuing Criminal Enterprise Offender, and the increased maximum penalties for these offences needs to be recognised in the sentence I pass.
73Mr Malhotra please stand.
74On Charge 1 on Indictment P10042810.1, Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years gaol
75On the related summary offence of Dealing with Property Suspected of being the Proceeds of Crime, you are sentenced to 6 months gaol, to be served concurrently with the sentence on charge 1.
76On Indictment N10734073.1, on Charge 1, Using a False Document, you are convicted and sentenced to 9 months gaol
77On charge 2, Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years gaol;
78On charge 3, Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception, you are convicted and sentenced to 6 months gaol;
79On charge 4, Attempt to Obtain a Financial Advantage by Deception, you are convicted and sentenced to 8 months gaol;
80On charge 5, Attempt to Obtain a Financial Advantage by Deception, you are convicted and sentenced to 9 months gaol.
81On Charge 6, Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception, you are convicted and sentenced to 9 months gaol.
82On the related summary offence of Dealing with Property Suspected of being the Proceeds of Crime, you are sentenced to 6 months gaol.
83Charge 1 on Indictment P10042810.1 will be the base sentence. I order that 3 months of charge 1 on Indictment N10734073.1, 12 months on charge 2 of the same indictment, 3 months on charge 4 of the same indictment, 3 months on charge 5 of the same Indictment and 3 months on charge 6 of the same Indictment be cumulated upon the base sentence and upon each other. The remaining sentences are to be served concurrently.
84This produces a total effective sentence of 4 years gaol. I fix a non-parole period of two years 6 months.
85You have served 23 days in presentence detention not including today, and I declare these days as time served against the sentence I have imposed.
86Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declare that but for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to 6 years gaol with a non-parole period of 4 years.
87Pursuant to s 6J of the Sentencing Act, I will note on the court record that I have sentenced you as a Continuing Criminal Enterprise Offender.
88The prosecution are seeking a disposal order. The making of that order is not opposed, and the order will be made in the terms sought.
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Case No: CR-23-00405
AT MELBOURNE Indictment: N10734073.1 IN ITS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
- V - GAURAV MALHOTRA
SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION OPENING
Date of document: 21 January 2025
Filed on behalf of: Director of Public Prosecutions
Prepared by:
ABBEY HOGAN Solicitor’code:7539
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Reference: Alysha BYRNE
565 Lonsdale Street Tel:
Melbourne VIC 3000 File No: 2300137
1. The accused is pleading guilty on this second Indictment to:
a. One Charge of Using a false document [s.83A (2) Crimes
Act 1958];
b. Three Charges of Obtaining a financial advantage by deception [s.82 of the Crimes Act 1958]; and
c. Two Charges of Attempting to commit an indictable
offence [321M of the Crimes Act 1958];
a total of Six Indictable Charges between 22 June 2016 and
3 February 2018.
2. The accused is also pleading guilty to one summary offence of Deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime.
3. The offences of Using a false document and Obtaining a financial advantage by deception each carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years. The charge of Attempting to Obtain a financial advantage by deception carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years. The Application of CCE provisions to these maximum penalties will be addressed in submissions.
4. Gaurav MALHOTRA (‘MALHOTRA’) is a 49 year old man. He came to Australia from India in 2000 and is a permanent resident. At the time of the commencement of this offending he was
40 years of age.
5. MALHOTRA holds an MBA from a Jakarta institution. He did not hold any licence to be a financial broker in Australia nor did he hold any qualifications in the financial field.
6. His wife, Reena MALHOTRA, was the holder of a business name JBR Financial Services (‘JBR’). She was a registered mortgage broker. Her husband was employed by her as a “loans administration assistant”.
7. JBR provided mortgage brokerage services obtaining home loans from various financial institutions. JBR was registered with an aggregator, Australian Financial Group (‘AFG’), but it was JBR that submitted applications for finance with AFG’s authorisation. If finance was granted the lender paid a commission to AFG who shared 85% of the commission with JBR.
8. The investigation of MALHOTRA’s financial activities came to light in the course of the investigation of RAVISH SHARMA (‘SHARMA’) (see separate Opening on Indictment N10669137).
9. SHARMA had lodged a finance application under the name Mint Mortgages. A company Earnity Finance Pty Ltd was also identified. Examination of these two entities established that MALHOTRA and his wife, Reena MALHOTRA, were the proprietors of those entities.
10. This link provided a basis for the obtaining of search warrants for the homes of both SHARMA and MALHOTRA where many relevant documents were located.
OFFENCES
Incident One - KUMAR Documents
11. In May or June 2016 Brijesh KUMAR1 and his wife Divya SHARMA were looking to sell their current home and purchase a new home. Mr KUMAR had previously met MALHOTRA at an Indian gathering and had his phone number. MALHOTRA had told him he was a mortgage broker. Mr SHARMA made phone contact with MALHOTRA.
12. MALHOTRA collected documents from Mr KUMAR and his wife including payslips, tax returns and identity documents. MALHOTRA secured the necessary finance through the Bank of Melbourne.
13. In the course of the search of MALHOTRA’s office on the day of his arrest the KUMAR’s loan application file was located2.
14. Subsequently police contacted Mr KUMAR and showed him some documentation that had been used to secure the finance from Bank of Melbourne. Mr KUMAR told police that two
1 KUMAR deps p.256
2 Application file deps. p.943 - 985
payslips and PAYG Summary were falsely altered to a higher figure inflating his earnings. (Commencement of Charge 1 – Use False Document)
Indcident Two – BURLAKOTI Documents
15.In 2016 Suman BURLAKOTI3 worked as a chef earning about
$45,000 per year. He wanted to buy a house. A friend connected him with MALHOTRA who, he understood, was a loan broker. He first met MALHOTRA with his friend in a café in Brunswick. He gave MALHOTRA his payslip and copies of his drivers’ licence and passport.
16. Soon after he had met MALHOTRA he received a call from the bank and he was able to proceed to purchase a home. His loan was for $367,900 with the Bank of Melbourne.
17. Ultimately he was shown documents by police said to have been used to obtain the Bank of Melbourne loan. He identified that the loan application incorrectly stated his income as $70,000 per annum. What purported to be a NAB bank statement was not his account. He banked with ANZ. The application stated he owned shares which was wrong and his value of superannuation was inflated. This was all false information and was not provided by him. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
18. In the course of the search of MALHOTRA’s office on the day of his arrest the BURKALOTI’s loan application file4 was located.
Incident Three – BHATAL Documents
3 BURLAKOTI deps p.259
4 Application deps p.986 - 995
19. In February 2019 Mr Harmandeep BHATAL5 was contacted by police who wanted to discuss a home loan he had taken out in 2016.
20. In mid 2016 Mr BHATAL was interested in buying some land and building a house. A friend gave him the phone number of MALHOTRA, a loan broker. He phoned MALHOTRA and they arranged to meet at BHATAL’s house.
21. When they met MALHOTRA was very confident he could get the finance required. BHATAL gave him identification documents and payslips. BHATAL worked as a truck driver.
22.After much delay, costing Mr BHATAL penalty fees of
$1,500, the loan was approved for $165,500 through the Bank of Melbourne.
23.In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at
MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file6 in the name of Mr BHATAL.
24. When Mr BHATAL was shown documents which had been used to support the loan he discovered that it included a NAB bank statement showing a balance of over $61,000. He has never held an account with the NAB. The bank statement is false. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
25. In the course of the search of MALHOTRA’s office on the day of his arrest the BHATAL’s loan application file7 was located.
Incident Four – CHATURVEDI Documents
26. Ankur CHATURVEDI8 and his wife decided to purchase an investment property in 2016. He sought a mortgage broker and found MALHOTRA on Facebook. MALHOTRA visited their home. MALHOTRA provided CHATURVEDI with a checklist of
5 BHATAL deps p.261
6 Application file deps p.996 - 1003
7 Application deps p.996 - 1003
8 Chaturvedi deps p.329
documents he required. He provided the documents sought by email including payslips and identification documents.
27. The loan was secured pretty quickly and settlement occurred on time. The loan amount was $386,900.
28. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file9 in the name of CHATURVEDI.
29. Subsequently the police approached Mr CHATURVEDI and asked him to view documents which had been used to secure his finance. One such document was a Statutory Declaration said to have been made by Mr CHATURVEDI’s brother, Vineet YADAV, saying he had gifted Mr CHATURVEDI $45,000. Mr CHATURVERDI has no brother. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
30.In the course of the search of MALHOTRA’s office on
the day of his arrest the CHATURVEDI’s loan application file10 was located.
Incident Five – OSMAN Loan
31. In 2016 Khaled OSMAN11 was looking to buy a house. At the time he was an apprentice carpenter earning $500 a week. His father obtained the details of a mortgage broker, MALHOTRA. They met and MALHOTRA told him he would charge
$2,000 to get the loan. OSMAN had a sum of $87,000 for a deposit gifted to him by his father.
32.The loan with the ANZ Bank for $325,600 was approved
and, after some delay, settlement took place.
33. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file12 in the name of Khaled OSMAN.
9 Application file deps p.1170 - 1181
10 Application deps p.1170 – 1181, at 1181
11 OSMAN deps p.264
12 Application file deps p.1004 – 1010 at p.1010
34. Subsequently police asked OSMAN to look at documents used to support his application for finance. Included in the documentation was a statutory declaration stating that Mr OSMAN’s father had gifted him $100,000. That document was false. (Charge 2 – Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
Incident Six – EL HAWLI Documents
35. About the middle of 2016 Kassem EL HAWLI13 wanted to refinance a loan on a rental property he owned. He obtained the phone number of MALHOTRA through a family friend and called him. They arranged to meet.
36. MALHOTRA told him what he needed and took photos of EL HAWLI’s identification. He required a $2,000 fee. MALHOTRA asked for a rental letter and a Centrelink report for his father who was co-owner of the rental property.
37. Mr EL HAWLI got all the documents required and paid the fee.
38. After some delay he secured finance through the Bank of Melbourne for $492,000.
39. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file14 in the name of EL HAWLI.
40. Subsequently police showed him documentation that was used to apply for the finance from Bank of Melbourne. There were a number of anomalies. There were signatures that were not his. There was an employment letter from WZ Constructions that he did not supply. There was a PAYG Statement which he had not supplied. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
Incident Seven – KAUR Documents
13 EL HAWLI deps p.264 - 266
14 Application file deps p.1047 - 1059
41. In 2016 Raminder KAUR15 and her husband Arun SHARMA16 decided to buy a house in north Geelong. They signed a contract and paid a 5% deposit. Mr SHARMA made phone contact with MALHOTRA to organize bank finance for the purchase. The couple provided their identification documents his taxi worksheets and his wife’s payslips from Barwon Health where she worked as a food service assistant. They paid MALHOTRA
$1,000 as a brokerage fee. The finance was approved and a loan secured with Bank of Melbourne for $308,076.
42.In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at
MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file17 in the name of Raminder KAUR and Arun SHARMA.
43. In October 2018 police spoke to Mr SHARMA and his wife. They were asked to view certain documents which had been used to support the loan application. They identified certain PAYG statements and payslips as false showing greatly inflated Gross Salary figures. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
Incident Eight – PATEL Loans
44. In the middle of 2016 Pratik PATEL18 and his wife Zinal began looking for an investment property to purchase. They found a property in Truganina and paid a small deposit. They were referred to MALHOTRA by a real estate agent. They soke to MALHOTRA who asked for identification documents, payslips and existing loan documentation. They already had finance on their home. MALHOTRA explained that they would need to refinance their existing home loan which would
15 KAUR deps p.272.
16 SHARMA deps p.277.
17 Application file deps p.1011 - 1021
18 PATEL deps p.305
provide funds for the purchase of the investment property and support the second loan application.
45. After a disappointing valuation from the Bank of Melbourne MALHOTRA advised that he would go to the AMP Bank. Both loans were approved; the refinance loan at
$431,424 and the new home loan at $312,799.
46. Pratik PATEL was unhappy with the way MALHOTRA had handled the arrangements. He ended up paying $4,000 in penalty interest and costs due to delayed settlements. He made a complaint to AMP Bank. The same day MALHOTRA rang PATEL and offered to pay him $1,000 cash. Eventually he paid PATEL $2,000.
47. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file19 in the name of PATEL.
48. In 2019 police made contact with the PATELs. They showed them certain documents which had been used to support each of the loan applications. Pratik PATEL identified a PAYG Summary from “Catch of the Day” as false and misleading as to his level of income. This document was used to support both loans. (Charge 3 – Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
Incident Nine – YAZDI Documents
49. In 2016 Ali YAZDI20 was looking to purchase a home. He approached the ANZ Bank who gave him the go-ahead to make an offer. He did so and followed through with the loan application to that bank. The amount offered by the bank fell short of the amount needed to settle. By means he no longer recalls he got in touch with MALHOTRA who assured him he could get the necessary finance. He supplied
19 Application file deps p.1071 – 1119 at p.1118
20 YAZDI deps p.315
MALHOTRA with identification documents and rates notices for other properties he owned.
50. The loan was secured for $860,000 through the Bank of Melbourne.
51. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file21 in the name of YAZDI.
52. In 2019 police approached Mr YAZDI and asked him to examine certain documents which had been used to secure the loan.
53. Mr YAZDI identified payslips and a Group Certificate from Altitude Building Services as completely false. Mr YAZDI had no association with such a company. He also identified a NAB bank statement showing a balance of
$262,512.36 as at 17 July 2016 as entirely false. He did not bank with NAB. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
Incident Ten – HUSSEIN Loan
54. In 2016 Mirvette HUSSEIN22 and her husband wanted to buy a house. At the time her husband was working as a tiler. She was not working. It was her husband who made first contact with MALHOTRA. He came to their house. They gave MALHOTRA some documents of identification. She told MALHOTRA that she was not working.
55. They got the loan from ANZ Bank for $515,059.46 and proceeded to settlement.
56. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file23 in the name of Safa JOUD.
57. In 2019 police approached Mrs HUSSEIN and showed her some documents which had been used to support the loan
21 Application file deps p.1131 – 1145 at pp.1141 - 1145
22 HUSSEIN deps p.298
23 Application file deps p.1060 – 1070, at p.1069
application. She identified a PAYG Summary and payslip from a company called Breiss Pty Ltd as entirely false. She had never worked for such a company. The loan application also contained false signatures said to be her signatures. (Charge 2 – Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
58. The loan application file was located by police at MALHOTRA’s home at the time of the execution of the search warrant.
Incident Eleven – KHAEE Loan
59. In 2015 Salem KHAEE24 and his wife decided to sell their home and move to a bigger house. At the time he was on a disability pension and his wife was not working. He approached the NAB for finance but they indicated they could not assist him. They suggested he try a mortgage broker.
60. In 2016 Mr KHAEE found a business card in his letter box. This was his introduction to MALHOTRA. His wife spoke to MALHOTRA on the phone and they agreed to meet at the KHAEE’s home. Madleen KHAEE did most of the talking because her English was better. They told MALHOTRA they didn’t have any money to buy the new house. He told them not to worry that he could get them finance.
61. Madleen supplied MALHOTRA with documents which he photographed. Mr KHAEE could not supply any financial documents because he was on a pension only.
62. The loan with ANZ Bank was approved for $552,000. MALHOTRA asked for and received a fee from the KHAEEs of
$4,000.
63. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a
24 KHAEE deps p. 412
loan application file25 in the name of Salem and Madleen KHAEE.
64. In 2019 police approached the couple concerning certain documents which had been used to secure the loan.
65. The loan application contained signatures which were not his. A PAYG payment summary stating that Mr KHAEE worked for Auspro Constructions Pty Ltd and earned $77,064 was entirely false. (Charge 2 – Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
Incident Twelve – EL-HAWLY Attempted Loan
66. Sometime in late 2016 Abdul Rahman EL-HAWLY26 was attempting to obtain loan finance to purchase a property. Friends referred him to MALHOTRA. They arranged to meet. At the meeting EL-HAWLY supplied MALHOTRA with identification documents and verbal information about his earnings and employment.
67.MALHOTRA attempted to secure the finance but the loan
was not approved due to “insufficient information”.
68. When police executed the search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home they found a loan application folder in the name of EL-HAWLY27.
69. They spoke to EL-HAWLY in 2019 and showed him some PAYG pay slips from Werribee Brothers and a PAYG Summary sheet. He did not give these documents to MALHOTRA. The information on them was false. (Charge 4 – Attempt to Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
Incident Thirteen – AHMAD Loan
70. In late 2016 or early 2017 Yama AHMAD28 and her husband were looking to get a loan. They tried the Commonwealth
25 Application file deps p.1473 - 1506
26 EL-HAWLY deps p.322
27 Application deps p.1156 – 1169 at pp.1167 - 1169
28 AHMAD deps p.337
Bank but were told that their income was too low. They spoke to friends and were referred to MALHOTRA as a person who was a mortgage broker.
71. MALHOTRA visited them at their home and they provided him with various documents, but told them that the loan would have to be in her name because her husband was not a permanent resident. MALHOTRA asked for a fee of $2,500 which they paid.
72. The loan application to AMP Bank was declined as material supplied “could not be verified”.
73. When police executed the search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home they found a loan application folder in the name of HAMAD29.
74. Police subsequently spoke to AHMAD and his wife who examined various documents used to support the application for finance. Mrs AHMAD identified a PAYG Statement showing her employed by Baarini & Associates for $79,560 as completely false in all particulars. At the time of the loan application she was unemployed. (Charge 4 – Attempt to Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
Incident Fourteen – HAOULI Documents
75. Mahmoud HAOULI30 was seeking finance to purchase a house he had already signed a contract for some months earlier. He got the name of a loan broker. That broker was MALHOTRA. He made contact and MALHOTRA came to his house. He provided MALHOTRA with his latest tax return and balance sheets from his business as a self-employed taxi driver.
76.A loan was approved with Bank of Melbourne for
$248,000.
77. Subsequently when police executed the search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home they found a loan application folder in
29 Application deps p.1218 - 1229
30 HAOULI deps p.341
the name of HAOULI31. Police showed HAOULI various documents which had been used to secure the finance. Mr HAOULI identified as false various PAYG Summary Sheets, payslips and a NAB bank statement as false documents not provided by him to MALHOTRA. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
Incident Fifteen – EL HAWLI Loan
78. In late 2016 Taha EL HAWLI32 and his wife Nada EL HAWLI were looking to buy a house and contacted a loan broker MALHOTRA. MALHOTRA attended their home and collected various documents from them including copies of passports and rates notices. Taha EL HAWLI told MALHOTRA that he used to work for Altitude Building Supplies. They paid MALHOTRA
$2,500 as a fee.
79. The finance was approved by the ANZ Bank for an amount of $960,000.
80. When police executed the search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home they found a loan application folder in the name of EL HAWLI33.
81. Subsequently they spoke to EL HAWLI and asked him to view certain documents which had been used to support the loan application. Mr EL HAWLI identified certain payslips showing a false level of earnings from Altitude Building Supplies along with a PAYG Summary sheet from the same employer falsely showing earnings of $109,200. Neither he nor his wife supplied these documents to MALHOTRA. (Charge 2 – Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
Incident Sixteen – HAOULI Documents
82. In 2016 Maida HAOULI34 and his wife were looking for a home. Through friends they learned of a loan broker,
31 Application deps p.1230 - 1243
32 EL HAWLI deps p.343
33 Application deps p.1345 - 1356
34 HAOULI deps p.353
MALHOTRA. They made phone contact and arranged to meet at HAOULI’s house. When he came to the house HAOULI had already assembled all the documents MALHOTRA had asked or including copies of driver’s licences and passports along with bank statements. MALHOTRA asked for a fee of $3,000 which they paid.
83. The loan was approved with Bank of Melbourne in the amount of $637,500.
84. When police executed the search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home they found a loan application folder in the name of HAOULI35.
85. Police spoke to Mr HAOULI and asked him to view certain documents which had been used to support the loan application. Mr HAOULI identified a PAYG Statement and payslips suggesting that he worked for Telstra as false. He did not supply those documents to MALHOTRA. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
Incident Seventeen – KAMAREDDINE Documents
86. In 2017 Hoda KAMAREDDINE36 and her husband were looking for a house to buy. Her husband obtained the phone number of a loan broker and they made contact with MALHOTRA who visited them at their home. They told him that her husband worked as a self-employed fruiterer and she worked part time as a cook while studying. MALHOTRA asked or a fee of
$2,500 which they paid on the first meeting. He asked them
to email copies of their passports and drivers licences. He told them it would be alright and to start looking for a house.
87. They found a home and rang MALHOTRA to ask if the loan was “doable” at the price asked. MALHOTRA assured them it was and to go ahead. Sometime later MALHOTRA asked for
35 Application deps p. 1269 - 1281
36 KAMAREDDINE deps p.199
their marriage certificate and her husband’s credit history.
88. There were some delays and finally on the day before settlement was due MALHOTRA advised that the Bank of Melbourne had declined the loan.
89. Eventually a fresh application was made to ANZ Bank. That was approved and settlement proceeded but not before the couple had paid $15,000 in penalties.
90. On the day before settlement MALHOTRA came to their home and instructed Mrs KAMAREDDINE that she worked for NEC and that if the bank called she was to say that she worked for NEC. He also told her how much she was supposedly earning. Mrs KAMAEDDINE, after all the delays, felt trapped and signed the documents MALHOTRA wanted signed to complete the settlement.
91. When police executed the search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home they found a loan application folder in the name of KAMAREDDINE37.
92. Police subsequently showed Mrs KAMAREDDINE various documents. She identified as false a statutory declaration showing a gift to them of $10,000, a false Commonwealth Bank statement and false payroll entries. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
Event Eighteen – HAOULI Loan
93. In 2016 Shamas HAOULI38 and his wife sought finance to buy a house. He obtained the phone number of a loa broker from a cousin and made contact with MALHOTRA. MALHOTRA visited them at their house. They told him that he worked as a fruiter for Werribee Brothers and his wife worked at a day care centre. His wife gave MALHOTRA her payslips. They paid him a fee of $2,500.
37 Application deps p. 664 – 696 and 697 – 734.
38 HAOULI deps p.364
94. Later MALHOTRA contacted them and told them the loan had been approved for $323,200. He met them and took them to the ANZ Bank in Hoppers Crossing where they signed bank documents.
95. When police executed the search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home they found a loan application folder in the name of HAOULI39.
96.Police spoke to HAOULI and showed him a number of
documents used to support the application for finance. HAOULI identified as false a PAYG Statement from his employer Werribee Brothers which had incorrect and inflated figures. (Charge 2 – Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
Incident Nineteen – HAWLI Documents
97. Hussein HAWLI40, a 22 year old man, had always been encouraged by his mother to save up and buy a house. One day, at his workplace, his brother’s tyre shop, a man came in for tyres. He got talking to HAWLI’s brother and revealed that he was a loan broker. They got talking. The man was MALHOTRA. HALWI’s brother told MALHOTRA that his young sibling was looking to buy a house. MALHOTRA said he would come and see him.
98. Sometime later MALAHOTRA came to his family home to see him. HAWLI worked for cash so didn’t really have any financial documentation. MALHOTRA went away and HAWLI didn’t hear from him for a while. When he returned he had some papers he asked HAWLI to sign. HAWI told him he had saved about $40,000 for a deposit. MALHOTRA told him to leave it all to him.
99. A few weeks later HAWLI signed a contract to buy a house at auction for $429,000. He contacted MALHOTRA and
39 Application deps p.1309 - 1322
40 HAWLI deps p.356
told him of his purchase. MALHOTRA told him everything would be alright.
100. The application was successful. It was a loan with the Bank of Melbourne for $394,300. It proceeded to settlement.
101. Subsequently police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a file in the name of HAWLI41.
102. Police showed the documentation to HAWLI. HAWLI said there were a number of forged signatures and a false statutory declaration claiming that HAWLI’s mother – incorrectly named – had given him $25,000. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
Incident Twenty – ABDO Loan
103. Ghalia ABDO42 was looking to buy a house. A friend gave him the name and number of a loan broker. This was MALHOTRA. They made contact initially by phone and later at a shopping centre. MALHOTRA got him to sign some documents. ABDO told him he wasn’t working but was “trialling a job” at that time with Demolition Ali Taleb. He had only been there for two weeks. MALHOTRA asked for a fee of $500 which ABDO’s brother-in-law paid on the day.
104. After some delay the sale settled. ABDO had received a loan of $434,494.18 from the ANZ Bank.
105. Subsequently police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a file in the name of ABDO43.
106. Police showed some of this documentation to ABDO. It included a payslip from Five Star Demolition which she had never seen before and a statutory declaration signed by someone named Bassima ABDO saying they had gifted $25,000
41 Application deps p.1282 - 1293
42 ABDO deps p.
43 Application deps p.1334 - 1341
to her. That is not her mother’s name and the assertion declared is untrue. (Charge 2 – Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
Incident Twenty-one – KAMAREDDINE Documents
107. Mona KAMAREDDINE44 and her husband were looking to buy a house in early 2016. Friends told them about a loan broker and she made contact by phone.
108. Shortly after they met MALHOTRA at a McDonalds store in Wyndham Waters. They told him that they would not need any payslips as they were first home buyers. She told him she was not working and while her husband did work he was not a permanent resident. MALHOTRA asked for payment of a fee of $5,000.
109. The KAMAREDDINEs proceeded to enter into a contract and paid a deposit of $114,000. The following week they met and paid MALHOTRA the $5,000 fee. He got her to sign a document.
110. There was a delay in settlement but eventually it proceeded. She received a loan approval from Bank of Melbourne for $456,000.
111. Subsequently police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a file in the name of KAMAREDDINE45.
112. Included in the documents were three payslips from NEC Australia Pty Ltd which were false as well as a PAYG summary for the year 2016/2017 financial year showing an income of
$102,767. Additionally there was a false ANZ Bank statement showing a balance of $71,633.43. These documents were all false. (Charge One – Use false document)
Incident Twenty-two – AL HAWLI Documents
44 KAMAREDDINE deps p.408
45 Application deps p.1461 - 1472
113. In early 2017 Suzane AL HAWLI46 and her husband were looking to buy the property they were renting in Truganina and build a second home in Altona. Through friends in the Lebanese community they learned of MALHOTRA and made contact initially by telephone. He came to their home. They told him they were trying to borrow $1,088,000 to carry out their plans.
114. MALHOTRA took photos of their identification documents. They told him that she was not working and her husband owned and operated a concrete pump.
115. The next time they saw MALHOTRA he had documents for them to sign for a loan with Bank of Melbourne.
116.The sale settled.
117. Subsequently police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a file in the name of EL HAWLI47.
118. Police showed the documentation which had been used to support the loan application to EL HAWLI. She told police that payslips and a PAYG Payment Summary in her name from The Circle Pharmacy for the year 2015/2106 in the amount of $52,683 were entirely false. (Charge 1 – Use False Document
Incident Twenty-three – ALNASSER Documents
119. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file in the name of Yousef ALNASSER48.
120. Subsequent enquiries revealed that a loan application had been made to Bank of Melbourne and that a false statement of earnings and false payslips had been used to support the application. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
46 EL HAWLI deps p.382
47 Application deps p.1345 - 1356
48 Application deps p. 1445 - 1454
Incident Twenty-four – BARAKAT Documents
121. In early 2017 Mashmoor BARAKAT49 was looking to purchase an investment property in Altona North. He was given the telephone number of MALHOTRA and made contact. He provided MALHOTRA with all the information asked for and MALHOTRA was very confident he could get the finance. BARAK required $900,000. After some time MALHOTRA contacted him and told him the loan had been approved by the Bank of Melbourne.
122. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file50 in the name of Mashmoor BARAKAT.
123. Police showed Mr BARAKAT documents used to support the loan application. Amongst the document was a NAB bank statement with his name on it showing a balance of
$145,688.26. This document was entirely false. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
Incident Twenty-Five – KHODR Loan
124. In mid 2017 Kaldie KHODR51 and her husband were looking to purchase a home. They were given the phone number of a loan broker by a relative. This man was MALHOTRA. He came to their house and got various details from them. They were successful in their application and obtained a loan of
$576,000 from the ANZ Bank.
125. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file52 in the name of Khaldie KHODR.
126. KHODR identified the details concerning his current income as false. (Charge 2 – Obtain Property by Deception)
49 BARAKAT deps p.386
50 Application file deps p.1357 – 1382 at 1381
51 KHODR deps p.430
52 Application file deps p.1455 – 1460, at p.
Incident Twenty-Six – ALI Documents
127. MOHAMAD ALI53 and his wife were in the market for purchasing an investment property. Someone in his Lebanese community gave him the phone number of MALHOTRA. He visited Mr ALI and obtained details of the house they were interested in purchasing. He told them it would be a “low doc” loan so he didn’t need many documents. ALI told him he was a self-employed tiler. MALHOTRA took photos of their drivers’ licences. He said he would get everything off the system regarding his income.
128. The loan was successful and they obtained $790,400 from the Bank of Melbourne.
129.In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at
MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file54 in the name of Mohamed ALI.
130. When ALI was shown the supporting documentation for the loan he identified as false a PAYG Summary stating that he had earned $102,700 from Barakat Bros. He had never seen this document before. (Charge 1 – Use False Documents)
Incident Twenty-Seven 0 ABDULHAMMID Documents
131. Early in 2017 Baraa ABDULHAMMID55 and her husband decided to buy a house. She was given the phone number of a loan broker, MALHOTRA. Both she and her husband were receiving Centrelink payments at the time.
132. After some delay MALHOTRA visited them at home. She offered MALHOTRA her Centrelink statements but he said he didn’t want them. He asked for a fee of $2,500. MALHOTRA secured the loan and the ABDULHAMMIDs successfully bid at an auction shortly after.
53 ALI deps p.390
54 Application file deps p.1395 – 1424, at p.1424
55 ABDULHAMMID deps p.393
133. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file56 in the name of Baraa ABDULHAMMID.
134. When Mrs ABDULHAMMID saw the application she identified as false the statement of income shown in the application. She did not provide that information to MALHOTRA. (Charge 1 – Use False Documents)
Incident Twenty-Eight – LEES-STOCKTON Documents
135. Ashleigh LEES-STOCKTON57 and her husband Mohamed YOUSSEF had used MALHOTRA in 2015 to secure a home loan. This time they were looking to refinance. They were successful and obtained finance from the Bank of Melbourne for $340,000.
136. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file58 in the name of Ashleigh LEES- STOCKTON.
137. When Ashleigh LEES-STOCKTON was shown the application by police she identified that the signatures on the application were not hers. She had not signed those documents. (Charge 1 – Use False Documents)
Incident Twenty-Nine – KHODR Documents
138. In mid 2017 Mariam KHODR59 and her husband refinanced their home loan from the Commonwealth Bank to the Bank of Melbourne to allow them funds to buy a business. They were referred to MALHOTRA by a relative. He came to their house and obtained various details from them. She was not working at the time. The refinancing application was successful in the amount of $339,500 from the Bank of Melbourne.
56 Application file deps p.1425 – 1434, at p.
57 LEES-STOCKTON deps p.420
58 Application file deps p.1529 - 1538
59 KHODR deps p.418
139. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file60 in the name of Mariam KHODR.
140. When she was shown the application she identified that the statement as to her earnings being $78,327 per annum was false. She had not supplied such information to MALHOTRA. (Charge 1 – Use False Documents)
Incident Thirty – JOUD Loan
141. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file61 in the name of Safa JOUD.
142. Investigations revealed that this application had been used to secure a home loan for $540,000 from the ANZ Bank.
143. The application contained false signatures, false payslips and false employer details. (Charge 2 – Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
Incident Thirty-One – EL HAWLY Documents
144. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file62 in the name of Sana EL HAWLY.
145. Investigations revealed that this application had been used to secure loan finance from the Bank of Melbourne in the amount of $538,800.
146. The application contained false payslips and false employer details. (Charge 1 – Use False Documents)
Incident Thirty-Two – OSMAN Documents
147. In early 2017 Taleb OSMAN63 and his wife Nasreen SALAMEH put a deposit on a house in Altona North. He met
60 Application file deps p.1507 - 1516
61 Application file deps p.1517 - 1522
62 Application file deps p.1570 – 1580.
63 OSMAN deps p.396
MALHOTRA through a friend. MALHOTRA asked for a fee of
$2,500. OSMAN gave him his tax documents. MALHOTRA came back a little later and said he wanted to also use OSMAN’s wife name for the loan. He had them sign some documents.
148. The loan was approved through the ANZ Bank. 149. MALHOTRA came to the house about the time of the loan approval. He told OSMAN’s wife that if the bank phoned her she should say she worked for a particular employer and how much she earned. OSMAN told him he didn’t want anything more to do with MALHOTRA or the loan.
150. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file64 in the name of Sana EL HAWLY.
151. OSMAN identified two payslips and a PAYG Payment Summary purporting to be issued by KPMG as entirely false documents. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
Incident Thirty-Three – MLADENOVSKI Documents
152. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file65 in the name of Nurul MLADENVOSKI.
153. Investigation of the documents used to support the successful application to the Bank of Melbourne for a loan of $232,500 established that it included false pay information and false asset information. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
Incident Thirty-Four – HAWLI Loan
154. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file66 in the name of Manal HAWLI.
64 Application file deps p.1592 – 1604.
65 Application file deps p.1550 - 1568
66 Application file deps p.1560 - 1569
155. Investigation of the documents used to support the successful application to the ANZ Bank for a loan of
$450,834.58 established that it included false borrower’s signatures and unconfirmed documentation. (Charge 2 – Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
Incident Thirty-Five – HUSSEIN Documents
156. In late 2017 Mohamad HUSSEIN67 was looking to redevelop his property in Altona North. He has no recollection of how he first had contact with MALHOTRA. He explained his needs to MALHOTRA and told him of his work and income. MALHOTRA asked for a $2,000 fee which was paid.
157. The loan was successful and he obtained $1,317,200 from the Bank of Melbourne.
158. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst a number of loose documents on the floor in the study was a loan application file68 in the name of Mohamed HUSSEIN.
159. HUSSEIN was shown the application. He said the valuation of his existing property at $1.76 million was not a number he gave to MALHOTRA and was not correct and the income stated is significantly inflated. (Charge 1 – Use False Document)
Incident Thirty-Six – KAMAREDDINE Documents
160. In this matter a loan application on behalf of one Hoda KAMAREDDINE to the Bank of Melbourne was located at MALHOTRA’s home it contained false employment details and false payslips.69 The application was for a loan of
$480,000. The Bank of Melbourne refused the loan.
67 HUSSEIN deps p.401
68 Application file deps p.1560 - 1569
69 Statement of Pina DI IORIO as to falseness of employment document. Hoda Kamreddine
161. Hoda KAMAREDDINE and her husband were looking to finance the purchase of a home. They made contact with the accused initially by phone. Subsequently he visited them. He asked for a fee of $2,500 which they paid. He obtained a copy of their drivers’ licences. The accused gave them to believe they had approval for finance.
162. Subsequently they found a home and the MALHOTRA told them to make an offer. They paid a $60,000 deposit. Later MALHOTRA asked for a copy of their marriage certificate and her husband’s credit check. They provided these documents.
163. About an hour before settlement was to take place MALHOTRA told them the Bank of Melbourne had refused finance. The victims paid some $15,000 in penalties before settlement was finally effected with a loan to Mrs KAMAREDDINE alone through the ANZ Bank.
164. Before settlement MALHOTRA told Mrs KAMAREDDINE to give what was false information to the bank should it ring her.
165. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file70 in the name of Mrs KAMAREDDINE.
166. Police later showed Mrs KAMAREDDINE PAYG summaries and payslips for an employer NEC. She identified these as false documents which she believes MALHOTRA showed her on the day of settlement. (Charge 1 – Use False Documents)
Incident Thirty-Seven – SINGH/CHANDI Attempted Loan
167. In this matter Sukhpal SINGH71 and Ramandeep CHANDI72 had purchased some land from a developer. He had met
70 Application file deps p.664 – 696 and 697 - 734
71 SINGH deps p.212
72 CHANDI deps p.215
MALHOTRA in 2016 through their religious ties. They made phone contact and eventually went to his home in Point Cook. They gave MALHOTRA their original documents which he copied and gave back to them.
168. While he and his wife were overseas they got a call from their solicitor to say that settlement had been cancelled. When they returned from India they quickly secured finance through their own efforts with ANZ Bank but due to delays with settlement they had to pay $3,000 in default fees and interest.
169. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file73 in the name of SINGH and CHANDI.
170. Police later showed them documents used to apply for finance for $432,329 from the Bank of Melbourne in their names. These documents included PAYG summaries and payslips which had been falsified by doubling Mr SINGH’s earnings. (Charge 5 – Attempt to Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
Incident Thirty-Eight – EL HALWY Loan
171. In 2017 Waddad EL HAWLY74 and her husband decided to buy a home. Her husband organised first contact with MALHOTRA through a friend’s contact. MALHOTRA came to their home in late 2017.
172. He asked for payslips from her workplace SHP Wallboards where she had worked for 3 months at $1,200 per week nett. He also asked for drivers’ licences and Medicare cards. He took photos of those documents but took the payslips. He said his fee was $3,000.
73 Application file deps p.761 - 792
74 EL HAWLY deps p.241
173. MALHOTRA told them they had pre-approval to proceed to purchase a property.
174. There were delays and Mrs EL HAWLEY and her husband had to pay late fees. Eventually the house was settled with a loan of $516,150 from My State Bank.
175. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file75 in the name of EL HAWLEY.
176. Subsequently Mrs EL HAWLEY was shown various documentation used to secure the loan. Police showed her a number of documents which were false documents including PAYG summaries and payslips which grossly exaggerated her salary and a bank statement from NAB with whom she does not bank. (Charge 6 – Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception)
Incident Thirty-Nine – ALI Documents
177. In November 2017 Marcel ALI76 paid the deposit on an investment property and sought the services of a mortgage broker to finance the purchase. A friend connected him with MALHOTRA. After some delay they met at a real estate agent’s office in Point Cook. MALHOTRA asked for a drivers’ licence, passport and Medicare card which ALI supplied. He told MALHOTRA he needed about $650,000.
178. A week later MALHOTRA rang him and asked for $3,000 for him to start processing the loan. After some negotiation the fee was reduced to $2,500. He told ALI he would get his bank statements from him later but he never did.
179. Eventually MALHOTRA sent him a letter of approval from Plan Lend but settlement kept being delayed and Mr ALI had to pay penalties of $2,800.
75 Application file deps p.1795 – 1809 at p.1803 and 1807
76 ALI deps p.237
180. MALHOTRA told him that he had gone to Bank of Melbourne and then to ANZ and then back to Bank of Melbourne but nothing happened.
181. In April 2018 police executed their search warrant at MALHOTRA’s home. Amongst the documents in the study was a loan application file77 in the name of Mr ALI.
182. Ultimately police showed Mr ALI documents which had been presented in support of the application for finance including PAYG Summaries and payslips recording that Mr ALI worked for GE Australia. He had never worked for GE Australia. The documents were entirely false. In addition signatures appearing on the loan application documentation are not his signature. (Charge 1 – Use False Documents)
RELATED SUMMARY OFFENCE
183. MALHOTRA is also pleading guilty to an offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime. This relates to commissions received as a consequence of the loans obtained from the above lenders. As a result of the above joint conduct between SHARMA and MALHOTRA, a total of
$126,143.07 was transferred through to a specified account, representing those various commissions. (Uplifted Summary Offence – Deal with Suspected Proceeds)
HISTORY
184. As with the matters contained in the First Indictment this matter proceeded at committal by straight hand-up brief. No witnesses were called. Discussions with the learned Solicitor, Mr Isaacs, indicated that the matter would certainly be a plea of guilty to all appropriate charges. The plea now made should be regarded as having been made at the earliest possible time.
77 Application file deps p.852 - 882
PRE-SENTENCE DETENTION
185.There is no pre-sentence detention.
186.There are no Victim Impact statements
ANCILLARY ORDERS
187. It is anticipated that application for disposal will be made.
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Case Ref: CR-23-01100
AT MELBOURNE Indictment P10042810.1
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
- V - GAURAV MALHOTRA
SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION OPENING
Date of document: 21 January 2025
Filed on behalf of: Director of Public Prosecutions
Prepared by: D Ellwood
ABBEY HOGAN Solicitor’code:7539
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Reference: Alysha BYRNE
565 Lonsdale Street Tel:
Melbourne VIC 3000 File No: 2201708
1. The accused is pleading guilty on Indictment P10042810.1 to one Charge of Obtaining a Financial Advantage by deception between 30 May 2014 and 4 April 2016. This Charge consists of the fourteen incidents outlined below, rolled up. He is also pleading guilty to one summary offence of Deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime.
2. Gaurav MALHOTRA (‘MALHOTRA’) is a 49 year old man. He came to Australia from India in 2000 and is a permanent
resident. At the time of the commencement of this offending he was 40 years of age.
3. MALHOTRA holds an MBA from a Jakarta institution. He does not hold any licence to be a financial broker in Australia nor did he hold any qualifications in the financial field.
4. His wife, Reena MALHOTRA, was the holder of a business name JBR Financial Services (‘JBR’). She was a registered mortgage broker. Her husband, the accused, was employed by her as a “loans administration assistant”.
5. JBR provided mortgage brokerage services obtaining home loans from various financial institutions. JBR was registered with an aggregator, Australian Financial Group (‘AFG’), but it was JBR that submitted applications for finance with AFG’s authorisation. If finance was granted the lender paid a commission to AFG who shared 85% of the commission with JBR.
6. The investigation of MALHOTRA’s financial activities came to light in the course of the investigation of RAVISH SHARMA (‘SHARMA’) (see separate Opening on Indictment N10669137).
7. SHARMA had lodged a finance application under the name Mint Mortgages. A company Earnity Finance Pty Ltd was also identified. Examination of these two entities established that MALHOTRA and his wife, Reena MALHOTRA, were the proprietors of those entities.
8. This link provided a basis for the obtaining of search warrants for the homes of both SHARMA and MALHOTRA where many relevant documents were located.
Incident One - Macquarie Bank - $269,581.83
9. In 2014 Nssreen HAMMOUD1 and her husband Khodr KADDOUR decided to renovate their home in Coolaroo. They required finance. Mr KADDOUR arranged a meeting with MALHOTRA at their house. MALHOTRA asked them to supply copies of documents showing their assets, identification and employment. They did so. A few days later HAMMOUD obtained bank statements from the Westpac Bank and forwarded copies to MALHOTRA.
10. At the time Mr KADDOUR worked full time shift work for a catering company delivering food to aircraft at Tullamarine Airport.
11. A short time later MALHOTRA asked HAMMOUD to obtain a credit check. She did so and sent it to MALHOTRA. He reattended their house about two weeks after his first visit. They paid him a brokers fee of $2,000 - $3,000 cash. They signed a number of documents but didn’t read what they signed.
12.The loan was approved with Macquarie Bank.
13. Some two years later HAMMOUD received a number of telephone calls from Macquarie Bank who accused her of lying to the bank. As a result they refinanced their loan with another bank.
14. In 2021 HAMMOUD attended Broadmeadows Police Station where Detective TAYLOR showed her a number of documents said to have been used to support their loan application to Macquarie Bank including Commonwealth Bank of Australia bank statements which were not supplied by her or her husband. The document is false. The Commonwealth Bank confirmed that these statements are false documents.
Incident Two - Macquarie Bank - $434,684.31
15. Mary ADAM2 (previously named Miry YOUNAN) purchased her first house in 2014 in Roxburgh Park. She paid a deposit of $23,000 and needed finance for the balance. An acquaintance put her in touch with a broker MALHOTRA. She met MALHOTRA with her husband Sam ADAM at a café in Melbourne. She signed some documents but did not read them. She provided copies of her driver’s licence, Medicare card, Immigration documents, bank statements and payslips. She paid MALHOTRA $2,500 cash for his services. She only met MALHOTRA on one occasion. Every other contact was by telephone. The loan was successfully submitted.
16. In 2021 Mrs ADAM was shown a number of documents by police. She identified a number of PAYG pay slips from her employer Kids R Kids Family Day Centre as false. Some of the details were false. It was not a document she had given MALHOTRA. She also identified a number of Commonwealth Bank statements as false. She did not provide those documents to MALHOTRA. She also identified
what purported to be bank statements for a National Bank of Australia account as completely false and not supplied by her.
17. Kids R Kids confirmed the payslips contained false information. The Commonwealth Bank confirmed the statements were false.
Incident Three - Macquarie Bank - $320,980.42
18. As the result of an audit in 2016 by Macquarie Bank3 of loan applications made by JBR, a loan application in the name of Ashleigh Jade LEES-STOCKTON was identified. Following investigation of the documents used to support that application it was determined that Commonwealth Bank statements provided in support of that application were false. The loan was approved.
19. The Commonwealth Bank4 confirmed the falsity of these documents.
Incident Four - Macquarie Bank – $320,000
20. In 2015 Bahaa MOHAMAD5 and his wife purchased a home in Hoppers Crossing for approximately $415,000. They paid a deposit of $80,000 and sought finance for the balance.
21. They don’t remember how they came into contact with MALHOTRA but they first met with him in a café in Williamstown. They paid MALHOTRA a $1,000 fee in cash.
3 Statement of Jonathan Martin deps p.228 et seq
4 Statement of Michele Moloney deps p.255 et seq
They gave MALHOTRA various documents including their driver’s licences, Medicare card and bank statements. After about 3 – 4 weeks MALHOTRA rang and told them the loan had been approved with Macquarie Bank but that further documents needed to be signed. They attended MALHOTRA’s address and signed documents. He paid MALHOTRA a further $1,000 in cash for his brokerage services.
22. At a later time they were shown copies of documents used to support the loan application. Mr MOHAMAD identified a PAYG payment summary as false with the amount paid inflated as were two payslips. Additionally a Commonwealth Bank statement in his name is false with deposits listed being untrue. He did not give these documents to MALHOTRA.
23. The Commonwealth Bank confirms the bank statements are false.
Incident Five - Macquarie Bank - $318,855.40
24. This offence also came to light as a result of an audit of JBR loan applications by Macquarie Bank in April 2016. This included a loan application made on behalf of Mona Eshoo. It was discovered that Commonwealth Bank statements and payslips purportedly from Melbourne Bin Hire and Demolition were false. Mona Eshoo had never worked for that employer.
25.The loan was approved.
26. The Commonwealth Bank and Melbourne Bin Hire confirmed that the relevant documents were false.
Incident Six - Macquarie Bank – $174,342.64
27. In 2014 Raminder KAUR decided to purchase a block of land on which to build a house. When she went to the land sales office there were many loan brokers “hanging around”. She met MALHOTRA who told her that he could secure the necessary finance. KAUR paid MALHOTRA $500 in cash to start the process. KAUR trusted MALHOTRA because, like herself, he was Indian. MALHOTRA told her the fee to arrange the loan was $1,500.
28. MALHOTRA rang her a few days later and said if she wanted to continue with the loan application she would have to pay the additional $1,000. Two or three days later KAUR and her husband went to the land office and paid MALHOTRA the $1,000. KAUR subsequently provided a copy of her passport and some payslips from Barwon Health where she had worked for a few months.
29. She also sent MALHOTRA a personal reference from her landlord and her Commonwealth Bank statements.
30. KAUR was later advised by Macquarie Bank that the loan had been approved.
31. Subsequently KAUR was approached by Detective TAYLOR and shown some documents. She observed that the gross income on the loan application was “too high” and that the PAYG statement was also greatly inflated. She did not supply that information to MALHOTRA. She also identified that the Commonwealth Bank statements were false in that they misstated her income from Barwon Health. The figures had been inflated. The running balance was also inflated.
It should have been around $1,000 to $2,000. On the statement it was shown as $30,000.
32. Both Barwon Health6 and the Commonwealth Bank7 confirmed that the documents were false.
Incident Seven - Macquarie Bank - $337,683.26
33. In 2015 Yousef ALNASSER and his wife began to look for a house to buy. They got the telephone number of a broker and rang him. MAHLOTRA told him he could get finance and that he would require a 5% deposit, payslips and identification. About three weeks later ALNASSER and his wife purchased a house. They phoned the broker. He attended their address. ALNASSER answered his questions and provided him with payslips from ARZ Food Services where he worked.
34. MALHOTRA told ALNASSER to open an account with the Commonwealth Bank. ALNASSER banked with ANZ Bank. He did as he was asked and told MALHOTRA when he had done so. He paid the 5% deposit into that account. He then received a phone call from MALHOTRA who told him he needed a further 5% deposit. ALNASSER managed to borrow the extra funds from an uncle. MALHOTRA also told him that the application would be made to Macquarie Bank.
35.The loan was approved and ALNASSER paid MALHOTRA
$2,500 as his brokerage fee.
36. About 3 months after settlement ALNASSER received a letter from lawyers asserting that ALNASSER had three
6 Loriana Steffinlongo, deps p.222
7 Deps. p.228
months to discharge the mortgage or to refinance. ALNASSER didn’t understand what was happening and contacted MALHOTRA who told him he could get refinancing with the Bank of Melbourne.
37. Subsequently, ALNASSER was shown a number of documents by Detective TAYLOR. These included a finance application which had a very inflated income number, a PAYG Payment Summary also with an inflated amount, two false payslips and false Commonwealth Bank statements in his name showing the account opened a month before he actually opened his account.
Incident Eight - Macquarie Bank - $300,681.46
38. This matter also came to light as a result of an audit by Macquarie Bank commencing in April 2016. It was one of a significant number of mortgage applications from JBR containing false materials.
39. A loan had been secured for Samer El Hazouri in the amount of $300,681.46 on the strength of false8 Commonwealth Bank statements.
40. The Commonwealth Bank confirmed the falsity of these statements.
Incident Nine - Macquarie Bank - $366,834.76
8 Evidence of J Martin at deps p.233.
41. This matter also came to light as a result of the JBR application audit by Macquarie Bank.
42. A mortgage in the amount of $366,834.76 had been obtained for Lata Chaatkuli on the strength of false Commonwealth Bank bank statements.
43. The Commonwealth Bank confirmed the falsity of these statements.
Incident Ten - Macquarie Bank - $451,975.89
44. This matter also came to light as a result of the JBR application audit by Macquarie Bank.
45. A mortgage in the amount of $451,975.89 had been obtained for Harsumit Chhina on the strength of false Commonwealth Bank statements.
46. The Commonwealth Bank confirmed the falsity of these statements.
Incident Eleven - Macquarie Bank - $294,414.59
47. This matter also came to light as a result of the JBR application audit by Macquarie Bank.
48. A mortgage in the amount of $294,414.59 had been obtained for Shourouk Al Rikabi on the strength of false Commonwealth Bank statements.
49. The Commonwealth Bank confirmed the falsity of these statements.
Incident Twelve - Macquarie Bank - $1,256,000
50. Again the Macquarie Bank audit was responsible for discovering the falsity of documentation used to support an application for mortgage finance in the amount of
$1,256,000 on behalf of Abdou Hussein.
51. The Commonwealth Bank confirmed the falsity of the statement documents.
Incident Thirteen - Macquarie Bank - $346,488.12
52. The Macquarie Bank audit revealed that the application for mortgage finance in the amount of
$346,488.12 for the benefit of Oska Phoenix had been
supported by false Commonwealth Bank documents.
53. The Commonwealth Bank confirmed the falsity of the statement documents.
Incident Fourteen - Macquarie Bank - $332,000
54. The Macquarie audit discovered that the mortgage application on behalf of Naveen Kumar and Rajni Rajni had been supported by false Commonwealth Bank statements.
55. The Commonwealth Bank confirmed the falsity of the statement documents.
SOURCE OF FALSE DOCUMENTS
56. As to the source of the falsified Commonwealth Bank statements they were examined by an employee of Australia
Post.9 Each of the bank statements constructed to secure the finance had a barcode emblazoned on the left margin giving it the appearance of having been genuinely issued by the Bank. Examination of these statements’ barcodes revealed that they were address barcodes. Each of them was for the same street address 105 Oakview Parade, Caroline Springs, a former address of the accused.
RELATED SUMMARY OFFENCE
57. MALHOTRA is also pleading guilty to an offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime. This relates to a total of $38,847.88 in commissions received as a consequence of the loans obtained from various lenders.
ARREST AND POLICE INTERVIEW
58. MALHOTRA and his wife were both arrested when search warrants were executed at their home on 5 April 2018.
59. During the search of the accused’s home false Commonwealth Bank statements were located matching those submitted to the Macquarie Bank in respect of each of the charges on this Indictment.10
60. When interviewed by police on 5 April 2018, the date of his arrest, MALHOTRA made a “no comment” interview apart from denying making any false documents for clients.
HISTORY
9 Evidence of Malcolm Clarke deps p.366.
10 Det S/Const Beale, deps 376 at p.382
61. This matter proceeded at committal by straight hand- up brief. No witnesses were called. Discussions with the learned Solicitor, Mr Isaacs, indicated that the matter would certainly be a plea of guilty to all appropriate charges. The plea now made should be regarded as having been made at the earliest possible time.
PRE-SENTENCE DETENTION
62.There is no pre-sentence detention.
63.There are no Victim Impact statements.
0
5
1