R v Maloney
[2014] VSC 641
•16 December 2014
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2014 0072
| THE QUEEN | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| BRIAN FRANCIS MALONEY | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Warren CJ |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 29 September 2014 |
DATE OF SENTENCE | 16 December 2014 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Maloney |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VSC 641 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Multiple counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception – Theft – Deficiency in a trust account – Failing to deliver trust money – Continuing criminal enterprise counts – Lawyer misappropriated over $1 million of client’s money – Plea of guilty – Remorse – Loss of career – Importance of general deterrence, just punishment, denunciation and rehabilitation – Total effective sentence 5 years’ imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr G Silbert QC | The Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr I Hill QC | Anthony Isaacs Criminal Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Brian Francis Maloney, you have pleaded guilty to multiple counts of dishonesty.
You are 59 years old. You grew up from humble origins and had a lifelong record of hard work, integrity and a strong commitment to family and community. These traits culminated in your standing as a self-made man, surrounded by a stable and loving family and an admiring and respectful community. Yet, you have perpetrated very serious offending involving breach of trust and professional ethics and disgraceful dishonesty.
Your background and reputation
I turn to your life. Your father died when you were 15 and then you left school during Year 12 to work in the Victorian Public Service. Your purpose was to help your widowed mother. You worked in the criminal law branch of the former Crown Solicitor's office. While working you studied at night and gained your Higher School Certificate. You became a Clerk of Courts and embraced the opportunity of further study until you graduated in law from the University of Melbourne in 1988 and were admitted to practice as a solicitor in the same year. At some point you left the public service and moved to private practice. You and your family relocated to Ocean Grove. You developed a competent suburban legal practice at Williamstown and eventually employed seven staff. You worked up to 14 hours per day. You and your wife had six sons each of whom have or are progressing towards tertiary qualifications and/or employment save the youngest who is 16 and still at school. Like you, none of your sons have been in trouble. Plainly you have been a good role model. One of your sons said in a tendered statement: ‘Dad showed us what hard work and dedication could achieve.’
You have been an active community member through the Ocean Grove Football and Netball Club directly involved through community roles. You have worked selflessly for the club which was recognised by an award of a life membership. You also applied your legal skills in providing pro bono service to the club and often, free legal advice to members. Your character has been attested to by the current and the past president of the club.
It seems you suffered consistently from depression after your mother’s death in 2003.
Change of circumstances
Against this personal background dominated by endeavour, commitment and integrity your circumstances changed from about 2005, possibly earlier.
In the years around 2005 you sometimes struggled with the demands of your practice, family, financial pressures and little sleep. You had difficulty concentrating and sometimes neglected clients. This pattern worried you.
You agreed to represent and act pro bono for a friend in a civil action in the County Court against Victoria Police for misfeasance in office. You also represented two colleagues of your friend. The litigation was unsuccessful despite an appeal to the Victorian Court of Appeal and an application to the High Court of Australia for special leave. The litigation took a heavy toll. It demanded a great deal of your professional time and caused high levels of stress. You increased your working hours because of it. Others, both your family members and external friends, observed the impact the litigation had on you. It ran for about four years from 2005 to 2009.
Relevantly, the litigation cost you financially because it kept you from performing remunerative legal work. It also impacted on your practice as you did not keep on top of the ordinary office work load. You became dysfunctional with your work. You estimate the case cost you financially in that if you had otherwise engaged in your legal practice you would have earned about $2 million dollars in the period.
Whilst the litigation was underway, in 2006 you wanted to support your wife in setting up a retail fashion business. Your wife had apparently been unwell and you hoped the business would be helpful for her. A shop was established in Ocean Grove. Whilst initially successful the global financial crisis took its toll and the business ran at a loss until it closed in 2011.
Then in 2007, you performed some legal work for a handyman business called ‘Hire a Hubby’ which was developed into a franchise. You were appointed a director of the relevant company. Your expectation was that you would receive dividends which would help your financial situation. The company hoped to make money in the 2008-2009 period from a Federal Government program subsidising the installation of roof insulation. It never came to fruition. This venture was unsuccessful and resulted in a debt to the Australian Taxation Office of $600,000.
Also in 2007, you lost a potential partner for your law firm from the practice who went elsewhere.
By 2013 you owed money to the Australian Taxation Office which required fortnightly payments of $2,000.
To summarise, starting in about 2005 through to 2011 and beyond you faced cumulative financial pressures because of poor financial and legal practice decisions exacerbated by external circumstances and the ill health of your wife.
The fraud
In about November 2004, Mr Tony Gatt engaged your firm to act for him in the sale of some properties and a business. As settlements occurred Mr Gatt invested his monies in a bank.
In about April 2005 you contacted Mr Gatt and asked him what he was planning to do with his monies. Mr Gatt told you the money was in the bank and he planned to live on the interest. You explained to Mr Gatt that your practice had a mortgage lending component. You told Mr Gatt that you could invest the monies through your firm. You told him the monies could be lent to some of your clients and would be secured by mortgages. You also said your clients were willing to pay a higher interest rate.[1]
[1]Depositions p1.
In his statement to police Mr Gatt explained your assurance to him that there would not be any problems with the proposal and you would handle the legal aspects.[2] You also told Mr Gatt you had a large client base. Relevantly, Mr Gatt said in his statement he entered into the subsequent transactions because you were his solicitor and there would be mortgage security.[3]
[2]Depositions p2.
[3]Ibid.
As a result, Mr Gatt began an investment history with your firm. He came to know you well and trust you. He always had confidence in you.[4] The arrangement proceeded on the basis that you would speak to Mr Gatt if he had any problems, such as any overdue interest payment owing to him. You would say to Mr Gatt that you would contact the clients whose payments were overdue and tell them to correct their accounts.
[4]Ibid.
Legitimate multiple lending transactions were entered into between May 2005 to about 2006. The practice was that you would call Mr Gatt who would come to your office. You would explain the circumstances of the proposed loan and security including interest. Mr Gatt never met any of the borrowers. You would contact Mr Gatt a week or two later to arrange the signing of documents. You would direct Mr Gatt as to who his cheque should be made out to. On some occasions the cheques were made payable to ‘B M Legal’. On some occasions money was directly deposited by Mr Gatt in an account as requested by you.
Mr Gatt also said in his statement to police that each month he received payments by electronic transfer into his bank account. Some deposits identified the borrower, others did not.
The transactions
The first loans were arranged by you for a borrower called ‘Podoto’ and then one called ‘Pepe’. It seems there was nothing untoward with these transactions and the loan amounts were paid back in full (these transactions were not part of the charges brought against you).[5]
[5]Ibid.
The Crown alleges that on 14 January 2007 the first of several fraudulent loans was entered into by Mr Gatt instigated by you. With the first transaction, Mr Gatt agreed to lend a third party $163,800.[6] Mr Gatt continued to receive various payments for this loan until November 2012. You did not forward the money lent by Mr Gatt to the third party. You falsified a number of documents to establish the loan and to facilitate the fraud.
[6]Though the mortgage refers to $180,000.
The Crown further alleges that you established ten other loan agreements between Mr Gatt and third parties. You utilised the identity of individuals and companies to facilitate this offending.[7] The specific details of the dishonesty constituting the charges are set out in the Schedule to this sentence. However, I will briefly set out the separate charged amounts lent and the third party names you used to indicate to Mr Gatt that the loans were legitimate:
[7]See Schedule A.
·Charge 1: $163,800 (Robyn Vincent and Ticketts Road Pty Ltd)
·Charge 2: $272,479.17 (Tegral Pty Ltd)
·Charge 3: $89,100 (Curmon Investments Pty Ltd and Purple Duck Restaurant)
·Charge 4: $200,000 (MGQ Smallgoods Pty Ltd)
·Charge 5: $86,000 (Curmon Investments Pty Ltd and BM Legal)
·Charge 6: $125,000 (Rodney Roberts)
·Charge 7: $171,000 (Philippa Mary Maloney)
·Charge 8: $123,500 (Chevzoa Pty Ltd and Philippa Mary Maloney)
·Charge 9: $174,000 (Estate of Desmond Bennedict Harrington)
·Charge 10: $100,000 (B & P Maloney and Insync Clothing)
·Charge 11: $20,000 (Curmon Investments Pty Ltd)
·Charge 12: $151,320 (Rachel Marie Haywood)
·Charge 13: $75,000 (Chevzoa Pty Ltd)
Using false documents for the transactions you represented to Mr Gatt that the loans were legitimate thereby deceiving him into providing funds. Moreover, you used the names of both employees and family members as bogus third parties in these transactions; this doubtlessly cause them significant embarrassment.
You have admitted the offending and the matters alleged by the Crown. In total you misappropriated $1,758,300 from Mr Gatt and repaid $1,099,824. Therefore the total amount lost by Mr Gatt was $651,375.
All of the money you received was spent by you on personal and business expenses. None of the monies as described in the charges and lent by Mr Gatt were forwarded to the nominated third party. Furthermore, none of the third parties gave permission to have their identity used to support the various loan agreements.
You have pleaded guilty to each count. I find each count proven.
The impact
Mr Gatt has lost a substantial amount of money. He described in his victim impact statement how he trusted and respected you and the feeling that you took advantage of his position. Mr Gatt explained in his statement how he worked hard to make his money which you then encouraged him to invest in bogus transactions. Furthermore, Mr Gatt has suffered additional loss in that he was unable to finance his own personal borrowing for a house because he was awaiting funds from your firm.
Quite understandably, Mr Gatt has had his faith in the legal profession shaken. He notes, and I will speak about this further in a moment, that lawyers should be capable of being trusted as they are supposed to uphold the law and not use it for their own benefit.
The consequences
Things came to a head in about late 2012. Mr Gatt was asking for monies that were overdue. Eventually, it all became too much. You planned your suicide leaving notes and sending text messages explaining your plan to fake a car accident with the intention that the insurance on your life would pay out the monies owed to Mr Gatt. One of the notes was addressed to Mr Gatt himself. You expressed deep sorrow for your conduct and announced your intention that he be repaid. You said in that note:
I just got caught in the trap and could not repay the first loan and it snowballed from there.
Your suicide plan was prevented by the action of one of your sons. You were then admitted to a psychiatric hospital. On learning of your actions Mr Gatt went to the police. As soon as you were able, you voluntarily went to the police and made full admissions. At all times you were candid and fully cooperative with the police investigation and the subsequent prosecution. You pleaded guilty to all counts from the first opportunity.
Ultimately, the Legal Services Commissioner took control of your practice and it was sold for a miniscule sum, about $2,000.
Factors in mitigation
I have received in evidence a number of medical reports.[8] I note that none of the authors were treating you during the period of offending. Hence, they were dependent on your recount of events described in your medical history.
[8]The defence placed into evidence a number of medical reports:
·report of Dr Lester Walton, consultant psychiatrist, dated 19 August 2014;
·report of Mr Patrick Newton, forensic and clinical psychologist, dated 15 August 2014;
·report of Dr Simon Mitchell, consultant psychiatrist, dated 20 August 2014;
·report of Mr Dane Barclay, psychologists, dated 17 July 2014; and
·report of Dr Jane Adcock, general practitioner, dated 6 August 2014.
The medical reports reveal a consistent diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. There is a general medical consensus that your condition has a history extending back to about 2007. This would be consistent with the accumulation of difficulties you suffered at that time. I note, Dr Walton[9] considers the disorder may have begun as far back as 2003 with the aftermath of the death of your mother.
[9]Ibid.
Secondly, some of the medical opinions[10] consider your chronic depressive illness is relevant to your offending. It may have affected your judgment and decision-making ability.
[10]Ibid, also Dr Adcock.
Thirdly, a strong medical view is expressed that you will find prison more difficult than other first time offenders because of your depression.[11] Mr Newton, the psychologist stated in his report:
Mr Maloney continues to suffer noteworthy symptoms of depression that cause him genuine distress. It is of course a truism that anyone incarcerated for the first time and facing a plea to a significant offence will experience some emotional distress. Nevertheless, Mr Maloney’s longstanding history of depression means that I would expect him to continue to experience more severe symptoms than is typical of first-time prisoners, together with a relatively lengthy period of adjustment to a custodial environment.
[11]See reports of Dr Walton and Mr Newton.
Fourthly, your rehabilitation prospects are good although there is a prevailing view that your depression should be treated on an ongoing basis.[12] I observe that you have a supportive family.
[12]See Dr Walton and Mr Newton.
Fifthly, you are much affected by deep shame and remorse, not only for yourself and what you have done but for the pain you have caused others.
I note there was no submission on your behalf that your Major Depressive Disorder condition caused or contributed to your offending.[13] Weighing all matters up it may be said in your favour that you have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and cooperated fully with the police and the prosecution. In these types of cases a plea of guilty is especially important as it saves considerable time and expense in the proving of sometimes complex transactions. You have also saved your victim, Mr Gatt, from the stress of giving evidence. Relevant to your plea of guilty is your cooperation with the Legal Services Commission and your consent to the removal of your name from the Roll of Practitioners.[14]
[13]For example a Verdins submission: R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.
[14]Ordered by consent on 29 August 2014.
You have, until this offending, had an unblemished record including professionally. You have been a good family man and community member, including in the application of your legal skills to help others.
You have repaid a large part of the monies defrauded, although a significant loss remains suffered by your victim, Mr Gatt.
You are deeply remorseful and ashamed of your actions and believe you deserve condemnation.
You suffer from Major Depressive Disorder which may explain in part your poor judgment and delusion that you could pay the monies back.
Your disorder will make prison harder to cope with and endure than other first time offenders.
For reasons not altogether clear, you have had to wait over 18 months for your plea to be heard which in turn has meant the charges and their outcome have been hanging over you for that period.
The loss of your status as a lawyer is painful given your enjoyment of your standing and the hard work you put in to achieve your qualifications and your reputation.
Your prospects of rehabilitation are very good and you are most unlikely to reoffend. Combined with the need to take account of your health it is reasonable that you serve a shorter non-parole period than might otherwise apply.
You have lost everything you worked for during 25 years of practice.
Factors in aggravation
Against you it must be said that you breached a position of special trust and responsibility. Solicitors, lawyers as now called, enjoy a special position in the community because they are officers of the Supreme Court and are expected to uphold the rule of law. Admission to practice is not just a qualification. It is recognition that the individual is a person of standing and good character. In other words, admission to practice conveys that the lawyer is a person who can be trusted to behave honestly, legally and ethically. You have failed in every respect.
Secondly, you have stolen significant amounts from Mr Gatt. I must take into account the gravity of the offence and the significant amount of money you misappropriated.
Thirdly, this was not a momentary lapse of judgment, it was a prolonged scheme to misappropriate Mr Gatt’s funds. Your actions were perpetrated over a period of six years. You had ample time to see the errors of your way and reverse your course. Instead you continued to deceive Mr Gatt.
Fourthly, your actions have impacted greatly on your victim. Mr Gatt made a Victim Impact Statement that was tendered by the Crown and which I have carefully considered. I note in the statement Mr Gatt said this:
I was devastated at what Brian Maloney had [sic] done to us
…
What chance have we got if we cannot trust a solicitor on advising us and for them to do the correct legal documentation? Aren’t solicitors supposed to honour the law and not use it for their own benefit.
Fifthly, you used the knowledge you had gained as Mr Gatt’s lawyer on a previous transaction to take advantage of him. You knew he had a significant amount of money that he wanted to invest and you sought him out with the hope of making a financial windfall.
Sixthly, you still owe Mr Gatt a considerable amount of money totalling over $600,000.
Sentencing factors
Section 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) requires me to take into account a number of factors in coming to the appropriate sentence.
Primarily, your conduct warrants general deterrence. Imagine if your conduct was common place? It is important to the courts, the rule of law and the community that lawyers know there are significant consequences for your type of offending and breach of trust. The Court must take a clear position that this conduct is unacceptable.
Having said this, specific deterrence is not a significant consideration in your case. I accept that you are truly remorseful, and that you are not likely to offend again. Further, as I have already stated, with continued medical assistance you have good prospects of rehabilitation.
Maximum penalties
Pursuant to s 81(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (‘Crimes Act’) the penalty for obtaining financial advantage by deception is 10 years’ imprisonment. That is applicable to Charge 11 only. According to Part 2B of the Sentencing Act, Charges 1-10 (inclusive), 12 and 13 come under the ‘continuing criminal enterprise’ (CCE) provisions and therefore the maximum penalty on these charges is 20 years’ imprisonment.
By virtue of s 75(1) of the Crimes Act the maximum penalty for theft is 10 years’ imprisonment, that sanction applies to Charge 15.
Under to the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic) the maximum penalty for having a deficiency in a trust account and for failing to deliver trust money (Charges 14 and 16) is 15 years’ imprisonment.
Sentence
I turn to your sentence. You have perpetrated a number of serious criminal offences while acting in the trusted position of a lawyer. That calls for a term of immediate imprisonment and so much was urged by the Crown.[15]
[15]Director of Public Prosecutions v Serong [2001] VSC 213 [12].
On the non-CCE offences, I sentence you as follows:
·Charge 11 – 15 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 15 – 3 months’ imprisonment
On the CCE offences, I sentence you as follows:
·Charge 1 – 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 2 – 4 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 3 – 18 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 4 – 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 5 – 18 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 6 – 2 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 7 – 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 8 – 2 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 9 – 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 10 – 2 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 12 – 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 13 – 15 months’ imprisonment
In relation to the charges of having a deficiency in a trust account and failure to deliver trust money, I sentence you as follows:
·Charge 14 – 3 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 16 – 3 months’ imprisonment
I order that the base sentence is 4 years’ imprisonment on Charge 2. All other sentences are to be served concurrently, save where I specifically direct cumulation.
I order 2 months on each of charges 1,4,6,7,9 and 12 be served cumulatively on charge 2.
That makes a total effective sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of 3 years.
Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that 109 days of pre-sentence detention (not including today) are to be reckoned as already served under the sentence.
Pursuant to s 6J of the Sentencing Act, I record that you have been sentenced as a CCE offender in respect of the CCE offences in counts 1-10 (inclusive), 12 and 13.
In accordance with the consent orders presented to me, I order, pursuant to s 86 of the Sentencing Act that you pay compensation to Mr Gatt in the amount of $651,375.
I declare, pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act that if it were not for your plea of guilty I would have fixed a total effective sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.
SCHEDULE A
Charge 1: The first charge relates to a transaction between Seabrook Vision Pty Ltd (‘Seabrook’), Robyn Vincent and Ticketts Road Holdings Pty Ltd on or 30 January 2007. The defendant drew up a false mortgage and loan document in the name of Robyn Vincent, one of his employees. Mr Gatt, through his company Seabrook, paid out $163,800 in two cheques to the defendant. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction.
Charge 2: The second charge relates to a transaction between Seabrook and Tegral Pty Ltd (‘Tegral’) on or about 17 April 2008. The defendant prepared a false mortgage and on that basis, Mr Gatt caused Seabrook to draw a cheque for $272,479.17 made payable to Tegral. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction.
Charge 3: The third charge relates to a transaction between Tony Gatt, Curmon Investments Pty Ltd (‘Curmon’) and Purple Duck Restaurant on or about 14 August 2008. On the basis of a false mortgage prepared by the defendant, Mr Gatt obtained a bank cheque for the sum of $59,100 made payable to Curmon and another bank cheque made for the sum of $30,000 made payable to the Purple Duck Restaurant. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction.
Charge 4: The fourth charge relates to a transaction between Seabrook, MGQ Smallgoods Pty Ltd and Lorisian Court Pty Ltd on or about 16 October 2008. The defendant prepared a false mortgage and loan agreement and on that basis, Mr Gatt caused Seabrook to draw a cheque in the amount of $200,000 payable to MGQ Smallgoods Pty Ltd. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction.
Charge 5: The fifth charge relates to a transaction between Seabrook, Curmon and B M Legal Pty Ltd (‘B M Legal’) (the defendant’s firm) on or about 3 April 2009. On the basis of a false mortgage prepared by the defendant, Mr Gatt caused Seabrook to draw two cheques, one payable to Curmon for $12,000 and one payable to B M Legal for $74,000. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction.
Charge 6: The sixth charge relates to a transaction between Seabrook, Rodney Roberts and an unknown person on or about 17 September 2009. The defendant prepared a false mortgage and loan document and on that basis, Mr Gatt caused Seabrook to draw two cheques, one payable to Rodney Roberts for $85,000 and one to an unknown person for $40,000. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction.
Charge 7: The seventh charge relates to a transaction between Seabrook and Philippa Mary Maloney on or about 2 October 2009. The defendant prepared a false mortgage and loan document in order to obtain from Mr Gatt, $171,000. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction.
Charge 8: The eighth charge relates to a transaction between Seabrook, Chevzoa Pty Ltd (‘Chevzoa’) and Philippa Mary Maloney on or about 5 February 2009. The defendant prepared a fraudulent mortgage and loan agreement and on that basis, Mr Gatt caused Seabrook to draw a cheque in the sum of $123,500 payable to B & P Maloney. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction.
Charge 9: The ninth charge relates to a transaction between Seabrook and the defendant as executor of the estate of Desmond Bennedict Harrington on or about 20 February 2010. The defendant prepared a fraudulent mortgage and loan agreement and on that basis, Mr Gatt instructed Seabook to a draw a cheque payable to the defendant for $174,000. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction.
Charge 10: The tenth charge relates to a transaction between Seabrook, Insync Clothing and Hire a Hubby Pty Ltd. The defendant prepared a false loan agreement and on that basis, Mr Gatt caused Seabrook to draw two cheques, one payable to B & P Maloney for $50,000 and one payable to Insync Clothing for $50,000. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction
Charge 11: The eleventh charge relates to a transaction between Seabrook and Curmon on or about 24 March 2010. On the basis of a fraudulent loan agreement prepared by the defendant, Mr Gatt instructed Seabrook to draw a cheque payable to Curmon for $20,000. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction.
Charge 12: The twelfth charge relates to a transaction between Seabrook and Rachel Marie Hawyood on or about 25 November 2011. The defendant prepared a fraudulent loan agreement and on that basis, Mr Gatt caused Seabrook to draw a cheque payable to B M Legal in the sum of $151,320. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction.
Charge 13: The thirteenth charge relates to a transaction between Seabrook and Chevzoa on or about 20 February 2012. The defendant prepared a fraudulent loan agreement and on that basis, Mr Gatt instructed Seabrook to draw two cheques, one payable to Brian Maloney for $50,000 and one payable to an unknown person for $25,000. The defendant unlawfully retained the proceeds of the transaction.
Charge 14: On 29 January 2013 the defendant, without reasonable excuse, transferred through three separate cheques, $8250 from the B M Legal Trust Account into the B M Legal Office Account causing a deficiency in the Trust Account. The defendant claimed the amounts were transferred to ensure the staff of B M Legal were paid.
Charge 15: On 29 January 2013 the defendant withdrew $8,011.19 from the B M Legal Trust Account. That amount did not belong to him and thus constituted theft.
Charge 16: On 1 February 2013 the defendant received $8,875 from a client which he was obliged to deposit into the B M Legal Trust Account. He did not do so and therefore he created a deficiency in his trust account.
5
3
0