R v Goel

[2013] NSWDC 153

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Goel [2013] NSWDC 153
Hearing dates:	24 May 2013
Decision date:	24 May 2013
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 18 months.  I set a single non parole period to cover all sentences imposed by me both past and present.  That non parole period is to be one of 2 years and 6 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Dishonestly cause a loss to the Commonwealth - Fraud by tax agent - Unexplained delay in prosecution
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Dinker Goel
Representation:	Mr B Nield - Crown Mr A Norrie - Offender Director of Public Prosecutions Newtons Law - Offender
File Number(s):	2012/191352

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Dinker Goel appears for sentence on two charges of lodging tax returns with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to the Commonwealth. The first count relates to ten tax returns and the second relates to six tax returns.

1. I am sentencing Mr Goel in somewhat unusual circumstances. In 2011, I sentenced him for forty-one similar offences, each relating on that occasion to a single tax return. The offences for which Mr Goel must now be sentenced today are in relevant respects identical to the offences for which I sentenced him back in September 2011. He committed these new offences at the same time as what I will call the old offences, he used the same method of committing the offences, and they were investigated at the same time. No explanation at all has been offered as to why these two offences covering sixteen tax returns were not dealt with at the same time as the earlier offences. The unexplained delay in dealing with these matters has led to a sentence significantly less than would otherwise have been the case.

1. I set out the circumstances of Mr Goel's offending when I sentenced him on the earlier occasion. It is only therefore necessary for me to very briefly indicate what Mr Goel did. He was a tax agent who prepared tax returns for taxpayers without their knowledge. He used fictitious data to indicate on the tax returns the income earned by the taxpayer and the deductions they claimed. In effect, the scheme was to obtain refunds, not for the taxpayer of course but for Mr Goel and others working with him. In some cases the Australian Tax Office did not pay the refunds but in other cases they did. For count 1 a refund of $30,000 was paid. About $17,000 was stopped. For count 2 only a refund of fifty-eight dollars was paid with $20,000 being stopped. Had the scheme succeeded, these two counts would have led to a loss to the Commonwealth of something in the order of $70,000.

1. Mr Goel pleaded guilty to these offences at an earlier stage than his previous offences, indicating thus a greater willingness to facilitate the course of justice. He has also acknowledged his conduct, at least to prison medical authorities. He told them in relation to his earlier offending that he was accepting responsibility for his offences and the sentence imposed upon him.

1. Of course, when I sentenced Mr Goel earlier I also referred to his subjective circumstances. Not a lot has changed apart from the fact that he has obviously been in custody and as a result of that his family has suffered, not to any exceptional level but suffer they have. Unfortunately, this is of course commonplace when breadwinners are sent to gaol for serious offending.

1. I am being fairly brief in these remarks because of the large commonality between the objective and subjective features when I sentenced Mr Goel in September 2011 when compared with the sentence that I must impose today. It is of course a matter of great regret, not only to the Court but to Mr Goel specifically, that these new matters were not dealt with at the same time as the old matters. When Mr Goel was sentenced in September 2011 he was entitled to look to the earliest date of release, 8 September 2013 as being the date on which, assuming he was released to parole, he would be allowed to leave gaol. It is no doubt disappointing to him that he now faces the likelihood that that release date will be later on. That is of course one of the circumstances that leads to a lower sentence in this case than I would otherwise have imposed.

1. Of course, these offences are serious. As I explained in the original remarks on sentence, the Australian Taxation Office simply cannot investigate the accuracy of tax returns filed by every purported taxpayer. It relies on the honesty of those filling in forms and claiming refunds. For that reason, a significant component of general deterrence is required when offences such as this are discovered.

1. Mr Goel was, at the time I sentenced him earlier, a man of prior good character. As Mr Norrie points out, had these matters been dealt with at the same time, he would have been of prior good character when he was dealt with for all matters. I can clearly take that into account, but I do have to say that given the circumstance that there are a number, fifty-seven in fact, of separate false tax returns having been prepared by Mr Goel over a period of time, to state the obvious, this is not a case where Mr Goel did one thing and then immediately regretted it.

1. Consistent with Mr Goel's attitude to work and character, he is doing well in custody. He is proud of the position of responsibility that he now holds whilst in gaol.

1. Largely because of the unexplained delay I will impose concurrent sentences on these two counts. I impose a sentence of imprisonment of eighteen months to commence on 9 September 2015. Under s 19AD of the Crimes Act, I set a single non-parole period to cover all sentences imposed by me both past and present. That non-parole period is to be one of two years and six months to commence on 9 September 2011 and expire on 8 March 2014. It is my intention that Mr Goel spend six months longer in custody.

1. HIS HONOUR: Mr Goel, you've probably just heard me to say to counsel that you are now to spend six months longer in custody because of these new offences. Your first date that you can be released to parole is 8 March 2014. Once you are released to parole, you will continue to serve your sentence until the entire sentence expires on 8 June 2017. Any other order required?

**********

Decision last updated: 26 August 2013