R v Lim

[2004] QCA 172

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lim [2004] QCA 172

PARTIES:

R
v
LIM, Reinhardt Winata
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 16 of 2004
DC No 2727 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

21 May 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 May 2004

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Chesterman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – where the applicant was convicted of twenty-two counts of fraud and dishonesty –  whether the term of imprisonment imposed by the learned trial judge was manifestly excessive  

R v Wheeler & Sorrensen [2002] QCA 223; CA Nos 56 and 57 of 2002, 25 June 2002

COUNSEL:

A J Rafter QC for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

CHESTERMAN J:  After a trial lasting five weeks, the applicant was, on 18 December 2003, convicted of 22 counts of fraud and dishonesty: there were two of false pretences, two of making a false statement as a director of a company, two of making fraudulent false accounts and 16 counts of fraud, with a circumstance of aggravation, that being in each case the value of the property obtained by fraud, was worth more than $5,000.

The applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on each of the four counts of fraud and two years’ imprisonment on a fifth count of fraud.  On all other counts, he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, the terms to be served concurrently.  A declaration was made that 618 days spent in custody prior to sentence, was time already served under the sentences.

The dishonest conduct occurred over a period of almost two years, from April 1997 to February 1999.  There was a similarity in the pattern of offending.  The applicant pretended to be a successful and affluent developer, who induced a number of people to give him money to invest in the projects, or to provide services for them.

The applicant pretended that he had financial backing, to buy and refurbish a building at 320 Adelaide Street in Brisbane and to undertake an industrial subdivision at Morayfield, north of Brisbane.

He induced the victims of his fraud to advance him money on the basis that they would be investors in these projects.  On some occasions, he induced professional firms to provide architectural and other services, to advance the projects in some way.

The Court has been given no details of the third project, but it seemed to involve the same course of deception.  Assurances were given that the projects were financed and viable and money was obtained on that basis.