Legal Research
Cases
R v Dimitri De Angelis

R v Dimitri De Angelis

Case [2013] NSWDC 79 1 March 2013

Victim Impact Statement

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dimitri DE ANGELIS [2013] NSWDC 79
Decision date: 01 March 2013
Before: Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:
For 14 offences of director cheat or defraud and 2 offences of obtain money by deception, an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 12 years. Non-parole period 7½ years. Balance of the term 4½ years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Particular offences - director cheat or defraud; and obtain money by deception - extensive and predatory fraud perpetrated on 16 victims over 4 years totalling over $8,000,000 - several victims in professional, academic, business or local government careers - offender sole director of music production and distribution company - persuaded victims to invest - some victims used superannuation funds - made false and misleading representations regarding personal wealth, financial health of company - falsified ASIC documents - produced false photographs. Sentence - purpose of sentence - community protection and recognition of harm done to victims - victim impact statement - should harm to natural persons be given more weight than harm to corporations? - general deterrence - significant factor - relevant factors - 'white collar criminal' - no criminal record - prospects of rehabilitation unclear - response to charges - very late plea of guilty - 12 and a half per cent discount - s 21A(2) aggravating factors some relevant some not - nature and circumstances of offender - narcissistic personality disorder - childhood abuse - adult cocaine use - special circumstances - mental health, first time in custody - form 1 taken into account.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 s 176A, s 178BA.
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 21A(2), s 32, s 53A.
Cases Cited: R v Borkowski (1999) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102.
Giam (No.2) (1999) 109 A Crim R 348; [1999] NSWCCA 378.
Gomes v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 142.
Regina v Jackson [2001] NSWCCA 355.
R v Mungomery (2004) 151 A Crim R 376; [2004] NSWCCA 450.
Heather Kathleen Power v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 244.
R v Shawn Darrell Richard [2011] NSWSC 866.
R v Tadrosse (2005) 65 NSWLR 740; [2005] NSWCCA 145.
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Dimitri De Angelis (Offender)
Representation: Counsel
M. G. O'Brien (Director of Public Prosecutions)
M. C. Ramage QC (Offender)

File Number(s): DC 2010/70664

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

I am sentencing a man who defrauded over a dozen people - over some four years - of amounts totalling over $8,000,000. The man's name is Dimitri De Angelis. What I will do first is to set out the offences that I am sentencing him for. I will formally convict him of those offences then I will say something about what he did to bring about the charges against him. I will then say something, as a judge must, about the personal circumstances of Mr De Angelis, the offender. I will canvass the arguments put by the prosecution and the defence and, finally, I…

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 Dimitri De Angelis

Details

AGLC: R v Dimitri De Angelis [2013] NSWDC 79
Case: [2013] NSWDC 79
Decision Date: 01 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Dimitri De Angelis, the defendant faced charges related to fraudulent activities that spanned over four years, involving 16 victims and amassing a total of over $8,000,000. The victims were diverse, including professionals in academic, business, and local government sectors. De Angelis, the sole director of a music production and distribution company, manipulated these victims into investing in the company through misleading and deceptive practices. He not only misrepresented his personal wealth and the financial stability of his company but also falsified documents from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and fabricated photographs to bolster his deceitful claims. The case reached the courts where the primary legal issues involved the extent and impact of the fraud, the appropriate sentencing principles, and the consideration of various aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for De Angelis, considering the extensive harm caused to individuals and corporations, and the various aggravating and mitigating factors. The sentencing principles focused on community protection, recognition of the harm done to the victims, and general deterrence. The court also weighed the harm to natural persons against that to corporations, and considered the offender's background, including his narcissistic personality disorder, history of childhood abuse, and adult substance abuse. The court assessed his prospects for rehabilitation and his late plea of guilty, applying a 12.5% discount as per s 21A(2). It also evaluated specific aggravating factors, some of which were relevant while others were not.

The court concluded that De Angelis' actions warranted a significant sentence, reflecting the severity of his crimes and the need for general deterrence. The offender was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 years for 14 counts of director cheat or defraud and 2 counts of obtaining money by deception. The non-parole period was set at 7.5 years, with the balance of the term amounting to 4.5 years. The court took into account the special circumstances, including De Angelis' mental health issues and his first-time incarceration, ensuring a balanced and comprehensive sentencing approach.

Orders

Orders of the court

For 14 offences of director cheat or defraud and 2 offences of obtain money by deception, an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 12 years. Non-parole period 7½ years. Balance of the term 4½ years.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Dimitri De Angelis [2013] NSWDC 79

Most Recent Citation

McLaren v R [2021] NSWCCA 12

Cases citing this decision · 3 of 3 shown

R v Rosamond (No 3)
[2023] NSWDC 267

…52 A Crim R 112 at 117 R v Cornell [2015] NSWCCA 258 R v David Charles Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 R v Dimitri De Angelis [2013] NSWDC 79 R v Doorey [2000] NSWCCA 456 R v Eugene William Daley (1983) 8 A Crim R 433 R v Finnie [2002] NSWCCA 533 R v Glenister (1980) 2 NSWLR 597 R v Holder (1983) 3 NSWLR 245 R v M…
R v Mark Leo O'Brien; R v Therese O'Brien
[2021] NSWDC 67

…Criminal Appeal, McClemens J, 10 May 1974) R v David Charles Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 R v Dimitri De Angelis [2013] NSWDC 79 R v Duncan [2019] NSWDC 852 R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 R v Eugene William Daley (1983) 8 A Crim R 433 R v Hunter (1984) 36 SASR 101 R v Jafari [2017] NSWCCA 152 R v Van Tung Luu (un…
McLaren v R
[2021] NSWCCA 12

…1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 R v Albert [2019] NSWDC 869 R v Burke [2002] NSWCCA 353 R v Clarke [2019] NSWDC 2 R v Dimitri De Angelis [2013] NSWDC 79 R v Kennedy [2019] NSWDC 359 R v Nykolyn [2012] NSWCCA 219 SHR v R [2014] NSWCCA 94; (2014) 241 A Crim R 544 Siwek v R [2017] NSWCCA 178 Strbak v The Queen [2020…

View all 3 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 8 of 8 shown

R v Richard
[2011] NSWSC 866 Para 1

…Mr Ramage QC referred me to the sentencing of Shawn Richard by Garling J in the Supreme Court on 12 August 2011: see [2011] NSWSC 866. Garling J observed at [71] in that case (which involved superannuation funds) that such funds "represent an important and significant element in the financial system in Australia an…
R v Robert Borkowski
[2009] NSWCCA 102 Para 1

…onsidering at this stage. I have taken into account what Howie J said about the principles governing a discount for a plea of guilty in R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; (2009) 52 MVR 528 at [32]. Although there was a good deal of practical value in the saving of the trial and the agreement to the facts, the plea was…
Gomes v Regina
[2008] NSWCCA 142 Para 1

…d particular regard to the sentences imposed in Giam (No.2) (1999) 109 A Crim R 348, Jackson [2001] NSWCCA 355, Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450 and Gomes [2008] NSWCCA 142. All of those cases concerned offences under s 176A of the Crimes Act. I have also had regard to those cases which record sentences for offences agai…
R v Tadrosse
[2005] NSWCCA 145

…4) 151 A Crim R 376; [2004] NSWCCA 450. Heather Kathleen Power v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 244. R v Shawn Darrell Richard [2011] NSWSC 866. R v Tadrosse (2005) 65 NSWLR 740; [2005] NSWCCA 145. Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown) Dimitri De Angelis (Offender) Representation: Counsel M. G. O'Brien (Director of Public…
R v Mungomery
[2004] NSWCCA 450 Para 1

…matters of fraud. I have had particular regard to the sentences imposed in Giam (No.2) (1999) 109 A Crim R 348, Jackson [2001] NSWCCA 355, Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450 and Gomes [2008] NSWCCA 142. All of those cases concerned offences under s 176A of the Crimes Act. I have also had regard to those cases which record…
Heather Kathleen Power v Regina
[2002] NSWCCA 244 Para 1

…he length of the sentence I will have to impose. He also referred me to what the Court of Criminal Appeal had said in Heather Kathleen Power v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 244 as being relevant to the sentencing of what are called white collar criminals. Mr De Angelis falls into such a category, which is not unusual. He has…
Regina v Jackson
[2001] NSWCCA 355 Para 1

…Criminal Appeal dealing with matters of fraud. I have had particular regard to the sentences imposed in Giam (No.2) (1999) 109 A Crim R 348, Jackson [2001] NSWCCA 355, Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450 and Gomes [2008] NSWCCA 142. All of those cases concerned offences under s 176A of the Crimes Act. I have also had regar…
R v Giam (No 2)
[1999] NSWCCA 378

…rocedure) Act 1999 s 21A(2), s 32, s 53A. Cases Cited: R v Borkowski (1999) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102. Giam (No.2) (1999) 109 A Crim R 348; [1999] NSWCCA 378. Gomes v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 142. Regina v Jackson [2001] NSWCCA 355. R v Mungomery (2004) 151 A Crim R 376; [2004] NSWCCA 450. Heather Kathleen Power…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
21A(2) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
176A 2 mentions (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Dimitri DE ANGELIS [2013] NSWDC 79
Decision date:	01 March 2013
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	For 14 offences of director cheat or defraud and 2 offences of obtain money by deception, an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 12 years. Non-parole period 7½ years. Balance of the term 4½ years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Particular offences - director cheat or defraud; and obtain money by deception - extensive and predatory fraud perpetrated on 16 victims over 4 years totalling over $8,000,000 - several victims in professional, academic, business or local government careers - offender sole director of music production and distribution company - persuaded victims to invest - some victims used superannuation funds - made false and misleading representations regarding personal wealth, financial health of company - falsified ASIC documents - produced false photographs. Sentence - purpose of sentence - community protection and recognition of harm done to victims - victim impact statement - should harm to natural persons be given more weight than harm to corporations? - general deterrence - significant factor - relevant factors - 'white collar criminal' - no criminal record - prospects of rehabilitation unclear - response to charges - very late plea of guilty - 12 and a half per cent discount - s 21A(2) aggravating factors some relevant some not - nature and circumstances of offender - narcissistic personality disorder - childhood abuse - adult cocaine use - special circumstances - mental health, first time in custody - form 1 taken into account.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 s 176A, s 178BA. Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 21A(2), s 32, s 53A.
Cases Cited:	R v Borkowski (1999) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102. Giam (No.2) (1999) 109 A Crim R 348; [1999] NSWCCA 378. Gomes v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 142. Regina v Jackson [2001] NSWCCA 355. R v Mungomery (2004) 151 A Crim R 376; [2004] NSWCCA 450. Heather Kathleen Power v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 244. R v Shawn Darrell Richard [2011] NSWSC 866. R v Tadrosse (2005) 65 NSWLR 740; [2005] NSWCCA 145.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Dimitri De Angelis (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M. G. O'Brien (Director of Public Prosecutions) M. C. Ramage QC (Offender)
File Number(s):	DC 2010/70664