R v Madhoji - [2016] QDC 171

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Madhoji [2016] QDC 171

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

SANDEEP MADHOJI
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1516/14

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 July 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 and 21 March 2016; 26 and 29 April 2016; 30 June 2016

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

1. I find that the losses to a number of the complainants as a result of the fraud counts amounts to $3,251,281.35.

2. The other factual findings are set out in the judgment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- SENTENCE- CONTESTED SENTENCE- Findings of fact for the purposes of sentence

Evidence Act 1977 (Q) s 132C

Macquarie Bank Ltd v The Two Eagles Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 367

R v Lovell [2012] QCA 43

COUNSEL:

Mr M. Connolly for the crown

Mr L. Ackermann for the defence

SOLICITORS:

Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Raniga lawyers for the defence

Introduction

This is a contested sentence relating to the defendant Mr Madhoji. The defendant has pleaded guilty to 55 counts of fraud. The counts relate to his time as a part owner and director of Redwood Securities Pty Ltd.

The issues are as follows:
(a) What the defendant told others his qualifications were and his experience;

(b) Whether the procedures and practices engaged in by the defendant were endorsed by others;

(c) The way in which transaction were recorded and who compiled them;

(d) Whether this was a Ponzi scheme;

(e) Whether others acted actively to conceal his dishonesty;

(f) The losses suffered by the clients and the benefit received by the defendant.

Background

The evidence reveals that Redwood Securities Pty Ltd was incorporated on 17 November 2009 with the defendant being a director of the company. The incorporation of the company came about after negotiations between the defendant and Brook Monahan who controlled a company called Redwood Capital Group Pty Ltd which held an Australian Financial Services licence issued by ASIC and which could carry on business as a financial advisor and funds manager. At the time of these initial discussions the defendant worked for Advestra Capital Markets and was dealing in securities on behalf of clients of that company. It was decided that Redwood Securities would offer investment advice and trade on behalf of clients.

A number of clients came across from Advestra Capital Markets with the defendant. The defendant had each of the clients open an account or multiple accounts with Macquarie Bank on which he was given authority to operate. The clients also set up accounts with brokers such as Pension Financial and later with First Prudential Markets (FP) on which the accused could also operate on their behalf. It appears the defendant initially actively traded in securities on behalf of the clients.

The first fraudulent transaction occurred in late 2010/early 2011 when the defendant transferred funds from the Macquarie account of Two Eagles Pty Ltd, a company controlled by Mr Monahan’s family, to a number of associated clients.…

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 Madhoji

Details

AGLC: R v Madhoji [2016] QDC 171
Case: [2016] QDC 171
Decision Date: 8 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of multiple counts of fraud and was sentenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant appealed against the sentence, contending that the trial judge erred in making findings of fact relevant to sentencing without a jury. The central issue for the court was whether the trial judge was correct in making findings of fact for the purposes of sentencing without a jury. The appellant argued that certain factual findings, particularly those relating to the amount of loss suffered by the complainants, should have been made by a jury, not the trial judge.

The court considered the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act 1977 (Q), which allows a judge to make findings of fact if the evidence is not in dispute or if the judge is satisfied that the evidence is uncontradicted. The court also examined previous cases such as Macquarie Bank Ltd v The Two Eagles Pty Ltd and R v Lovell for guidance on the application of these provisions. The court concluded that the trial judge was correct in making the findings of fact for sentencing purposes as the evidence was not in dispute, and the appellant did not challenge the factual findings during the trial. The court found that the trial judge's approach was consistent with the statutory provisions and case law. The appellant's appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I find that the losses to a number of the complainants as a result of the fraud counts amounts to $3,251,281.35.

2. The other factual findings are set out in the judgment.

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.

CITATION:	R v Madhoji [2016] QDC 171
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v SANDEEP MADHOJI (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1516/14
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 July 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 and 21 March 2016; 26 and 29 April 2016; 30 June 2016
JUDGE:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	1. I find that the losses to a number of the complainants as a result of the fraud counts amounts to $3,251,281.35. 2. The other factual findings are set out in the judgment.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW- SENTENCE- CONTESTED SENTENCE- Findings of fact for the purposes of sentence Evidence Act 1977 (Q) s 132C Macquarie Bank Ltd v The Two Eagles Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 367 R v Lovell [2012] QCA 43
COUNSEL:	Mr M. Connolly for the crown Mr L. Ackermann for the defence
SOLICITORS:	Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Raniga lawyers for the defence