R v Coukoulis - [2002] VSC 6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1402 of 2002

THE QUEEN

THEODOROS CHRISTOPHER COUKOULIS

---

JUDGE:	Gillard J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 and 5 February 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 February 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Coukoulis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 6

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Ryan	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Allen	Haines & Polites
For the Legal Practice Board	Mr J. Barravecchio	Victorian Lawyers RPA Ltd

HIS HONOUR:

Theodoros Christopher Coukoulis, you have pleaded guilty to a substantial number of offences which occurred during the period 8 July 1993 to 13 March 1996 whilst you practised as a solicitor, at Frankston, in this State.

The first count, Count 1, alleged that between 8 July 1993 and 13 March 1996, you had a deficiency of money in or payable into your solicitor's trust account in the sum of $6,859,828.79 and have not given a sufficient explanation for such deficiency, contrary to s.42(1) of the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958. That Act was subsequently repealed by the Legal Practice Act 1996 but at all relevant times, was the applicable legislation. The maximum sentence for the commission of such an offence under s.42(1) of that Act, was seven years.

Counts 2 - 48 (inclusive) allege that at Frankston, on various dates between 8 July 1993 and 3 March 1996, you stole sums of money from various people and companies. The total amount alleged to have been stolen was M$8.167.

The amounts stated in Count 1 and Counts 2 - 48 (inclusive) do not represent the actual amount which has been lost, and which the Legal Practice Board was obliged to pay to various people and companies with whom you did business and who suffered loss.

Count 1 states a figure which represents the moneys that were received by you during the said period and which should have been in or paid into your trust account.

The amounts in Counts 2 - 48 (inclusive) do represent the sums of money actually stolen by you, but include some amounts which were in fact repaid by you in the course of your criminal activities.

The actual loss suffered by those who lent money to your firm was $3,963,781.53. That was the sum that remained outstanding when you ceased practice, and which ultimately was paid by the Legal Practice Board in response to claims made by those who lent money to your firm and who suffered loss. In fact, the Legal Practice Board paid out a greater sum by reason of interest in the sum of $427,154.73 and some costs.

On any view, the amount that you stole and failed to repay to the persons doing business with your firm, was a very substantial sum.

The money was stolen over a period of two years and eight months, namely, from 8 July 1993 to 3 March 1996, and during this…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Coukoulis

Details

AGLC: R v Coukoulis [2002] VSC 6
Case: [2002] VSC 6
Decision Date: 11 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Coukoulis involved the sentencing of Theodoros Christopher Coukoulis, who had pleaded guilty to numerous offences related to theft and misconduct while practising as a solicitor in Frankston, Victoria. The court heard that Coukoulis had stolen a substantial sum of money from various clients and others over a period of two years and eight months. The offences included stealing from clients, breaching trust, and failing to deposit moneys into his trust account as required by law. The court found that Coukoulis's actions were premeditated and demonstrated a high level of dishonesty. The sentencing judge, Gillard J, considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence. The aggravating factors included the substantial amount stolen, the breach of trust, and the length of time over which the offences were committed. Mitigating factors included Coukoulis's genuine remorse, his lack of prior convictions, and the delay in bringing the case to court. The judge sentenced Coukoulis to a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. The judge emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to protect the community from similar offences in the future.

Orders