R v Goel

[2011] NSWDC 83

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v GOEL [2011] NSWDC 83
Hearing dates:	1 August 2011
Decision date:	04 August 2011
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	See para [30] jury to be directed accordingly
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment - causation under Commonwealth Criminal Code - tax fraud - "but for" test rejected
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 1995 (Commonwealth)
Cases Cited:	Arulthiakan v The Queen 204 ALR 259 Moffatt v The Queen (2000) 112 ACrimR 201 R v Petroulias (no 30) [2007] NSWSC 119 Royall v The Queen (1990) 172 CLR 378
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	The Crown Dinker Goel
Representation:	W Hunt - The Crown A Morris - The Accused Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) Mark Klees and Associates
File Number(s):	2009/00011996

Judgment

Introduction

1. The trial of Dinker Goel began last Monday. He was arraigned on 41 counts under s135.1(3) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Commonwealth). Evidence was called over 3 days until, in circumstances I am about to describe, he was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty. This followed a request, from Mr Goel's counsel, Mr Morris, that I indicate how I was proposing to direct the jury as regards one aspect of the elements of each of the alleged offences. After I heard argument from Mr Morris and the Crown Prosecutor, I indicated that I would not be directing the jury in the way Mr Morris asked me to. I then adjourned for Mr Morris to get further instructions in the light of what I had just said. It was when the Court resumed that Mr Goel was re-arraigned in the presence of the jury and pleaded guilty.

1. These are the reasons for me deciding that I would not direct the jury in the way Mr Morris sought.

Facts which are largely undisputed

1. On Sunday 19 October 2008 the accused went to the offices of CNR Accounting and Taxation Pty Ltd. There the accused met a tax consultant by the name of Sharang Sareen. He asked Mr Sareen to prepare 41 tax returns. The accused handed over 41 payment summaries (previously known as group certificates) purporting to show the income earned and tax withheld of 41 taxpayers. He also gave to Mr Sareen a document recording each of the taxpayer's bank account details. Mr Sareen did what he was asked to do, that is he prepared the tax returns and caused them to be lodged with the Australian Taxation Office.

1. As it turns out the payment summaries were false. None of the tax payers actually worked for any of the three companies recorded on the various payment summaries. Accordingly they did not earn the income recorded on that summary nor was tax withheld. Further the bank account and BSB numbers were not those of the relevant taxpayers.

1. At Mr Goel's request, Mr Sareen included in each of the taxation returns claims for deductions to which the tax payer was not entitled. In fact each tax return should have had zero deductions claimed.