R v Blackberry
[2019] VSC 279
•3 May 2019
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2019 0030
| THE QUEEN | Crown |
| v | |
| KIM BLACKBERRY | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | LASRY J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 April 2019 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 3 May 2019 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Blackberry |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VSC 279 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Multiple counts of obtaining property by deception – Multiple counts of using a false document – Dishonesty offences – Solicitor acting for purchasers in property conveyancing – Lodged fraudulent transfer documentation to State Revenue Office – Fraudulently claimed stamp duty exemption – Retained all or some stamp duty paid by clients – Accused made efforts to avoid apprehension by police – Guilty plea – Prior good character – Sentence of two years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 16 months – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 81 and 83A, Duties Act 2000 (Vic) ss 43 and 44, Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 6AAA and 9.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr J Lewis | Office of Public Prosecution |
| For the Accused | Mr Tiwana | Dribbin & Brown Criminal Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Kim Blackberry, on Thursday, 11 April 2019, you pleaded guilty to an indictment that contained 27 charges, including 13 charges of obtaining property by deception and 14 charges of using a false document. Your offending represented by these charges covered the period from March 2002 until July 2008, and concern activities that you engaged in as a practising solicitor.
During the relevant period, you were a solicitor acting for purchasers in 13 property transactions. In each of the 13 transactions your clients paid cash and, as a result, no bank was involved in the settlement of the transaction. The absence of a bank at the settlement enabled you to control the stamping and lodgement of transfer documentation with the State Revenue Office and the Land Titles Office.
In each of these 13 transactions you dishonestly obtained some or all of the money that the purchasers paid to you for the payment of stamp duty to the State Revenue Office.
The maximum penalty for obtaining property by deception contrary to s 81 of the Crimes Act 1958(Vic) (‘Crimes Act’) is 10 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for using false documents contrary to s 83A of the Crimes Act is also 10 years’ imprisonment.
It is now my responsibility to sentence you for this offending.
Circumstances of offending
You committed these offences as a legal practitioner. You were first admitted as a practising solicitor in Victoria on 17 December 1993. You then obtained a practising certificate in Victoria on 1 January 1998. Your primary area of practice from that time onward was conveyancing.
In 2002, you were one of three partners in a business called ‘The Conveyancer,’ which specialised in conveyancing and probate work. You also performed work as a sole practitioner in Melbourne and Drysdale.
In June 2008, the State Revenue Office commenced an investigation into your activities. That investigation was based on a complaint from a Mr Frederick Davis, who was a retired solicitor. His wife, Robyn Davis, was briefly in practice with you from March to May 2008. That practice ended upon the discovery of your offending behaviour. You had acted on behalf of the Davis’s in relation to the purchase of a property in Clifton Springs in 2008. Mr Davis became suspicious of you after he made multiple unsuccessful requests for the production of the certificate of title for the property.
In June 2008, Mr Davis enquired with the State Revenue Office, only to discover that no stamp duty had been paid on the purchase as an exemption had been claimed. Late in June 2008, Mr Davis made a written complaint to the Legal Services Commission of Victoria in relation to your conduct. Meanwhile, the State Revenue Office commenced an investigation into your conduct also.
The State Revenue Office investigation
The subsequent State Revenue Office investigation discovered that, in 13 transactions between January 2002 and July 2008, you acted as a solicitor for the purchaser and had fraudulently utilised the provisions of ss 43 and 44 of the Duties Act 2000 (Vic) (‘Duties Act’) to claim false stamp duty exemptions. You did this by manufacturing and lodging false documents to secure the transfer of the property title in a manner that enabled you to retain some or all of the provision for payment of stamp duty that had been provided to you by your clients.
The total amount that you obtained in this fashion was $246,166.
As previously noted, each of these transactions were made in cash. The purchasers in all 13 properties had provided you with the full amount of stamp duty payable on their respective purchases, just as you requested in the settlement statements, to obtain settlement and title transfer. On each of the 13 occasions, you made false representations to your clients. It is of note that on one occasion the purchaser was a personal friend of yours, and on three occasions the purchaser was a member of your extended family.
You used two principal methods to retain some or all of the stamp duty paid to you by your clients. The first method was the making and use of false documents that understated the amount of consideration paid by the purchaser to the vendor. That occurred in three transactions.
The second method was the making and using of false documents to misrepresent to the State Revenue Office the association or relationships between the vendor and purchaser. That occurred in 10 transactions. The purpose of misrepresenting the association was to claim false exemptions under ss 43 and 44 of the Duties Act.
Using this second method, you misrepresented the underlying purpose of the transactions as being a consequence of:
·the breakdown of genuine de facto domestic relationships; or
·the breakdown of a marriage; or
·a transfer between married couples; or
·orders of the Family Court of Australia.
When there were multiple purchasers whose names needed to be on the certificate of title issued, you conducted two or three separate lodgements with the State Revenue Office and transfer of land endorsement registrations with, what was then called, the Office of Land Titles Victoria relating to the same property. This allowed you to both claim a stamp duty exemption and to produce a title that properly reflected the names of the two purchasers.
In order to obtain the stamp duty exemptions and reductions, you falsified the following prescribed forms:
·transfer of land forms;
·the notice of acquisition of an interest in land;
·transfer between domestic partners statutory declaration;
·transfer between married spouses statutory declaration;
·goods statutory declaration; and
·goods statement for residential land.
In order to complete the transactions, you forged the signatures of your clients and the vendors on these falsified forms. You also signed these forms and statutory declarations as a witness to your forged signatures.
On the occasions where you lodged statutory declarations in support of the lodgements, you forged the signature of the declarant on each of those documents. You then signed and witnessed the declaration purporting to utilise your authority as a legal practitioner with the intention that a person receiving the document would believe it to be genuine. On two occasions, you have assumed the identity of another legal practitioner to witness such a declaration.
In total, the investigation conducted by the State Revenue Office located 56 false documents including 21 transfer of land forms, 14 notices of acquisition of an interest in land, 11 transfer between domestic partners statutory declarations, six transfer between married spouses statutory declarations, three goods statutory declarations, and one goods statement for residential land.
The particularised circumstances of the offences were set out in the prosecution’s opening on your plea and those details are attached as a schedule to these reasons for sentence.
The State Revenue Office investigator was Ms Catherine Potts. She met with you on a number of occasions and the two of you engaged in some correspondence. On 10 October 2008, you provided a facsimile letter in which you detailed your willingness to cooperate, and made incomplete admissions in relation to your activities. You sent a further, and similar, letter with additional admissions. On 29 October 2008, you were interviewed by Ms Potts, and you made some further admissions during the course of that interview.
Following this investigation, a repayment plan was arranged between you and the State Revenue Office. That plan required you to make a payment of $5,000, followed by subsequent monthly payments of $10,000. You followed that plan to a total of $95,500 but then your payments ceased. As at the date on which your plea was heard, the sum outstanding under those payments is $133,826. I accept that you ceased to make those payments because, due to a lack of full-time employment, you lost the ability to do so.
The State Revenue Office has never sought to recover the unpaid balance from the purchasers who were defrauded by you. I am told that they do intend, at some point, to seek restitution from you for the outstanding amounts.
The police investigation
Your conduct was referred to the Victorian Police in 2009. It would appear likely that the investigation was a relatively low priority within the Victoria Police Fraud Squad and, ultimately, the matter was reassigned to the Geelong Criminal Investigation Unit in 2011. Attempts were made by a member of the police force to speak to you but you left Victoria for Tasmania. On 22 June 2011, a warrant was issued for your arrest by the Geelong Magistrates’ Court.
Over the following years, you made efforts to avoid apprehension by police. In 2018, your location was ascertained by the police, and you were arrested in the Bellerive area by local detectives on 17 July 2018. Upon arrest, you made attempts to conceal your identity, not once but twice. First, by the use of a false name and identity as an English tourist and, second, by the production of a bank card in the name of your brother, Shane. Ultimately, however, you admitted your identity after further questioning. Before you were extradited to Victoria, you were interviewed by police at a Hobart police station.
During the course of your interview, you made several admissions to police. One of the explanations you offered was that your offending lasted over a period of six years because it was only when cash transactions became available that you could put the system that you had employed into effect.
You denied that the money you obtained was used for luxuries or lifestyle, but rather went towards paying wages for paralegal work done by a person with whom you were in a relationship and who was accumulating debts. You viewed your crimes as victimless as you were only defrauding the State Government. Certainly they were being deprived duty to which they were lawfully entitled, but you were also defrauding your own clients, and it is concerning that you had deleted that reality from your consciousness.
As is the case with any practising solicitor who takes advantage of their position of trust to defraud clients, your offences are very serious. A solicitor assumes the control of a client’s transaction including, in these cases, the client’s funds. Such clients rely completely not only on their lawyer’s legal expertise but on their honesty. Given the period of time over which you operated this system in order to obtain these funds, your moral culpability is high. You had ample time for reflection and, in its own way, your scheme was quite elaborate. It was manipulative, deliberate and planned.
Victim impact statements
The Court received two victim impact statements. The first of these was from Pilar de la Torre, who is the victim of your offending in relation to charges 15 and 16. Ms de la Torre has expressed shock, horror and disbelief that money she had provided to you had not been paid appropriately to the State Revenue Office. She was concerned that she would be called upon to pay more money in circumstances where her financial position was under significant stress. She is likely to endure the consequences of the breach of trust in relation to her for some considerable time.
The second victim impact statement was from Peter Julian Selar, who is the subject of charges 1, 2, 23 and 24. He, likewise, describes the emotional effect of realising that the trust he had placed in you as his solicitor had been betrayed.
I have taken both these victim impact statements into account in determining the sentence that should be imposed on you.
Personal circumstances
You were born on 1 July 1959 and therefore are almost 60 years of age. You have one sibling, your older brother Shane, who still resides in Tasmania. Your childhood was marked by difficulties with your father, who suffered from alcohol and gambling addictions, and was violent. You witnessed your father’s violence towards your mother on a fairly regular basis. Your parents separated when you were aged 12. Your father died some 25 years ago in a road traffic accident. Your mother remarried, but her second husband also died some time ago.
You were educated at the Bellerive Primary School and then secondary colleges to matriculation level at age 17. You worked for the Tasmania Government Tourist Bureau for a period of time and then commenced a degree in law and accounting at the University of Tasmania. Due to financial difficulties, you left university after your first year and resumed working at the Tourist Bureau for another two years. You then returned to university where you completed your law degree, graduating in 1986. Following your graduation, you continued to work within local government in Tasmania.
You moved to Melbourne at the age of 30 years. For a time, you worked for a senior politician and then the Department of Social Security in an administrative role. During that time, you undertook articles with the Australian Government Solicitor. You were admitted to practise in Victoria in December 1993. You worked in various government positions, including the Refugee Review Tribunal and Industrial Relations Registry.
Your first practising certificate was obtained in 1998, following which you set up a practice that lasted for less than a year. You then became engaged in conveyancing practices, including The Conveyancer, which ultimately terminated in 2004. You ran another business as a sole practitioner from home and also in Drysdale. You have not practised as a lawyer since July 2008.
It appears that during the time that you absented yourself from Victoria and concealed your whereabouts, you were residing with your mother. Between 2009 and 2011, you worked for the Master Builders Tasmania as an executive officer. You gave advice in relation to contractual obligations and assisted with the drafting of contracts.
On your behalf, it is asserted that the majority of your salary of $50,000 per annum was used to repay money to the State Revenue Office. You also worked in other positions including office cleaning and gardening to pay living expenses.
In 2011, you left your employment with Master Builders when they became aware of a letter from the Victorian Legal Services Commission in relation to disciplinary proceedings. At that point, you had difficulty finding other jobs and ceased making repayments to the State Revenue Office. You are now without financial means.
Your mother, who was present at court during the hearing of your plea, is apparently heavily reliant upon you as a result of her age and ill health.
After your arrest in 2018, you were remanded in custody at the Metropolitan Remand Centre until you obtained bail on 25 October 2018. While in custody, you put your efforts to good use with various pursuits including trade-like activities, undertaking a number of courses, and providing assistance to a prisoner with mental health issues. During the time in custody, you developed a website and a program to educate and raise awareness amongst the community about making wrong decisions, committing crimes and the consequences of going to prison.
Once released on bail, you returned to Tasmania and have been conscientious in your compliance with bail conditions. I accept that you are a community-minded person and that you have undertaken activities that are of assistance to the community, particularly in relation to the development of websites aimed at raising awareness about the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, consequences of unlawful offending, and dissuading people against the use of violence in the workplace and at home.
Until these offences were committed you were a person of good character apart from some minor spent convictions many years earlier in the Children’s Court.
Plea of guilty
Your plea of guilty was entered on the day on which your plea was heard. However, from your letters to Ms Potts from the State Revenue Office, you indicated from July 2018 onwards that you would plead guilty. Your counsel submitted that your plea of guilty should be treated by me as being made at the earlier opportunity. I must reject that submission.
Upon the discovery of your dishonesty, the time immediately arrived when you should have made full and complete admissions both to the State Revenue Office and later to the police, when their interest was indicated. That occurred to a degree but was incomplete. You accept that between 2011 and 2018 you were actively avoiding being spoken to by the police. Whilst it is clear that you are remorseful for what has occurred, that history qualifies the remorse that you have shown to some degree.
Prospects of rehabilitation
During the period of delay in this matter being finalised either by the police or this Court and to which you contributed, you did not commit any other offences. You worked as best you could and contributed to the community. I have before me 12 letters of references from friends and family; all of whom speak highly of you.
The Crown also acknowledges that you have taken a number of positive steps.
I accept that from 2008 until 2018 , despite your reluctance to face the consequences of your actions, you demonstrated that your prospects of rehabilitation are good.
Delay
There has been a long delay since you committed these offences. In part, you have contributed to that delay. From 2011 onwards, you avoided contact with the police knowing they wished to speak to you about the matter and that you would, in all likelihood, be charged. However, I take the delay into account in the sense that these matters have no doubt been a constant source of concern for you. I think you always realised you would have to face the consequences of your offending behaviour; it was just a matter of when.
Conclusion
The result of your actions is that your career as a lawyer is finished. On 11 April 2019, I made orders resulting in your name being removed from the roll of legal practitioners. In all the circumstances, I would regard specific deterrence as a less significant sentencing factor in this case; however, general deterrence remains important. Those lawyers tempted to try to gain for themselves financially by breaching the trust placed in them by their clients need to understand that the punishment they will face when their crimes are discovered will be significant.
In this matter I propose to sentence you on the basis of an aggregate sentence of imprisonment pursuant to s 9 of the Sentencing Act 1991. I propose to do that because you have pleaded guilty to two or more offences that are part of a series of offences of a similar character. In those circumstances, an aggregate sentence is an appropriate procedure to follow.
The aggregate sentence that I impose on you in relation to all of the charges in the indictment is a total effective sentence of two years imprisonment. I direct that you serve a minimum period of 16 months before being eligible to apply for release on parole.
Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that the period of your pre-sentence is 122 days. That period is to be reckoned as time already served.
Sentence 6AAA of the Sentencing Act
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declare that had you not pleaded guilty to this indictment, the sentence I would have imposed on you would have been one of three years imprisonment with a minimum term to be served before eligibility for parole of two years.
SCHEDULE A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION
S ECR 2019 0030
THE QUEEN
Crown
KIM BLACKBERRY
Accused
PARTICULARISED CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES
Charges 1 and 2
PROPERTY: 14 Malmsbury Street, Kew
PURCHASER: Peter Julian SELAR
VENDOR: Brian Leslie HARPER
On or about 5 March 2002, Kim Blackberry (‘the offender’) dishonestly obtained $20,860, being funds paid to him on trust for the payment of stamp duty by his client Peter SELAR on settlement of property at 14 Malmsbury Street, Kew.
On or about 13 June 2002, the offender made and used two false documents with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to stamp those documents as not-chargeable pursuant to s 44-1 of the Duties Act 2000 (‘Duties Act’):
a.Transfer of land – described the consideration as pursuant to the terms of settlement on the breakdown of a bona fide domestic relationship. The offender forged the signatures of both parties on the form and falsely witnessed those signatures.
b.Transfer between domestic partners statutory declaration – falsely stated the transfer was by reason of a breakdown of a relationship of domestic partners. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and purported to witness the declaration in his capacity as a solicitor.
Charges 3 and 4
PROPERTY: 42 Westbourne Street, Prahran
PURCHASER: Sarah Cairncross SANDAVER
VENDOR: Mary Margaret ARCHER
On or about 14 November 2002, the offender dishonestly obtained $29,860, being funds paid to him on trust for the payment of stamp duty by his client Sarah Cairncross Sandvaver on settlement of property at 42 Westbourne Street, Prahran.
On or about 26 November 2002, the offender made and used two false documents with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to stamp those documents as not-chargeable pursuant to s 44-1 of the Duties Act:
a.Transfer of land – described the consideration as pursuant to the terms of settlement on the breakdown of a bona fide domestic relationship. The offender forged the signatures of both parties on the form and purported to witness those signatures.
b.Transfer between domestic partners statutory declaration - falsely stated the transfer was by reason of a breakdown of a relationship of domestic partners. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and purported to witness the declaration in his capacity as a solicitor.
Charges 5 and 6
PROPERTY: 7/700 Riversdale Road, Camberwell
PURCHASER: Peter and Barbara BELL
VENDOR: Peter and Robyn DUNOON
On or about 13 December 2002, the offender dishonestly obtained $20,860, being funds paid to him on trust for payment of stamp duty by his clients Peter and Robyn Dunoon on settlement of property at 7/700 Riversdale Road, Camberwell.
Between on or about 13 January 2003 and 16 January 2003, the offender made and used six false documents with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to stamp those documents as not-chargeable pursuant to s 44-1 of the Duties Act.
On this occasion, three separate lodgement and transfers were required to complete the conveyance of the property whilst allowing the offender to retain the funds allocated for stamp duty.
First lodgement and transfer of land from Peter and Robyn Dunoon to Robyn Dunoon:
a.Transfer of land – described the consideration as pursuant to Family Court order No 5342 of 1999, made 26 July 1999 by Hannon J. The offender forged the signatures of these people and signed the document as witnessing the signatures.
b.Transfer between married spouses statutory declaration – falsely stated that the declarant was married to the transferee. The offender forged the signature of the declarant Peter Dunoon and signed the document as witnessing the signature in his capacity as a legal practitioner.
Second lodgement and transfer of land from Robyn Dunoon to Peter Bell:
a.Transfer of land – described the consideration as pursuant to the terms of settlement on the breakdown of a bona fide domestic relationship. The offender forged the signatures of these people and signed the document as witnessing the signatures.
b.Transfer between domestic partners statutory declaration – falsely stated that the transfer of property was by reason of the breakdown of a relationship as domestic partners who lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and purported to witness the declaration in his capacity as a legal practitioner.
Third lodgement and transfer of land from Peter Bell to Peter and Barbara Bell:
a.Transfer of land – described the consideration as pursuant to a transfer between married spouses. The offender forged the signatures of both parties and signed the document as witnessing those signatures.
b.Transfer between married spouses statutory declaration – stated that the transferor and transferee are married. While correct, the document was created solely by the offender with the intention of deceiving the State Revenue Office. The offender forged the signature of the declarant Peter Bell and purported to witness the document in his capacity as a legal practitioner.
Charges 7 and 8
PROPERTY: 11/23 Clifton Springs Road, Drysdale
PURCHASERS: Audrey Patresa and Cecil John LOMAS
VENDOR: Anthony Ante and Christine Mary PEROVIC
On or about 5 August 2003, the offender dishonestly obtained $11,050, being funds paid to him on trust for the payment of stamp duty by his clients Audrey and Cecil Lomas on settlement of property at 11/23 Clifton Springs Road, Drysdale.
Between on or about 29 September 2003 and 9 October 2003, the offender made and used eight false documents with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to stamp those documents as not-chargeable pursuant to ss 43-3 and 44-1 of the Duties Act.
On this occasion, three separate lodgement and transfers were required to complete the conveyance of the property whilst allowing the offender to retain the funds allocated for stamp duty.
First lodgement and transfer of land from Anthony and Christine Perovic to Anthony Perovic:
a.Transfer of land – described the consideration as a transfer pursuant to Family Court order, made August 2003 by Kay J. The offender forged the signatures of these people and signed the document as witnessing the signatures.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land – listed the sale price ‘N/A’ and wrote on the form, “Property transferred as a result of marriage breakdown.” This formed was signed by the offender, certifying its accuracy.
The State Revenue Office investigation was unable to locate the statutory declaration form that would have been required to effect this transfer.
Second lodgement and transfer of land Anthony Perovic to Audrey Lomas:
a.Transfer of land – described the consideration as a transfer due to the breakdown of a de facto relationship. The offender forged the signatures of these people and signed the document as witnessing the signatures.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - listed the sale price as being ‘N/A’ and wrote on the form, “Breakdown of a bona fide de facto relationship.” This form was signed by the offender, certifying its accuracy.
c.Transfer between domestic partners statutory declaration - falsely stated that the transfer of the property was by reason of the breakdown of a relationship of domestic partners who lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and purported to witness the declaration in his capacity as a legal practitioner.
Third lodgement and transfer of land from Audrey Lomas to Audrey and Cecil Lomas:
a.Transfer of land - described the consideration as a transfer as natural love and affection. The offender forged the signatures of these people and signed the document as witnessing the signatures.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - listed the sale price as being ‘N/A’ and written on the form, “Transfer between married spouses”. This form was signed by the offender, certifying to its accuracy.
c.Transfer between domestic partners statutory declaration - stated that the transfer was between a married couple. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and purported to witness the declaration in his capacity as a legal practitioner. Although Audrey and Cecil Lomas are married, this transfer was not part of the contract they entered into to purchase the property.
Charges 9 and 10
PROPERTY: 51 Toronga Road, Malvern East
PURCHASER: Scott Stuart FITZGERALD and Victoria Siobhan HESKIN
VENDOR: Stuart BROWNING
On or about 7 November 2003, the offender dishonestly obtained the sum of $37,660, being funds paid to him on trust for the payment of stamp duty by his client Scott Fitzgerald at settlement for the property at 51 Toronga Road, Malvern East.
Between on or about 24 November 2003 and 28 November 2003, the offender made and used five false documents with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to stamp those documents as not-chargeable pursuant to s 44-1 of the Duties Act.
On this occasion, two separate lodgement and transfers were required to complete the conveyance of the property whilst allowing the offender to retain the funds allocated for stamp duty.
First lodgement and transfer of land from Scott Fitzgerald and Victoria Heskin to Scott Fitzgerald:
a.Transfer of land - described the consideration as due to the breakdown of a marriage and pursuant to Family Court orders, made 11 March 2003 by Kay J. The offender forged the signatures of these people and signed the document as witnessing those signatures.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - listed the sale price as ‘N/A’. This form was signed by the offender, certifying to its accuracy.
c.Transfer between married spouses statutory declaration - stated that Scott Fitzgerald was married to Victoria Heskin. The offender forged the signature of the declarant Scott Fitzgerald and purported to witness the declaration in his capacity as a legal practitioner.
Second lodgement and transfer of land from Scott Fitzgerald to Stuart Browning:
a.Transfer of land - described the consideration as due to the breakdown of a bona fide domestic relationship between the transferor Scott Fitzgerald and transferee Stuart Browning. The offender forged the signatures of these people and signed the document as witnessing those signatures.
b.Transfer between domestic partners statutory declaration - falsely stated that the transfer was made by reason of the breakdown of a relationship as domestic partners who lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and purported to witness the document in his capacity as a legal practitioner.
Charges 11 and 12
PROPERTY: 1/32 Beach Road, St Leonards
PURCHASER: John Charles ROYLE
VENDOR: Maria Magdalena VENDENBELD
On or about 18 October 2004, the offender dishonestly obtained $13,060, being funds paid to him on trust for the payment of stamp duty by his client John Royle on settlement of property at 1/32 Beach Road, St Leonards.
On or about 3 December 2004, the offender made and used three false documents with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to stamp those documents as not-chargeable pursuant to s 43-3 of the Duties Act:
a.Transfer of land - described the consideration as a transfer between bona fide domestic partners. The offender forged the signatures of these people and signed the document as witnessing the signatures.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - listed the sale price as ‘N/A’ and wrote on the form, “Transfer between domestic partners.” This form was signed by the offender, certifying to its accuracy.
c.Transfer between domestic partners statutory declaration - falsely stated that the transfer of the property was as a consequence of the parties living together as domestic partners on a genuine basis. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and purported to witness the declaration in his capacity as a legal practitioner.
Charges 13 and 14
PROPERTY:Lot 51 Northcorp Boulevard, Northcorp, Industry Park, Broadmeadows
PURCHASER: CMTJ Pty Ltd
VENDOR: BROADFIELD ESTATES Pty Ltd.
On or about 20 July 2005, the offender dishonestly obtained the amount of $2,448 (being the difference between the $4,360 paid to him by his client and the $1,912 of duty paid), being funds paid to him on trust for payment of stamp duty by his client CMTJ Pty Ltd on settlement for property at Lot 51 Northcorp Boulevard, Northcorp, Industry Park, Broadmeadows.
The director of the purchasing company was Christopher Ross, who is the cousin of the offender.
On or about 27 October 2005, the offender made and used three false documents that misstated the actual consideration paid for the property (reducing it from the correct amount of $145,000 plus GST to $80,000) with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to incorrectly levy duty at the false lower value:
a.Transfer of land - described the consideration for the transfer as $80,000. The contract of sale listed the consideration as $145,000, exclusive of GST. The transfer document was two pages. The offender falsified the first page and attached the original second page completed by the genuine vendor and purchaser. This form was stamped showing the amount $1,912, of stamp duty was paid.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - listed the total sale price of the property to be $80,000 and a deposit of $8,000 as being paid. This form was signed by the offender, certifying to its accuracy.
c.Goods statutory declaration - listed the vendor Andrew Buxton, the director of Broadfield Estates Pty Ltd, as the declarant. The declaration falsely states the consideration to be $80,000. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and falsified the signature of the solicitor acting for the vendor, Anthony Calvi, who is described as the witness to the statutory declaration.
Charges 15 and 16
PROPERTY: 9 Keith Street, Hampton East
PURCHASER: Pilar de la TORRE
VENDOR: Maria PAPAS
On or about 16 June 2006, the offender dishonestly obtained $7,060, being funds paid to him on trust for the payment of stamp duty by his client Pilar De La Torre on settlement for property at 9 Keith Street, Hampton East.
On or about 28 July 2006, the offender has made and used three false documents with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to stamp those documents as not-chargeable pursuant to s 44-1 of the Duties Act.
a.Transfer of land - described the consideration as due to the breakdown of a bona fide domestic relationship. The offender forged the signatures of the persons named and signed the document as witnessing the signatures.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - listed the sale price as being ‘N/A’. This form was signed by the offender, certifying to its accuracy.
c.Transfer between domestic partners statutory declaration - falsely stated the transfer of the property as by reason of the breakdown of a relationship of domestic partners who lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and purported to witness the declaration in his capacity as a legal practitioner
Charges 17 and 18
PROPERTY: G02/469 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne
PURCHASER: Trevor William ASHMAN
VENDOR: Justine Maria MILLS
On or about 8 December 2006, the offender dishonestly obtained the sum of $45,787.50, being funds paid to him on trust for the payment of stamp duty by his client Trevor Ashman on settlement of the property at G02/469 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne.
On or about 29 September 2008, the offender made and used three false documents with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to stamp those documents as not chargeable pursuant to s 43-3 of the Duties Act:
a.Transfer of land - described the consideration as a transfer between married spouses. The offender forged the signatures of both persons, and placed an unknown signature of a person purporting to have witnessed the signatures of the parties.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - listed the sale price as being ‘N/A’ and wrote on the form, “Transfer between married spouses”. This form was signed by the offender, certifying to its accuracy.
c.Transfer between married spouses statutory declaration - falsely stated that the transfer of the property was a transfer between a married couple. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and inserted the details of Jan Moffat, a legal practitioner employed by the legal firm acting for the vendor, as the person witnessing the declaration.
Charges 19 and 20
PROPERTY: 19 Production Drive, Alfredton
PURCASHER: Padstow Grange Pty Ltd
VENDOR: Roadcon Pty Ltd
On or about 1 August 2007, the offender dishonestly obtained the sum of $3,879 (being the difference between the amount $6,385 paid to him and the $2,506 stamp duty actually paid), being funds paid to him on trust for the payment of stamp duty by his client Padstow Grange Pty Ltd on settlement of property at 19 Production Drive, Alfredton.
The director of the purchasing company was Christopher Ross, who is the cousin of the offender.
On or about 24 January 2008, the offender made and used three false documents that misstated the actual consideration paid for the property (reducing it from the correct amount of $162,500 plus GST to $102,500) with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to levy duty at the false lower value:
a.Transfer of land - listed the consideration for the transfer as $102,500. The offender attached the falsified first page to the genuine second page signed by the parties. This form was stamped showing the amount $2,506, of stamp duty paid.
b.Notice of acquisition of a land - described the consideration for the property to be $102,500 and the deposit as $10,250. This form was signed by the offender, certifying to its accuracy.
c.Goods statutory declaration - the offender altered the sale price to $102,500, placed a falsified second page into the five-page document, and retained the genuine pages signed by the parties.
Charges 21 and 22
PROPERTY: 20 Production Drive, Alfredton
PURCHASER: CMTJ Pty Ltd
VENDOR: Broadfield Estate Pty Ltd
On or about 24 August 2007 the offender dishonestly obtained the sum of $5,199 (being the difference between $7,705 paid to him and stamp duty actually paid of $2506), being funds paid to him on trust for payment of stamp duty by his client CMTJ Pty Ltd on settlement for the property at 20 Production Drive, Alfredton.
The director of the purchasing company was Christopher Ross, who is the cousin of the offender.
On or about 24 January 2008 the offender made and used three false documents that misstated the actual consideration paid for the property (reducing it from the correct amount of $182,500 plus GST to $102,500) with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to levy duty at the lower false value:
a.Transfer of land - listed the consideration for the transfer as $102,500. This was a two page document and the offender attached the second page of the original form to the falsified first page. His form was stamped showing the amount of $2,506, of stamp duty paid.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - listed the total sale price of the property to be $102,500 and the deposit of $10,250 as being paid. This form was signed by the offender, certifying to its accuracy.
c.Goods statutory declaration - the offender altered the sale price to $102,500 and substituted the falsified second page into the original document genuinely signed by the parties.
Charges 23 and 24
PROPERTY: 128 Auburn Road, Hawthorn
PURCHASER: Peter Julian SELAR and Joseph PULVIRENTI
VENDOR: Rachel SCHACHTER and Israel SHACHTER
On or about 3 September 2007, the offender dishonestly obtained the sum of $28,060, being funds paid to him on trust for the payment of stamp duty by his clients Peter Selar and Joseph Pulvirenti on settlement of the property at 128 Auburn Road, Hawthorn.
Between 16 May 2008 and 28 May 2008, the offender made and used nine false documents with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to stamp those documents as not-chargeable pursuant to s 43-3 of the Duties Act.
First lodgement and transfer of land from Israel and Rachel Shachter to Rachel Shachter:
a.Transfer of land - described the consideration as a transfer between married spouses. The offender forged the signatures of these people and signed the document as witnessing the signatures.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - listed the sale price as being ‘NIL’ and wrote on the form, “Transfer between spouses”. This form was signed by the offender, certifying to its accuracy.
c.Transfer between married spouses statutory declaration - falsely described the transfer of the property as between a married couple. The signature of the declarant Israel Schachter was forged by the offender and the offender purported to witness the document in his capacity as a legal practitioner.
Second lodgement and transfer of land from Rachel Shachter to Peter Selar:
a.Transfer of land - described the consideration as a transfer between partners pursuant to a bona fide relationship between Rachel Shachter and Peter Selar. The offender forged the signatures of those people and signed the document as witnessing the signatures.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - listed the sale price as being ‘NIL’ and describes the transfer as, “Transfer between bona fide partners”. This form was signed by the offender, certifying to its accuracy.
c.Transfer between domestic partners statutory declaration - falsely described the transfer of the property as between domestic partners, living together as a couple, on a genuine basis. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and purported to witness the declaration in his capacity as a legal practitioner.
Third lodgement and transfer of land from Peter Selar to Peter Selar and Joseph Pulvirenti:
a.Transfer of land - described the consideration as a transfer between partners pursuant to a bona fide relationship. The offender forged the signatures of the parties and signed the document as witnessing the signatures.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - Described the sale price as being ‘NIL’ and the reason for the transfer as “N/A, pursuant to a transfer between bona fide partners”. This form was signed by the offender, certifying to its accuracy.
c.Transfer between domestic partners statutory declaration - falsely described the transfer of the property as between domestic partners living together as a couple on a genuine basis. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and purported to witness the document in his capacity as a legal practitioner.
Charges 25 – 27
PROPERTY: 20 Sea Haven Drive, Clifton Springs
PURCHASER: Robyn and Frederick DAVIS
VENDOR: William CUNNINGHAM
On 12 November 2007, the offender dishonestly obtained the sum of $20,560, being funds paid to him on trust for payment of stamp duty by his clients Robyn and Frederick DAVIS on settlement of the property at 20 Sea Haven Drive, Clifton Springs.
The contract of sale was signed on 13 October 2007 and settlement was due on 12 November 2007.
The offender provided his clients a statement of adjustments specifying the amount of $20,560 being required for payment of stamp duty.
Between 25 January 2008 and 29 January 2008, the offender made and used six false documents with the intention of inducing the State Revenue Office to stamp those documents as not-chargeable pursuant to ss 43-3 and 44-1 of the Duties Act.
First lodgement from William Cunningham to Robyn Davis:
a.Transfer of land - described the consideration for the transfer as between partners in a bona fide domestic relationship between William Cunningham and Robyn Davis. The offender forged the signatures of both persons on this document and signed the document as witnessing the signatures.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - described the consideration on the form as being ‘NIL’ and the offender included a hand written notation, “pursuant to transfer between bona fide domestic partners.” The offender signed and certified the contents of this form as being accurate.
c.Transfer between domestic partners statutory declaration - falsely described as the transfer between domestic partners who lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. The offender forged the signature of the declarant and purported to witness the declaration in his capacity as a legal practitioner.
Second lodgement and transfer of land from Robyn Davis to Robyn and Frederick Davis
a.Transfer of land - described the consideration as a transfer between married spouses. The offender forged the signatures of both parties and initialed the form as witnessing the forged signatures.
b.Notice of acquisition of an interest in land - described the consideration as ‘N/A’ and stated that the reason for transfer was a “transfer between married spouses”. The offender signed and certified this document as being accurate.
c.Transfer between married spouses statutory declaration - described the transfer as a transfer between a married couple. The offender forged the signature of Robyn Davis as the declarant and purported to witness the document in his capacity as a legal practitioner.
49 On or about 16 July 2008, the offender made and lodged a false document with the intention of avoiding detection by the State Revenue Office following enquiries made by Frederick Davis:
a. Goods statement for residential land – lodged to support an application for principal place of residence concession. The offender forged the signature of William Cunningham.
3
0
0