District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Abouchabake [2024] NSWDC 42 Hearing dates: 22 February 2024 Date of orders: 1 March 2024 Decision date: 01 March 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Newlinds SC DCJ Decision: See [74-77]
Catchwords: CRIME – Bankruptcy Act offences – disposing of assets with intent – defraud creditors – purpose of bankruptcy regime – general deterrence – important for public confidence in bankruptcy law – first offence – strong subjective case
Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Judiciary Act1903 (Cth)
Cases Cited: DPP (Cth) v Thomas [2016] VSCA 237
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
Paragalli v R [2006] NSWCCA 87
R v Bibaoui [1997] 2 VR 600
Stipkovich v R [2018] WASCA 63
Category: Sentence Parties: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Joseph Abouchabake (Offender)Representation: Mr L Fomiatti, solicitor (Crown)
Mr R Hanrahan, counsel (Offender)
File Number(s): 2022/221356
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
The charges
-
The offender has pleaded guilty to and is to be sentenced for the following offences:
Count
Offence
Description
Maximum penalty
1
Section 266(3),
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Between 9 May and 11 October 2018, the offender disposed of $567,041 with intent to defraud creditors within 12 months of presentation of a petition for bankruptcy
5 years imprisonment and/or 300 penalty units
2
Section 266(3),
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Between 7 October and 27 November 2018, the offender disposed of $20,500 with intent to defraud creditors within 12 months of presentation of a petition for bankruptcy
5 years imprisonment and/or 300 penalty units
Section
16BA
schedule
Section 267(2)
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
On 26 November 2018, the offender knowingly made a false declaration in a statement of affairs
12 months imprisonment and/or 60 penalty units
Penalties
-
The maximum penalty applicable to each of Counts 1 and 2 (s 266(3)) is imprisonment for five years or pecuniary penalty of $63,000 (300 penalty units) or both.
-
The maximum penalty applicable to the s 16BA matter (s 267(2)) is imprisonment for 12 months or pecuniary penalty of $12,600 (60 penalty units) or both.
Procedural history
-
The procedural history is as follows:
The Court Attendance Notice (CAN) was issued on 7 May 2021. Service of the CAN was unsuccessful and a first instance warrant was issued by the Downing Centre Local Court on 28 July 2022. The offender presented himself voluntarily to police and appeared in court on 6 September 2022.
On 26 April 2023, the matter was committed to the Downing Centre District Court for trial.
On 9 August 2023, prior to the matter being set down for trial, the offender signed the statement of agreed facts, indicating that he would accept an offer to plead guilty to the two charges on the indictment, with the summary charge contrary to s 267(2) Bankruptcy Act 1966 being placed on a s 16BA…
Continue reading R v Abouchabake
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Abouchabake [2024] NSWDC 42
- Case
- [2024] NSWDC 42
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine if the primary judge had erred in assessing the appropriate penalty. Key considerations included the purpose of the bankruptcy regime, which is to provide a fair process for the distribution of a debtor's assets among creditors while also maintaining public confidence in the system. The court also had to weigh the principles of general deterrence against the respondent's personal circumstances, including the fact that this was his first offence. The appeal questioned whether the sentence imposed was too harsh or whether it appropriately balanced the need for deterrence with the respondent's individual situation.
The court found that while there was a strong subjective case for general deterrence due to the importance of maintaining public confidence in the bankruptcy regime, the primary judge had not adequately considered all mitigating factors. The court concluded that the sentence was excessive and that a more proportionate penalty should have been imposed. It was noted that the respondent's actions, while serious, were his first offence, and this should have been given more weight in determining the penalty. The appeal was thus allowed, and the matter was remitted to the primary judge for re-sentencing.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [74-77]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.