R v Mehieddine - [2025] NSWDC 326

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mehieddine [2025] NSWDC 326
Hearing dates: 4 October 2024,10 October 2024, 9 December 2024, 15 April 2025
Date of orders: 29 May 2025
Decision date: 29 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months, at [305].
The offender to make reparation to the Commonwealth in the sum of $2,215,351, at [306].

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – Fraud offences – Obtain a financial advantage by deception – Defrauding the Commonwealth – Defrauding the Medicare Benefits Scheme – Offender abusing position as a healthcare provider and physiotherapist – Submitting false claims for services never provided – Initial offending unsophisticated – Initial offending involved over-claiming for patients under his care – Later offending more sophisticated – Later offending involved claiming on behalf of other practitioners at other practices for patients he had never seen – Obtained HICAPS terminal to continue conduct – Began “cloning” HICAPS terminal identifications at other practices by using a “rolling password” – Obtained counterfeit Medicare numbers online – Offending occurred over a period of 3 years – Total amount dishonestly obtained of $2,215,351
SENTENCING – Subjective factors on sentence – Offender on conditional liberty at the time of offending – History of dishonesty offences – Offender’s comparative youth at time of offending – Offender’s ongoing conduct motivated by drug and gambling addiction – Extensive expenditure on luxury car rentals and restaurants overseas – Drug rehabilitation prior to sentence – Delay due to disputed facts negotiations and changes in representation

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 53A
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss Pt 1B, 16A, 16G, 21B
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 82(1)
Criminal Code (Cth) ss 134, 135
Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) s 32
Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA

Cases Cited:
Canning v Northcott [1988] WASC 200
Corbett v R (1991) 52 A Crim R 112
Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105
DPP (Cth) vPhan [2016] VSCA 170
DPP v Golic [2014] VSCA 355
DPP v Hamman (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 1 December 1989, unrep)
El Rakhawy v R [2011] WASCA 209
El-Chaar v R [2007] NSWCCA 16
Ensor v R [2022] NSWCCA 278
Environment Protection Authority v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 152
Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Issakidis v R [2019] NSWCCA 302
Ly v R [2014] NSWCCA 78
O’Meara v R [2009] NSWCCA 90
PC v R [2020] NSWCCA 147
Quetcher v R [2010] NSWCCA 257
R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268
R v Blackburn [2023] NSWDC 1
R v Buckman [2016] QCA 176
R v Cox; R v Cuffe; R v Morrison [2013] QCA 10
R v Dunn (No 9) [2014] WASC 61
R v Emile George El Soury [2018] NSWDC 450
R v Host [2015] WASCA 23
R v Martin [2005] NSWCCA 190
R v Price [2008] QCA 330
R v Zoghbi [2022] NSWDC 219
Regina v Van Tung Luu (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 7 December 1984, unrep)
Ryan v R (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21;
Ryan v The King [2024] VSCA 74
Stitt v R (1998) 102 A Crim R 428
The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Majd Mehieddine (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Jordan (Crown)
J Trevallion SC with A Chauvet (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Truth Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/319885

JUDGMENT

Majd Mehieddine appears for sentence in relation to eight substantive offences of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage from the Commonwealth. Each of the offences alleges a contravention of s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) and each attracts a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years. The overall criminal conduct extended between about November 2019 and September 2022.
The offender was arrested and charged on 26 October 2022. He remained in custody from the day of his arrest until released to bail on 1 November 2022. He was subsequently re-arrested on 18 November 2022 due to an apparent breach of bail and remained in custody until again released to bail on 29 November 2022. This amounts to a total of 19 days in custody.

BACKGROUND TO PROCEEDINGS AND DELAY

Following the arrest of the offender on 26 October 2022, ultimate service of the brief of evidence was delayed over a period of some months.
In due course, 11 charges were certified and the matters were adjourned to September 2023 for committal. Various difficulties in providing a copy of a Cellebrite download report of the offender’s phone led to a number of adjournment applications. Further applications for adjournments on behalf of the defence culminated in the matters not being committed for sentence until 24 April 2024. On that occasion, pleas of Guilty were entered with respect to eight sequences and it was indicated that there was to be a dispute with respect to the facts.
Pleas of Not Guilty were entered with respect to sequences 3, 12 and 13. After the matter came to the District Court, it was adjourned on 24 May, 19 July and 2 August 2024 for what was described as “negotiation”. On 2 August, the Court was advised that Defence counsel had apparently returned the brief and further time was sought by the offender.
On 23 August 2024, signed and agreed facts were tendered before Judge M Williams SC. Pleas of Guilty were formally entered with respect to the eight sequences 4 to 11, and sequences 3, 12 and 13 were formally withdrawn. The matter was adjourned for sentence to 4 October 2024.
On 4 October 2024, the matter came before me for sentence. Ms McKensey of counsel for Mr Mehieddine indicated that there was an application by the Defence to vacate the hearing date. Counsel told the Court that she sought leave to withdraw for professional reasons. She advised the Court that she would have to withdraw irrespective of the outcome of the application to vacate the hearing date.
However, before withdrawing, Ms McKensey sought to have a psychologist’s report dated 1 October 2024, which had been filed with the Registry and served on the Crown, returned to the Defence. It was indicated that there were factual errors which had been detected in the report. The Court declined to return the report to the Defence on the basis that the Crown had also received the material, and both the Crown and the Court had read the material. The Defence solicitor indicated an intention to brief fresh counsel.
The matter was adjourned part-heard for mention to 10 October 2024. On that date the Court was advised that conferences had been arranged with new counsel and the offender intended to select his fresh counsel after those conferences. The Defence indicated that they were choosing between two nominated counsel. The matter was adjourned part-heard to 9 December 2024, that being a date on which both proposed counsel were meant to be available.
On 29 November 2024 the matter was mentioned. It was brought before the Court in relation to an application to vacate the hearing date of 9 December 2024. The Court was advised that different counsel from those previously nominated had now been identified and had been retained on behalf of the Defence. After hearing submissions, the Defence sought to retain 9 December 2024 in order to advance a fuller basis on which the hearing should be adjourned. The application was refused and the matter was confirmed for hearing on 9 December 2024.
On 9 December 2024, Mr Trevallion SC appeared on behalf of the offender. Substantive submissions were made with respect to a defence application to withdraw the previously signed and tendered Agreed Facts (see Environment Protection Authority v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 152).
After considerable discussion regarding an expressed intention by the Defence to obtain a forensic accounting report, the matter was adjourned for further mention to 13 December 2024. It should be noted that in addition to the withdrawal of a number of counsel, there had also been a change of solicitor in November 2024. The matter was listed for further mention on 13 February 2025.
On 13 February 2025 the Court was advised that negotiations were ongoing between the defence and the Crown with respect to the disputed facts. Mr Trevallion SC was now no longer appearing.
The Court was advised that junior counsel briefed, Ms Amarande Chauvet, was no longer comfortable in appearing. The new solicitor, Mr Sakr, advised the Court that he was also having difficulties continuing to appear but would keep the Court updated.
Dates for a disputed facts hearing on 15 and 16 April 2025 were confirmed. The matter was adjourned for mention via AVL on 13 March 2025 when the Court was sitting on circuit in Queanbeyan.
On 13 March 2025, the matter was mentioned in Queanbeyan District Court with all parties appearing via AVL. The Court was advised that there would now not be any forensic accountant’s report obtained for the Defence, but it was anticipated that there would be some amendment to the previously agreed facts specifically with respect to quantum. In those circumstances it was anticipated that the sentence hearing would proceed on 15 April 2025.
On 15 April 2025 Mr Trevallion SC again appeared in the matter. Amended Agreed Facts were tendered which reduced the total amount obtained by the fraudulent conduct from $2,427,325.10 down to $2,215,351 and the total number of services fraudulently claimed to have been performed was reduced from 44,523 down to 40,043.

CONTEXTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE OFFENDING

The offender was born in January 1997 and was first registered as a physiotherapist with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) on 24 December 2018. He was 21 years of age at the time.
Having been registered as a physiotherapist, the offender became a healthcare provider. As such, he became a ‘relevant provider’ pursuant to Medicare. Medicare is the healthcare system which assists eligible persons with the cost of the provision of healthcare throughout the Commonwealth. Services and systems including IT systems are in place for the online claiming of payments both to providers and reimbursement to patients, pursuant to the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS).
Healthcare providers are required to meet specific requirements in order to claim a rebate under the Medical Benefits Schedule for a particular service which has been provided. By way of example, a rebate for services provided by a physiotherapist requires the patient to have been referred to the physiotherapist by a registered medical practitioner. Services provided are identified by item numbers.
The number of services provided by a physiotherapist are restricted to a specified maximum per patient in a calendar year. An exception to that capped number relates to a specific coding used with respect to clients, or patients, who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, and are thereby entitled to the provision of, and claims for rebates in respect of, a larger number of services.
Healthcare practitioners who are approved by Services Australia, the provider of the IT systems, to transact under the Medicare Benefits Schedule are issued with a unique provider number. The provider number is comprised of a stem number, a location digit, and a check character. The stem number is specific to the practitioner and does not change between their practices. The offender’s stem number was 557468. The location digit is specific to the practice location. The check character is simply used to verify the number. A practitioner will therefore have one stem number but may have different provider numbers to account for their work at different locations. The stem and provider numbers are used by Services Australia as a reference point when claims for rebates are lodged pursuant to the online system.
The Agreed facts set out the detail of the provider location numbers allotted to the offender for use by him at a number of different locations where he apparently was employed as a physiotherapist. These included Rehab Solutions Australia in Fairfield from 2 January 2019; Healthcare Greenacre Physiotherapy at Greenacre from 2 September 2019; Neeta City Medical Dental and Specialist Centre at Fairfield from 12 September 2019; and Diamond Standard Physio at Greenacre from 6 November 2019.
In order to process a Medicare claim in respect of services provided to a client or patient, medical service providers or allied health providers, such as physiotherapists or chiropractors, are able to use a rebate system described as the EasyClaim system. This system would be accessed electronically by means of a Health Industry Claims and Payment Service terminal, referred to as a HICAPS terminal. These small terminals are regularly seen at medical practices, dental surgeries, and other locations which utilise the Medical Benefits Scheme.
HICAPS terminals would be available at different medical or physiotherapy practices and an employed physiotherapist, for example, could process claims utilising the electronic terminals which, pursuant to the rebate system, would cause payment of the Medicare rebate or “the scheduled fee” into the bank account of the patient or client making the claim.
In due course, in November 2019, the offender set up his own physiotherapy practice and actually obtained his own HICAPS terminal machine, with the merchant contract pursuant to which it was supplied listing him as the physiotherapist provider.
The first group of offences with respect to the present sentence proceedings occurred in November 2019.
Before turning to those particular offences, it is appropriate to place them in the context of surrounding circumstances leading up to the repetitive fraudulent conduct committed against the Commonwealth during the subsequent period of almost 3 years.
While I will deal with the detail of the subjective circumstances of the offender in due course, he has described both in an affidavit tendered on his behalf and in evidence given by him in the sentence proceedings that he became addicted to cocaine.
Just precisely when he commenced using cocaine is not completely clear.
He had attained his Higher School Certificate with an ATAR of 95.9, although I note that his affidavit states an ATAR of 99. I would presume, given his birth date in January 1997, that he sat the HSC most likely when he was 17 years of age in 2014.
His affidavit states that he completed a 4-year university course and obtained a Bachelor of Applied Science in Physiotherapy. As indicated earlier, he was admitted as a registered physiotherapist at the end of 2018. He was 21 years of age, and about to turn 22.
His affidavit implies commencing a party lifestyle and using cocaine after he had started work and was becoming independent of his parents. It is somewhat unclear as to when exactly that use of cocaine began. It is also unclear as to when his use increased to an asserted 2 to 3 grams per week.
In addition to an asserted expensive addiction to cocaine, the offender also said that he became increasingly addicted to gambling.

SEPARATE ACTS OF DISHONESTY TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS

Immediately before commencing employment with Rehab Solutions Australia on 2 January 2019, the offender was pulled over by police on 1 January 2019 on which occasion he refused to submit to a breath analysis. Of relevance in considering his subsequent commission of offences, he was placed on a Conditional Release Order without conviction at Bankstown Local Court on 30 May 2019. An appeal against the imposition of the Conditional Release Order was subsequently dismissed at Parramatta District Court on 28 August 2019.
His first offence of dishonesty occurred in March 2019. As I have already indicated, he had commenced his first employment as an employed physiotherapist with Rehab Solutions Australia in Fairfield from 2 January 2019.
The facts with respect to this matter had not originally been provided in the material tendered by the Crown. However, they were subsequently forwarded to the Court and to the defence for inclusion in the material before the Court. A short description of the facts are that on 31 March 2019 the offender obtained a TAB ticket for a $100 bet by leaning over the counter at the TAB section in Club Central Menai and pressing buttons on the terminal machine so as to produce a validated $100 betting ticket for which he had not paid. He was able to do so because the bar staff were distracted and the terminal was unattended. The betting ticket was subsequently cashed later that night for $200 by a female companion of the offender to whom he gave the betting ticket.
He was not charged with this offence until 1 July 2019. The matter was not dealt with in court until July 2020 when he was fined $900.
During the period between 1 July 2019 and the end of August 2019 the offender used a credit card in another person’s name which had been acquired dishonestly to make payments utilising a PayPal account in his own name in effecting 36 transactions to a total of $13,750. Each of the transactions related to a payment to the betting agency Ladbrokes. The credit card details had been acquired from a client of the physiotherapy practice, Rehab Solutions, who had been receiving treatment from the offender twice weekly for some months.
A charge of obtaining a financial advantage by deception with respect to this offending conduct was not preferred until April 2020.
On Saturday, 20 July 2019 the offender went to the Star Casino at Pyrmont shortly after 7am in the morning. The offender was in the company of another male. Approximately an hour later the offender and his male companion were recorded on the Casino’s CCTV in the vicinity of an elderly Chinese female who was seated at a digital roulette gambling screen on the main gaming floor of the Casino. The elderly Chinese lady had placed her handbag on a seat directly to her left while she was utilising the gaming machine in front of her.
The offender was visible on the CCTV footage pointing and gesturing towards the female victim. He appeared to usher his male companion towards her while he followed close behind. The offender’s male companion approached the female from her right-hand side and appeared to engage her in conversation in order to distract her. The offender walked behind her to her left and picked up her handbag which he walked away with.
Other CCTV footage revealed the offender stealing a wallet from within the bag and leaving the Casino with the victim’s Drivers Licence, Medicare card, and Credit cards. The credit cards taken from the wallet were fraudulently used a short time later.
The offender was ultimately charged with stealing in December 2019.
In circumstances which are not fully disclosed in the evidence, it would appear that the offender’s employment as a physiotherapist with Rehab Solutions Australia, who he had been working for since January 2019, was terminated on 2 August 2019. In his affidavit the offender described that he was “let go”. The offender apparently reacted angrily to his termination and deliberately broke in half the laptop computer belonging to his employer and which he had used during the course of his employment.
Police were called and attended the premises. The offender was spoken to by police and recorded by means of body worn video. He was subsequently charged on 30 August 2019. That matter was not dealt with at court until August 2020 when he was fined and ordered to pay compensation.
On 5 August 2019 the Physiotherapy Council of New South Wales received an anonymous complaint raising concerns about the offender’s behaviour and conduct. The complaint made claims regarding alleged fraudulent and dishonest behaviour in the course of the offender’s employment with Rehab Solutions Australia including the alleged use of a patient’s credit card details to pay Ladbrokes utilising PayPal. The complaint also described the circumstances regarding the broken computer and his termination. Despite being described as “anonymous” it would appear highly likely that the complaint had been made by his former employer.

The Physiotherapy Council convened an urgent hearing on 3 September 2019 with respect to a consideration as to whether the offender’s registration as a physiotherapist should be suspended, or whether conditions on his licence to practice should be imposed. He was still in his first year of practice.
It suffices to observe that the offender gave explanations for all of the complaints made against him including an account that the laptop computer had been broken in the course of a struggle to take possession of it. The offender stated that he wanted to retain it in order to comply with a legal obligation to complete his case notes from that day.
It would appear that CCTV footage recorded at his place of employment which had filmed the breaking of the computer was not provided to that hearing. It is unclear whether the fact that the offender had been served with a Court Attendance Notice charging him with destroying or damaging property was disclosed at the hearing.
Allegations that the offender had stolen a patient’s credit card and used it to pay Ladbrokes were apparently explained away by the offender to the satisfaction of the hearing.
In the event, the Physiotherapy Council took no action in relation to the complaints which had been received. The Physiotherapy Council delegates found that the explanations and responses provided by the offender were plausible and there did not appear to be any evidence of deception or any other indication that the offender posed a risk to the public.
Subsequent to the dismissal of those complaints, the offender himself made a complaint about his ex-employer, the Director and owner of the company Rehab Solutions, a Mr Wong. In the course of the Physiotherapy Council dealing with that complaint, Mr Wong provided additional evidence including the video footage recording the offender damaging the laptop. This video footage conclusively contradicted the account given by the offender at the earlier hearing.
On 2 December 2019, the Physiotherapy Council received further information alleging that a patient had been falsely claimed to have received treatment from the offender on 5 occasions at his new place of employment, Healthcare Greenacre Physiotherapy. The patient had been a patient at Rehab Solutions and when he attended to receive a second treatment under the Medicare Enhanced Primary Care (EPC) plan, he discovered that he could not claim the rebate because all the EPC treatments to which he was entitled had already been used. They had in fact been paid in favour of the offender. The patient claimed that he had never seen the offender at his new practice at Healthcare Greenacre.
An urgent hearing was reconvened by the Physiotherapy Council in light of these complaints. At a hearing on 3 December 2019, with respect to the complaint regarding the transactions utilising PayPal and the payments to Ladbrokes, the offender denied that he had a gambling problem. He denied receiving the money or the benefit of the money and gave an explanation regarding how PayPal accounts could be set up. He maintained that he did not receive the funds but could not explain how the transactions went into his account. The hearing noted that the offender’s version was contradicted by the police report.
The hearing then played the video footage with respect to the destruction of the laptop computer. As already noted, it contradicted the account which he had given at the first hearing. At that point in the hearing the offender became distressed and advised that he had seen a psychologist following the termination of his employment.
With respect to the allegation that he had received payments relating to clients that he had not seen, he advised that he worked on contract with his own ABN. He said that all billing was done by the clinic manager and he was unaware of having received the identified payments. He could provide no explanation for the payments being made to him.
The hearing concluded that the offender’s version about the laptop computer was unreliable. With respect to the credit card transactions and payments from PayPal to Ladbrokes, the hearing concluded that the offender had been unable to provide a credible explanation for the receipt of the funds. The hearing further noted that he was unable to explain why he had received payments for five episodes of care when he had not seen the client at all.
The Council determined that the offender would have conditions placed on his registration to practice as a physiotherapist. He was placed under a level of supervision with respect to all financial transactions involving patients, including Medicare billing. These restrictions and his continued ability to practice being subject to supervision came into effect from 5 December 2019.
Prior to the hearing before the Physiotherapy Council on 3 December 2019, the offender had been allocated provider numbers with respect to three additional physiotherapy practices. These were Healthcare Greenacre Physiotherapy at Greenacre from 2 September 2019; Neeta City Medical Dental and Specialists Centre at Fairfield from 12 September 2019; and Diamond Standard Physio at Noble Avenue Greenacre from 6 November 2019.
The practice utilising the name Diamond Standard Physio was a physiotherapy practice of the offender himself. The practice was set up in the name of Almajd Constructions Pty Ltd which was the construction company of the offender’s father, Mr Ali Mehieddine. The address of the practice in Noble Avenue, Greenacre was the address of the Mehieddine family home. A HICAPS terminal provided to the practice was registered in the name of Almajd Construction Pty Ltd and the merchant contract named the offender as the physiotherapist provider. A provider location number was allocated to the offender for use on that machine.
His first dishonest obtaining of funds forming part of the fraudulent transactions before this Court commenced by utilising claims for services allegedly provided through Diamond Standard Physio. Over a period of approximately 12 months between November 2019 and November 2020, some 18,791 fraudulent claims for services which had not been provided were made through the terminal associated with that practice. The fraudulent payments pursuant to these claims amounted to $1,010,855. I note in passing that this would equate to treating in excess of 360 patients or clients per week, on average.
This offending, in due course, became Sequence 4 and is the first chronological substantive matter for sentence.
At the time of the Physiotherapy Council meeting on 3 December 2019, following which the restrictions on dealing with financial transactions and being subject to supervision were imposed, the fraudulent claims being made through the offender’s own registered physiotherapy practice, Diamond Standard Physio, were, of course, undiscovered and not the subject of any hearing by the Physiotherapy Council. However, in addition to imposing the conditions and supervision on his continued right to practice, the Physiotherapy Council referred the complaints regarding the offender to the Healthcare Complains Commission (HCCC) for investigation.
On 29 January 2020 the Physiotherapy Council received information and a complaint that Mr Mehieddine had been admitted to St George Hospital for drug intoxication. On 30 January 2020 St George Hospital provided a copy of the inpatient laboratory tests relating to the offender with respect to samples taken on 29 January 2020. The toxicology results recorded a positive urine cocaine screen result and a positive benzodiazepine screen result. The offender was advised of the complaint and invited to provide a response.
An urgent hearing before the delegates of the Physiotherapy Council was held on 3 March 2020. The central issue for determination was whether the offender posed a risk to the safety or health of the public that warranted action to be taken, specifically with relation to his illicit drug use and intoxication.
The offender gave evidence at that hearing and agreed that he had taken cocaine. He suggested that the positive benzodiazepine screen result was related to treatment received by him from paramedics who had treated him at a car park in Dolls Point on the evening of 28 January 2020. The offender told the Council meeting that he had used cocaine on the evening of Sunday 26 January 2020 at a private function. He said he had never used cocaine previously or illicit drugs, and that this was a one-off event. With respect to the attendance of the paramedics on the evening of Tuesday 28 January 2020, he told the Council that he had had a disagreement with his girlfriend while they were at a car park in Doll’s Point and he walked into the bush. His girlfriend had called his father who told her to call an ambulance. Police and ambulance officers then attended the location. The offender maintained that he had no background of substance abuse. He said he was not distressed or disturbed but hadn’t expected to be “put down” by three police officers.
It is unnecessary to set out any further detail with respect to the hearing before the Council. In short, the Council did not accept that the offender had not received notifications which had been sent to him regarding the hearing, and that the previous requirement for supervision, in respect of which he was required to notify his employer, had not been complied with. In all of the circumstances, the additional matters were referred for investigation by the HCCC and the delegates suspended the offender’s registration as a physiotherapist with immediate effect.
Before leaving the circumstances of the Physiotherapy Council meeting on 3 March 2020, I should observe that the offender told that meeting that he had not worked as a physiotherapist since 19 December 2019. He had then travelled overseas to Dubai on 12 February 2020 following an attempt to serve documents on him from the Physiotherapy Council on 11 February 2020. He claimed that his travel was unrelated to the attempted service of the documents.
It is noteworthy that during the period between November 2019 and the end of January 2020 in excess of 900 false claims were made with respect to services purportedly provided by the offender to nominated patients. The offender falsely claimed to have had patients referred by nominated doctors at a variety of practices in Fairfield and Greenacre. The false claims resulted in payments to the offender during the period up until 31 January 2020 in a total of $49,765. During the same period, expenditure from his own bank accounts showed 57 transfers were made approaching approximately $60,000.
Following his entitlement to practice having been suspended from 3 March 2020 the offender continued to make claims for rebates with respect to services purportedly supplied by him pursuant to the Medicare Benefit Schedule through Diamond Standard Physio. Between 4 March 2020 and 27 November 2020 claims for rebates were made with respect to an additional 17,876 services purportedly provided by him to approximately 1,099 separate patients. These claims resulted in payments totalling $961,090 being paid to the offender. As previously stated, the total amount fraudulently obtained referable to Diamond Standard Physio came to a total of $1,010,866.
As noted earlier, one of the physiotherapy practices where the offender was employed for a period in 2019 was Neeta City Medical Dental and Specialist Centre at Fairfield. A provider location number had been allocated to the offender for use at that location only. As previously noted, different provider numbers were allocated for use at different medical practices. The offender’s modus operandi with respect to a substantial number of claims made for services purportedly provided at the Neeta City Medical Centre involved what the Agreed Facts describe as “cloning” the relevant HICAPS terminal identification. The method of “cloning” was by means of the utilisation of what is described as a “rolling password” which enables a practitioner to reset a different HICAPS machine or terminal in his possession so that electronically, the different machine appears in the EasyClaim system to be the “cloned” terminal or machine.
Having worked as a physiotherapist at the Neeta City Medical Centre, the offender had taken photographs of eftpos purchase receipts which provided him with the relevant HICAPS terminal i/d and the merchant number of the HICAPS machine.
The offender apparently had a contact or “source” who provided to him the relevant “rolling password” with respect to claims made using a variety of “cloned” HICAPS terminals.
The Agreed Facts have a deafening silence with respect to the identity of this contact or “source”. Whether such person has been identified or charged is not revealed in the material before these sentence proceedings. In due course the investigation revealed communications by the offender with a person identified as “Hicaps Guy Cheso”. Some of the retained messages on the offender’s mobile phone reveal “Hicaps Guy Cheso” sending a “rolling password” to the offender on a number of occasions.
In addition to effectively “cloning” the HICAPS machine from Neeta City Medical Centre, the offender utilised a provider number for a Dr Jae-Man Chung who worked at that medical centre. Dr Chung was a chiropractor. The item number in the claims related to the alleged provision of chiropractic services by Dr Chung.
Between 30 December 2020 and 28 February 2021, a total of 2,392 fraudulent claims were made with respect to services which had never been provided by Dr Chung. The total amount paid by the Commonwealth with respect to these claims was $129,943.85. This group of fraudulent claims gives rise to Sequence 5 which is the second substantive offence before me.
Between late February 2021 and November 2021, the offender was out of Australia. Following his return, he continued making false claims purporting to come from a HICAPS terminal at Neeta City Medical Centre with respect to services purportedly performed or provided by Dr Chung.
Between November 2021, following his return to Australia, and May 2022 the offender made a total of 12,395 further claims for rebates with respect to services which had not been provided by Dr Chung. The services had purportedly been performed between November 2019 and May 2022. The offender received $667,135.05 pursuant to these fraudulent claims. This group of claims gives rise to Sequence 6 which is the third substantive offence for sentence.
Another chiropractor employed by Neeta City Medical Centre, Dr Simon Yang, was also utilised by the offender as the purported supplier of services which had never been provided. Using the same methodology, the offender made a total of 934 false claims with respect to services allegedly provided by Dr Yang. Similarly to the claims made using Dr Chung’s provider number, the claims with respect to Dr Yang fell into two periods on either side of the offender’s overseas travel.
492 claims for rebate were submitted and payment received between 29 January 2021 and 2 February 2021. The services the subject of those claims were alleged to have been provided by Dr Yang between 10 November 2019 and 2 February 2021. The total amount fraudulently obtained was $26,697.60. This sequence of offending was charged as Sequence 7 which is the fourth matter for sentence.
The second group of claims were made during the period 14 March 2022 and 27 May 2022, and related to 442 services alleged to have been provided by Dr Yang between 2 September 2020 and 27 May 2022. The total amount fraudulently obtained was $24,249.70. This group of claims gave rise to Sequence 8 which is the fifth substantive charge before me.
The next group of claims which have been separately charged as Sequence 9 related to another physiotherapist, Mr Ali Jadid. The HICAPS terminal associated with Mr Jadid and a practice at Greenacre called Primary Physio Care Pty Ltd, was similarly “cloned” by the use of a “rolling password”. Mr Jadid’s provider number was utilised in making the claims.
In circumstances where the Agreed Facts do not indicate that the offender ever worked at the particular physiotherapy practice, it is unclear how he obtained the details of the HICAPS terminal or Mr Jadid’s provider number.
In the period between 16 June 2022 and 12 July 2022 the offender made claims for rebates in respect of 2,017 physiotherapy services said to have been provided by Mr Jadid to some 94 different patients/clients between September 2020 and May 2022. The total amount obtained by the fraudulent claims relating to Mr Jadid was $110,482.70. As I have indicated, this gave rise to Sequence 9, which is the sixth substantive offence.
The final two substantive offences similarly relate to a physiotherapy practice in respect of which the Agreed Facts do not reveal a direct connection with the offender. The Agreed Facts do say that digital evidence seized from the offender’s premises at the time of his arrest contained photographs of eftpos receipts from the respective practice locations of the various affected practitioners. Such receipts included the details of the relevant HICAPS terminal i/d and the merchant number of the HICAPS machine used at each of the respective practices. Just how such photographs of the eftpos receipts came to be in the possession of the offender is unknown.
Sequence 10 is the substantive offence charged with respect to claims made for non-existent services claimed to have been provided by a physiotherapist at Bankstown Physio, Ms Eduarda Bota. The claims for rebate were all lodged in the week between 22 August and 28 August 2022. A total of 549 services were claimed to have been provided by Ms Bota to some 27 patients during a period extending back to 1 October 2020 up until 28 August 2022. The methodology used to perpetrate the fraud included using the “cloned” details of the HICAPS terminal at the Bankstown Physio practice and the provider number of Ms Bota.
Sequence 11 is the eighth and final substantive count in the sentence proceedings. It relates to false claims for the provision of 3,965 services purportedly provided by another physiotherapist at the Bankstown Physio practice, Ms Kit Man Luc. The claims related to 164 patients and were all lodged in a period of just over two weeks between 24 August 2022 and 9 September 2022. The services claimed were said to have been provided from 1 October 2020 until 9 September 2022. The total amount fraudulently received was $215,882.70.
The methodology was identical to that utilised in the other “cloned” circumstances.
It is appropriate to note that in ordinary circumstances patients entitled to claim referred physiotherapy or chiropractic services have a limited number of consultations in respect of which they are entitled to a rebate from the Commonwealth. However, a specific code is able to be used by a healthcare provider indicating that the patient or client is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, thereby entitling that patient or client to make claims for a higher number of services. These particular codes were used by the offender in respect of a large number of the fraudulent claims.
In making the fraudulent claims for rebates on behalf of the numerous patients whose names and Medicare numbers were utilised, the offending prior to approximately June 2022 would appear to have related to patients or clients whose details had likely been acquired from the practices at which the offender had himself been employed. In addition to Medicare details obtained in those circumstances, the offender also had the names and details of members of his own family. At the time of his arrest in October 2022 his mobile phone was found to contain 134 photographic images of Medicare cards, many of which bore the names of more than one person.

His mobile phone also included a WhatsApp message conversation with a Chinese website understood to be on the Dark Web selling counterfeit Australian Medicare cards and Australian driver’s licences. Extracts from the written message conversation are included in the Agreed Facts. In the course of that conversation, which commenced on 21 June 2022, the offender negotiated to purchase additional images and details of 500 Medicare cards. According to that conversation the offender said that he would pay for 20 cards but that he would ultimately need 500. The conversation revealed a complaint by the offender that not all of the card numbers sent to him worked. He subsequently paid $1,000 AUD by means of a blockchain bitcoin transaction for a further 15 card details.
Also included in the offender’s mobile phone were memos or notes listing large volumes of Medicare card numbers. These were accompanied by notations regarding the validity of the card numbers, the number of patients attached to a card and the type or number of claims able to be processed using those numbers. They also included notations with respect to numbers which had not successfully worked, presumably in the attempted lodging of false claims using those numbers.
The mobile phone also included detailed notes with the names of patients, the number of Medicare Benefits Scheme items billed for services purportedly supplied to those patients, and the provider names of the physiotherapist or chiropractor that had been used for the purpose of billing Medicare for the rebates.
The phone containing the recorded details to which I have referred was seized together with another mobile phone during the execution of a search warrant at the offender’s home in Noble Avenue, Greenacre on 26 October 2022. The address was the residence of the offender and his immediate family and had been the address at which the physiotherapy business he had registered himself, Diamond Standard Physio, was located. The HICAPS terminal which had been allocated to his business was recovered in the course of the search together with two large garbage bags full of HICAPS machine receipts.
The search was executed by officers from the Department of Health and Aged Care, as well as Digital Forensics Officers from Services Australia. Approximately five bank debit cards in the name of the offender were located, a number of which transpired to have been linked to the accounts into which some of the fraudulently obtained payments of rebates had been deposited.
At the conclusion of the execution of the search warrant, the offender was arrested and offered the opportunity of participating in a voluntary interview with respect to the lodging of the false Medicare claims. The offender exercised his rights and declined the offer of the interview.
Detailed analysis of the money received into the various bank accounts of the offender and of his spending was subsequently undertaken. Whilst he had consistently claimed fraudulent Medicare rebates during the period from November 2019 up until September 2022, shortly before his arrest, no claims were submitted during the period between March 2021 and November 2021 when the offender had been overseas. They resumed again on his return.
During a subsequent overseas trip between 7 July 2022 and 19 August 2022, the offender had taken the HICAPS terminal with him so as to enable the continuing lodgement of claims, notwithstanding that he was overseas.
A forensic financial analysis of the offender’s numerous bank accounts into which the Medicare rebates had been variously deposited disclosed substantial involvement in gambling and other personal expenditure.
Transactions with gambling organisations situated in Australia and overseas included Ladbrokes, Mountberg Ltd, the TAB, Paytriot London, Grant Fortune London, and Merus Ltd. While approximately $118,300 had been received as income from gambling, the outlay exceeded $766,000 spent on gambling.
Cash withdrawals during the period of the fraudulent conduct exceeded $760,000. Approximately $13,000 in cash was deposited during that time.
An amount of approximately $637,000 was transferred to what is described as a digital wallet, eZeeWallet, which facilitates the deposit, expenditure, and transfer of money.
A further amount of approximately $565,000 was transferred to cryptocurrency accounts with approximately $41,000 received as income from cryptocurrency accounts located both in Australia and overseas.
An additional amount of approximately $497,000 was identified in other transfers with approximately $47,000 received and deposited.
Further substantial payments by way of Eftpos, BPAY, or Direct Debit were identified to a total of approximately $411,000. Approximately $18,000 was received by such means.
An Annexure to the Agreed Facts sets out in excess of 700 individual transactions from the three main bank accounts operated by the offender, each of which was a transaction of at least $1,000. The transactions cover the entire period of the offending and reveal transactions effected in Dubai, including for Luxury SuperCar rentals in an amount in excess of $14,000 AUD during visits in March 2021 and July 2022. The Table in the Annexure also discloses expenditure in Dubai at various restaurants and hotels in February 2020. The transactions set out in the Table demonstrate the frequency and consistency of the offender’s spending, ultimately leading to the increased volume of transfers of substantial funds to the digital application eZeeWallet from approximately August 2022. The expenditure table setting out the details of the transactions to which I have made reference will be an annexure to this judgment.

SUBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

The subjective case for the offender has been presented to the court by means of a psychological report, a psychiatric report, a number of reports with respect to the offender’s rehabilitation from his use of cocaine, a letter of apology and an affidavit from the offender, together with his sworn evidence, and also an affidavit from the offender’s father. An understanding of his personal background is also supplemented by his criminal history and the Sentencing Assessment Report.
In the offender’s affidavit of 2 December 2024 he describes his early personal history. He was born as an Australian citizen in Lebanon in January 1997 and moved to Australia with his parents at the age of six. He describes his parents as hard-working individuals who have never been involved in crime. He said that the family was always very conservative and that he had led a sheltered life growing up. He said that his main goal was to achieve good grades at school and ultimately to live a professional life.
He described having attended a private selective school in Greenacre where he was a school prefect and one of the top students. He said that he achieved an ATAR of 99 in his affidavit, although as I have noted he corrected that in his evidence to 95.9, and then enrolled in a Bachelor of Applied Science in Physiotherapy. His degree took four years.
After graduating from university, the offender commenced employment as a physiotherapist with Rehab Solutions Australia in Fairfield. He was 22 years of age.
He sets out in his affidavit discovering a feeling of independence after he started working and coming to a realisation that the strict rules imposed by his parents while he had been growing up and studying were not the norm. He describes commencing going out to clubs and meeting persons who introduced him to cocaine.
The offender said that his cocaine use started initially around once a month which then grew to every fortnight. He said that quickly he progressed to using cocaine every weekend. What was initially 0.5 grams became 2 to 3 grams a week. He claimed that the cocaine was initially provided to him “for free” but that after he was asked to pay for the cocaine he quickly ended up with an expensive and growing addiction.
He also claimed to have come to a realisation and is now aware that one of the groups that he met was part of a criminally-involved family. He said in his affidavit that many of them have access to firearms and are alleged to have been involved in shootings.
He said that he was perceived by the group to be financially well off. He said that people who he thought were his friends started to use him, treating him like a moneybag and demanding that he pay for more things. He said that he would be invited back to hotels and asked to pay for things, such as girls or the hotel rooms.
The offender also outlined the commencement of his involvement in gambling. I have, much earlier in these Remarks at [37], referred to the first offence of dishonesty in his criminal history, the obtaining of a financial advantage by deception from the TAB at Club Central Menai (formerly the Menai RSL).
In his affidavit at [17] the offender deposes that he had started gambling at pubs “with TAB and racing.” He describes the offence in March 2019 as follows:

“In March 2019 I was in Menai RSL and placed a $100 bet. I watched the race and lost and walked off. I was then charged later with dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception.”

As would be clear from my earlier description of that offence, taken from the facts which were tendered, this description by the offender in his affidavit is neither full nor frank. He had not placed a $100 bet but had dishonestly obtained the betting ticket without paying for it. He had then left the premises and the ticket, rather than being a losing ticket, having become a winning ticket, was cashed later that night for $200.
He was subsequently identified on CCTV footage when the till at the TAB was found to be $100 short. He was ultimately charged in July 2019 and subsequently convicted and fined $900 in the Sutherland Local Court in July 2020.
In his affidavit the offender described his escalating gambling habit including the use of cryptocurrency.
He described that his life started to spiral and said that he was getting into trouble with the law, as he described it: “opportunistically offending to get money.”
I have referred earlier to the detail of his criminal offending during the balance of 2019 and to the hearings conducted by delegates of the Physiotherapy Council which culminated in conditions being placed on his right to practice as a physiotherapist and subsequently his suspension from practice in March 2020.
I do not repeat the chronological sequence which is set out in detail in paragraphs [47]-[69] above.
By November 2019 he had commenced a criminal the defrauding of the Commonwealth. He described how easy it became to get quick money and that he would use the money that he obtained to immediately gamble it, or use it to buy drugs, or to repay debts.
He was admitted to hospital with an overdose of cocaine in early 2020. Some weeks after that admission he travelled overseas to Dubai before returning to Australia where in March 2020 his licence to practice physiotherapy was suspended.
The offender had by that time, as I have noted, registered his own physiotherapy business at his home address and had been the recipient of the HICAPS terminal which permitted him to keep offending in the fashion and using the methodologies which I have earlier described.
Criminal charges which were preferred in 2020 included a further offence of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception relating to his use of a former patient’s credit card numbers to place bets with Ladbrokes through his PayPal account which I have referred to earlier. That matter was ultimately disposed of at Bankstown Local Court in September 2022 when the offender was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order. The order was conditioned with requirements for 200 hours community service and attending a drug treatment and rehabilitation program under the supervision of Community Corrections.
In December 2020 he was charged with breaking, entering, and stealing. He stole cash from a till in a business premises. In December 2020 he was placed on a Community Correction Order for 2 years.
In addition to his continued criminal offending, notwithstanding his conditional liberty, resulting in his being arrested and charged on the various summary offences, his continuing conduct in defrauding the Commonwealth continued, unabated except for a period when he was first overseas.
In the offender’s affidavit he describes alleged extortion and threats from persons who were seeking money from him. He described an assault in October 2020 which had been accompanied by threats demanding money. Annexed to his affidavit is a photograph which is described as depicting facial injuries sustained by him as a consequence of that assault. The photographs are black and white photocopies and of reasonably poor quality with no accompanying metadata.
The offender also describes an assault by several men, said to be connected to the crime family he had described, who chased him down the street from his home in Noble Avenue, Greenacre, and assaulted him. A USB with a copy of footage obtained from house nearby has been annexed to the affidavit and viewed by the Court. It corroborates these circumstances of the assault. A further photograph said to depict a scar suffered as a consequence of a split chin on that day is again black and white and difficult to view with any clarity.
Other than the clear inference that these assaults were likely connected with extortion attempts as a consequence of a perception that the offender had substantial funds, or alternatively in relation to drug debts, there does not appear to be any particular explanation for such assaults. However, in April 2021 the offender was charged with supply of a prohibited drug in a quantity greater than an indictable quantity, such offence having taken place on 23 January 2021. The facts of that matter are not included in the material which has been tendered. The matter was ultimately dealt with at Bankstown Local Court in February 2022 on which occasion the offender was placed on a Community Correction Order for a period of 2 years. He was subsequently charged again in November 2021 with possession of a prohibited drug. Again, no facts have been tendered with respect to that offending.
In his affidavit the offender, after describing some of the offences with which he was charged in late 2020, claimed that he had attended a psychologist and also seen a psychiatrist on several occasions. He also states that he did some sessions with the SMART Recovery program which he said assisted him to stay away from cocaine “for a short time.” He described the SMART Recovery sessions as being conducted via video and ultimately not being very helpful.
As I have indicated earlier in these Remarks, the offender travelled overseas to Dubai from 25 February 2021 to 1 November 2021, and again from 7 July 2022 to 19 August 2022. The first trip marked a gap in his offending. On the second trip, as already noted, the offender took a HICAPS machine with him and continued offending while travelling.
The offender described in considerable detail circumstances of his initial period in custody following his arrest. He described some of the harsh brutality that he witnessed.
He was granted bail on 1 November 2022 to go into full-time residential rehabilitation at Connect Global. Following difficulties at that centre in its management, the offender left the rehabilitation program and handed himself in to police. He went back into custody on 18 November 2022 and was again released on bail on 29 November 2022 to go into a different residential rehabilitation centre, The Sydney Retreat, at Stanmore.
Whilst recognising that entry into the rehabilitation program was a condition of the bail which had been granted, I am constrained to observe that the Intensive Correction Order which had been imposed on 27 September 2022 had similarly required entry into a residential drug rehabilitation program. There is no material before the Court as to compliance with the terms of the ICO during the period of approximately 4 weeks between its imposition and his arrest with respect to the Commonwealth offending.
The offender described his completion of the rehabilitation program and his gratitude at now being completely sober. Following completion of the rehabilitation program, he has returned to live with his parents at home and has enrolled and completed the first 6 months of an 18-month course at the University of Sydney as a Master of Business and Administration. A copy of his academic transcript is annexed to the affidavit.
The offender also deposed to having commenced working with his father’s company and he is involved in managing projects. He said he has stopped all associations with his former antisocial connections. His affidavit concluded with his articulate impression of the person who he had been in committing the crimes, and his desire to move forward with an intention of spending the rest of his life working to pay back what he has taken, including working to earn back trust.
In addition to the offender’s affidavit sworn on 2 December 2024, a letter of apology from the offender was tendered. It is unnecessary to replicate the detail of that written apology. The offender acknowledged in it what he called “the gravity of my mistake” and he accepted full responsibility for his actions. He described the breach of the position of trust with clinicians and the harm done to the victims of his actions through the deprivation of treatment sessions to which they would have been entitled. He appropriately expressed his remorse and steps that he has taken and proposes to take in order to ensure appropriate rehabilitation.
In his sworn testimony the offender attested to the truthfulness of and sincerity of his expressions of remorse and contrition. He was extensively cross-examined and I do not propose to summarise that cross-examination in these Remarks.
An affidavit was also tendered from the offender’s father, Mr Ali Mehieddine. His father’s affidavit substantially corroborates much of the offender’s own affidavit. It clearly establishes that his parents tried to persuade him out of the fast-paced life that he had descended into and that he was confronted by his father about his drug use on numerous occasions.
Mr Ali Mehieddine described trying to assist the offender to break from his addiction at the end of 2020 and having organised a psychologist and a psychiatrist in Beirut and in Sydney.
It is apparent that the offender continues to have the support of his father who now employs him as a project manager in Mr Ali Mehieddine’s construction company. Annexed to Mr Ali Mehieddine’s affidavit is a character reference which had separately been prepared in October 2024. In the character reference, the offender’s father asked the Court to “see the man that Majd has grown into, and not the weak, child-like person he used to be.”
A report was tendered on behalf of the offender from Dr Sathish Dayalan, forensic psychiatrist. Dr Dayalan sets out the sources of information which were provided to him. These included NSW Police Facts with respect to 7 summary offences and accompanying Court Attendance Notices, the offender’s criminal history, a psychology report by Mr Sam Albassit dated 6 January 2020, and what was described as collateral information from the offender’s father.
The psychosocial history obtained by the psychiatrist described the very strict and conservative family environment in which the offender had grown up. He had had very limited autonomy as a child and as a teenager. After graduating and commencing work as a physiotherapist, he had become financially independent and had started challenging some of the restrictions imposed upon him by his parents. He said that he believed his parents had struggled to regard him as an adult.

His use of alcohol had upset his father and the relationship was further strained when the offender started returning home late after spending time with friends. He described his father taking his car keys as a form of retribution. The offender had been very fond of his car and said that it was part of his identity. He moved out of the parental home but returned after a few weeks. He also had a partner who he described as being quite volatile and very demanding. She got upset with him and was suspicious of his activities, and often checked on his whereabouts. She would become highly distressed and verbally abusive if he did not answer her phone calls. He described the stressors in his personal life having impacted on his work as a physiotherapist and that he had struggled to cope with his busy workload.
The offender made reference to the incident at his workplace in August 2019 which had led to the charge of damaging or destroying the work laptop.
He described having started to use cocaine as an escape from his stressors in the latter part of 2019. He described the incurring of additional criminal charges. He told the psychiatrist about his practicing licence as a physiotherapist having been suspended in March 2020 due to his cocaine use. He described his relationship with his partner having ended around June 2020.
The offender further described the assault in October 2020. In recounting this to the psychiatrist he identified the individuals who assaulted him as having been persons he had used cocaine with, and the assault having occurred due to a misunderstanding. The offender said that he had stopped using cocaine or alcohol since that incident.
The offender described having started to consult a psychiatrist in mid-2020 for his anxiety and depressive symptoms. He had continued consultations for three months. The identity of that psychiatrist is not disclosed. The consultations for the purpose of the report by Dr Dayalan had occurred on 4 November 2020 and 27 November 2020. Dr Dayalan had been requested to prepare a report with a view to determining the eligibility of the offender for a diversionary order for treatment pursuant to s 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. The offender told Dr Dayalan that he had not discerned any improvement in his emotional distress notwithstanding the three months consultation and so he had discontinued. He said he had also had four consultations with a psychiatrist.
The psychiatrist’s report notes that the alleged offences, for which the report was being prepared, were said to have occurred between early 2019 and October 2020. It should be noted in passing that it is not clear just what offences Dr Dayalan had been requested to provide the report for. The first dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception from the TAB at Menai had been disposed of in July 2020. The stealing of the handbag and credit cards in the casino was still pending. The destroying or damaging property being the laptop had been disposed of in August 2020. Offences relating to negligently handling explosives, the details of which remain unknown, had been disposed of at Bankstown Local Court in September 2020. A more recent offence had been charged in November 2020 of driving with an illicit drug present in his blood. That matter was still pending as was the dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception relating to the use of the physiotherapy patient’s credit card details for gambling with Ladbrokes.
At all events the psychiatric report described the offender’s mental state as having been likely to have fluctuated between the period from early 2019 and October 2020. With respect to his cocaine use, it was again stated as having commenced from the middle of 2019 and to have increased up to “10 lines” of cocaine, 1-3 times per week. The offender reported having stopped using cocaine and alcohol completely after the assault in October 2020. He said that he had enrolled in a rehabilitation program offered by Odyssey House. The offender admitted to the psychiatrist that he had engaged in what was described as “sporadic gambling” from the middle of 2019. He denied periods of gambling on a daily basis or having got into financial debt from gambling.
Dr Dayalan’s report made reference to the psychologist’s report from Mr Albassit who had reported a diagnosis of depression with features of generalised anxiety. Mr Albassit had expressed an opinion that the offender’s judgement had been compromised around the time of his offending due to his psychiatric condition. Based on the history provided and the presentation of the offender during the assessment, Dr Dayalan diagnosed him as suffering from a generalised anxiety disorder consistent with the criteria in DSM-5. The psychiatrist also noted that the history was suggestive of Stimulant Use Disorder which had been reported to be in early stages of remission.
The report concluded with an explanation that Generalised Anxiety Disorder is a mental health condition for which treatment is available in a mental health facility. The offender would, accordingly, be eligible for diversionary treatment under s 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. A number of conditions with respect to an order under s 32 were recommended including compliance with psychiatric medication. Dr Dayalan prescribed an anti-depressant medication, escitalopram, from 27 November 2020. It is unclear whether an application for diversion under s 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 was subsequently made with respect to any of the outstanding summary offences.
I do, however, note that a little more than 2 weeks after his consultations with Dr Dayalan and the prescription of the anti-depressant medication, the offender was arrested at 5am after breaking into the I-Care Medical Centre and Sports Clinic at Bankstown Central shopping complex. The Police Facts with respect to this offending indicate that he had arrived near the premises as the passenger in a vehicle and had then forced apart the glass sliding doors leading into a foyer area of the shopping complex. He had then forced open the doors to the medical centre where CCTV revealed him subsequently having walked around the medical centre for a short period of time. After leaving the medical centre he was seen loitering in the car park leading security to approach him and call police. The offender told police there had been nothing to steal in the medical centre before being searched by police who found $520 on his person, of which $420 in notes had been hidden in his underwear.
As will be self-evident from the chronology of the offending which I have set out earlier, the offender continued to submit vast numbers of fraudulent claims throughout the immediately following period. By way of example, between 30 December 2020 and 28 February 2021 he submitted 2,392 claims for services which had not been provided. These claims relate to Sequence 5 and resulted in payments of approximately $130,000.
As observed earlier, the offender departed Australia on 25 February 2021 and did not return to Australia until 1 November 2021. It would appear that this extended period was in part due to Covid-19 restrictions. It is unclear from the Table of Expenditure annexed to this Judgment just how the offender supported himself for that period overseas. Aside from $1,000 which was withdrawn at Sydney Airport on 25 February 2021, the day of his departure, approximately $3,000 withdrawn from an ATM in Dubai on 1 March, almost $3,000 spent on Luxury Supercar Rental in Dubai on 3 March, and approximately $1,700 spent in a restaurant in Dubai on 5 March, the table of transactions does not include any other expenditure of $1,000 or more from the three main accounts during the following period of approximately 8 months before his return to Australia in November. There is no evidence of his continued involvement in either gambling or cocaine use during this extended period overseas, and as indicated earlier in these Remarks, no rebate claims were submitted to the Commonwealth during this period.
However, following his return to Australia on 1 November 2021, the submission of fraudulent claims recommenced in considerable volume from 8 November 2021. In the following period of approximately 5 months, the offender made claims with respect to 12,395 purported services yielding a total amount paid to his accounts of $667,135.05.
On 12 November 2021, less than 2 weeks after his return to Australia, he was arrested and charged with possession of a prohibited drug. The facts and nature of the drug are not disclosed in the material which has been tendered. On 2 February 2022 he was placed on a 12-month Community Correction Order at Parramatta Local Court with respect to that possession.
The day before, 1 February 2022, he had been placed on a 2-year Community Correction Order at Bankstown Local Court with respect to the offence which had been outstanding since January 2021 concerning the supply of more than an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug. Again, the facts relating to that matter have not been tendered.
As indicated earlier when dealing with the detail of the offences with which these proceedings are concerned, the submission of fraudulent claims continued in episodic bursts during 2022. The claims in relation to Sequence 9 were made during the period of approximately one month between 16 June 2022 and 12 July 2022. The offender travelled overseas to Dubai between 7 July 2022 and 19 August 2022. Additional claims were made between 22 August and 9 September (Sequences 10 and 11).
On 27 September 2022 he appeared at Bankstown Local Court with respect to the dishonest obtaining of a financial advantage by deception relating to the acquisition of the credit card number of the client of the physiotherapy practice at which he had been employed and its use in July and August 2019 and payment of $13,750 to the gambling company, Ladbrokes. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months which was to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order.
As previously indicated, he was then arrested on 26 October 2022 with respect to the present matters. At his first appearance later that day at Bankstown Local Court, bail was not applied for and was refused.
It is apparent that urgent inquiries must have then been undertaken, presumably by his family, with a view to securing a bed in a rehabilitation centre, such availability being a potentially important consideration on the question of bail.
On 28 October 2022 a release application, based on the availability of a bed at the full-time rehabilitation centre, Global Connect, was successful. Bail was granted on condition that the offender be conveyed directly to Global Connect and the offender’s release was to be delayed until 3 November 2022 when the bed would become available.
A variation of bail with respect to the date for release was brought on 31 October 2022, the availability of the bed having been brought forward. The variation was granted and the offender was released the following day, 1 November 2022, and conveyed by his father direct to the Global Connect premises on the Central Coast.
Whilst no report or document has been produced or tendered from Global Connect it would appear that as a result of some problem the offender himself left the rehabilitation program. There is no evidence as to the date on which he departed. A voluntary departure, for whatever reason, was technically a breach of the conditions of his bail.
In the course of giving evidence in the sentence proceedings, the offender said that he had voluntarily turned himself in to police after leaving Global Connect and the police did not consider that he had breached his bail. However, he then went back into custody from 18 November 2022 until again granted bail in the Local Court on 28 November 2022, this time on condition that he reside at the Sydney Retreat, 223 Trafalgar Street, Stanmore.
He entered the program at Sydney Retreat on 29 November 2022. A letter from the Retreat Residential Rehabilitation program dated 11 June 2024 in the Defence Tender Bundle records that he was discharged from that program, having successfully completed it, on 28 December 2022. Clearly, the program was for a period of 4 weeks as a residential program. It included daily meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, and daily lectures and talks from people in recovery. It also included workshops focused on the 12 steps set out by Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.
Following that initial completion of the program, the offender subsequently entered what is described as the Sober House program which operates, in effect, as a share house. He did not enter that program until July 2023. There were regular drug and alcohol tests and during the course of the following months, restrictions which were in place during the first month of the residential program appear to have been gradually relaxed. As the program continued, residents were permitted to pursue study at outside institutions, and in due course, to pursue full-time employment outside the residential requirements. A letter of confirmation from the Retreat indicates that the offender requested to reside at the Sydney Retreat Sober House and that he chose to live at those premises during the 12-month period between 24 July 2023 and 9 July 2024. That of course was about 7 months after he completed the initial four-week program. During that time he was required to attend at least 4 meetings with Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous held outside the premises, and perform at least 1 related service commitment. A letter tendered from the program manager Ms Jodie Whyte dated 9 July 2024 indicates that during that 12-month period the offender was drug and alcohol free while in residence, to the best of the program managers’ knowledge. It is clear that while it is a residential program, it is not full-time residential in the form of a program such as that conducted at Odyssey House. There is substantial freedom of movement permitted outside the requirements of the Sober House facility itself.
The offender, as I have already noted, has most recently been employed by his father’s company as a project manager.

COMPARATIVE CASES

I acknowledge that enormous variation in objective and subjective circumstances gives limited value to the use of comparative cases particularly in fraud offences (see R v Martin [2005] NSWCCA 190, per Johnson J at [65])
I acknowledge the reserve expressed by Hoeben CJ at CL, with whom Bathurst CJ and Harrison J agreed, in PC v R [2020] NSWCCA 147 at [119] where his Honour said:

“Further to what was said in Hili about the dangers of associating consistency in sentencing with numerical or mathematical equivalence, this Court has taken the position that a reference to sentencing statistics is particularly unhelpful in fraud cases because of the enormous variation in objective and subjective circumstances involved and the Court has expressed concern when an attempt is made to compare sentences for a specific offence of dishonesty with other cases involving dishonesty of a different kind (Martin at [56] per Johnson J). Any reference to orders made in previous cases that is not accompanied by a detailed examination of all the circumstances of those cases is likely to lead a sentencing court into error. While information about sentences that have been imposed in other cases can establish a range of sentences that have in fact been imposed, it does not necessarily follow that that range is the correct range. Sentencing courts confronted with fraud matters should examine the whole of the circumstances of previous cases in order to discern “unifying principles” which ought guide the exercise of the discretion.”

Whilst being conscious of and acknowledging that reserve, reference to comparative cases, even with respect to fraud cases, subject to appropriate detailed examination of all the relevant circumstances in those cases, in conjunction with relevant expressions of principle, can provide a touchstone for comparison with a contemplated sentence. Some guidance may thereby be provided as to whether a contemplated outcome falls within an appropriate range.
Relevant factors which vary between fraud cases include cases in which there is a breach of trust reposed in professionals in order to facilitate the payment of different types of benefits to persons entitled; cases in which there is exaggeration or inflation of an entitlement as contrasted with cases in which there is complete fabrication of an entitlement; cases in which there is extreme variability in the quantum obtained or defrauded; cases in which there are individual victims and cases in which the community at large is disadvantaged; and cases in which the facility and ease of claiming may lead to the necessity for more meticulous scrutiny, and hence delay, in the payment of public moneys. These relevant variable factors are by no means exhaustive.
Comparative cases from interstate assume a further significance with respect to Commonwealth sentences where the attainment of consistency between different States across the Commonwealth is an additional relevant consideration.
Bearing that level of reservation firmly in mind, I make reference to the following comparative cases.
Before doing so, I should make the following general observation. The broad range of sentences imposed with respect to frauds committed against Commonwealth authorities reflects a range which may be perceived to be lower than the range of sentences imposed with respect to similar offending prosecuted pursuant to New South Wales State legislation with the same maximum penalty. The question as to whether or not an established range of sentences may require appellate intervention to adjust a range of sentences upward, or in appropriate cases, downwards, is a matter which remains in the judicial realm of appellate Courts. It is not a matter for a judge at first instance. Examples of comparatives cases to which I have had reference are as follows.
In Quetcher v R [2010] NSWCCA 257, the offender was the Branch Manager of the Shellharbour office of Medicare. She had been the Branch Manager at the Shellharbour branch since 1988. An audit investigation in 2007 revealed that during a period of approximately 5 years, the offender had created 65 false identities as members of Medicare and had processed some 387 fraudulent claims for medical benefits in those false names. The total amount paid was in excess of $156,000.
The offender was arraigned on an indictment containing 65 counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to the provisions of s 134.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). She pleaded not guilty. Following an 11-day trial before a jury of 12, she was found guilty of each count.
The offending conduct had taken place during the 5 years between approximately June 2002 and February 2007. None of the funds were repaid. She was sentenced in December 2009 to terms of imprisonment of 3 years with respect to each of the offences. The sentencing judge, Solomon DCJ, partially accumulated groups of the sentences leading to a total aggregate sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years.
The sentencing judge found that the offender had abused the trust which had been reposed in her by her employer. He found that each of the offences were objectively extremely serious having regard to the fact that they were premeditated and deliberate. He regarded each offence as being “well above the mid-range of objective seriousness.” His Honour noted that none of the money had been repaid and the only view that one could come to regarding motive was that the money had been taken for her own purposes. The family was reasonably well off. The family owned their home and also had an investment property. The offender was not involved in gambling and had no issues involving alcohol or other drugs.

The claims were not lodged individually but in batches whereby electronic bulk bill claims were made by means of computer transmissions. The offender obtained details of additional family members of an actual patient from the Medicare card which they would submit and would select a name at random from the other members of the family in respect of whom he would claim a fee for a service which had not been rendered in respect of that person.
A search warrant had been executed by Medicare investigators at the home of the offender in September 2013. He subsequently made full admissions in the course of a recorded interview in November 2013. He was subsequently charged in October 2014 and pleaded guilty at a committal hearing in November 2014. The plea hearing took place in the County Court of Victoria in October 2015 and he was sentenced by the County Court judge, Judge Cotterell, in November 2015.
The offender was 41 years of age at the time of sentence having come to Australia from Vietnam as a refugee in 1978. He had graduated in Medicine in 1998 and had subsequently been married twice. The divorce from his first wife had left him under considerable financial pressure.
He subsequently had a failed importing business which had also left him with substantial debt.
In the County Court, the offender was sentenced to an aggregate term of 3 years imprisonment with respect to both charges. A recognisance release order was made for the offender to be released after 16 months.
A Crown appeal against the inadequacy of sentence succeeded. Ashley JA, with whom Tate and Santamaria JJA agreed, imposed an aggregate sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with a 2 year non-parole period. The court also made a declaration under s 6AAA of the Victorian Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) that, had the respondent not pleaded guilty, a sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a 3 years 9 months non-parole period would have been imposed.
Dickson v R[2016] NSWCCA 105 and Issakidis v R[2019] NSWCCA 302were both appeals in relation to the conviction and sentences imposed on co-conspirators with respect to a substantial defrauding of the Commonwealth arising from a complicated tax scheme. In particularly abbreviated summary, the agreement between the co-conspirators was that a company of which they were the Directors would falsely claim that it had incurred financial payments for the acquisition of particular medical technologies where no such obligations or expenditures had in fact been incurred. The consequence of this agreement was that the claimed expenditure was offset against taxable income, hence substantially reducing or completely offsetting the tax which would otherwise have been payable.
Each of the co-conspirators was ultimately convicted, following separate trials, of one count of conspiracy to dishonestly cause a loss to the Commonwealth contrary to s 135.4(5) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (Count 1) and one count of conspiring to deal with property of a value of more than $1 million, believing it to be the proceeds of crime (Count 2).
Count 1 was described as involving a complex ’tax fraud’ with net losses to the Commonwealth in excess of $100 million, whilst count 2 related to a money-laundering offence wherein large sums of money were sent across the globe disguised as financial transactions, with funds later returned to Australia.
The various proceedings against each of the co-conspirators had a somewhat tortuous history. They had been arrested and charged in early 2012. A joint trial commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales before Beech-Jones J and a jury in early August 2014. After approximately four and half months an application was made and granted that the jury be discharged with respect to the trial againstIssakidis. However, Dickson did not join in the application for a discharge and his trial continued. On 22 December 2014 the jury returned a verdict of guilty with respect to the two counts which I have described earlier.
Dickson was an accountant and a former principal at Ernst & Young. The sentencing judge at first instance described the loss to the Commonwealth pursuant to the conspiracy as a “temporary” net loss of $100 million. Beech- Jones J described the conspiracy in the following terms: “Having regard to its size, scale, timespan and tactics his offending falls into the worst category of cases under s 135.4(5).” (See R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18)[2015] NSWSC 268 at [135].)
Against a maximum penalty of 10 years Dickson was sentenced to 7 years and six months with respect to the conspiracy to defraud under s 135.4(5). With respect to the money-laundering offence which carried a maximum penalty of 25 years, his Honour found that it represented “a very serious example of this offence” and passed a sentence of nine years imprisonment.
Partial accumulation resulted in an overall term of 11 years with a non-parole period of seven years.
An appeal by Dickson against his conviction was rejected. However, a Crown appeal against the manifest inadequacy of the sentences imposed was upheld.
The conspiracy had been continuing at the time of the appellant’s arrest and hence had not been fully implemented. The sentencing judge’s finding that there had been a temporary delay in obtaining a tax debt in excess of $100 million and that the intended extent of the loss or risk of loss was up to $135 million, was found to contain no error.
The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed with Beech-Jones J’s unchallenged conclusion that the offence fell within the worst category of cases under s 135.4(5) at [167]:

“Given the nature of the appellant’s offending; its scale; the sophistication and planning involved; the way in which and time over which it was pursued and implemented; and the appellant’s role in this conspiracy, which depended on his detailed knowledge of the tax system.”

In the event, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that, as a case falling into the “worst category of such offending”, a sentence at, or close to, the maximum penalty should have been imposed on the offender.
The court made reference, as had the sentencing judge, to R v Dunn (No 9) [2014] WASC 61 in which Dunn had been the principal in devising and implementing a scheme to offset tax payable by claiming false tax deductions in which the purpose of inflicting a loss of $7.2 million was not achieved because the conspiracy had been detected. Dunn had similarly been charged under s 135.4(5) with a maximum of 10 years and had been sentenced to 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years. Dickson compared unfavourably to Dunn, but had only received an additional six months with respect to the sentence which was passed.
The Court also referred to El-Chaar v R [2007] NSWCCA 16 which involved a premeditated tax fraud involving false claims for GST refunds committed over a period of approximately 11 months. The ongoing fraud was charged as 13 substantive offences of dishonestly obtaining property by deception and one offence of attempting to obtain property by deception contrary to the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The total amount involved in the dishonestly obtaining offences was in excess of $1 million, whilst the amount involved in the attempt offence was $62,500. The maximum penalty for each offence was 10 years imprisonment and the total sentence imposed, after entry of a guilty plea, was eight years with a non-parole period five years. The appeal against the severity of that sentence was dismissed.
The Court of Criminal Appeal also made specific reference to O’Meara v R [2009] NSWCCA 90, which had concerned a sentence for one count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception and four counts of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception following conviction after a jury trial. The maximum penalties in that case were also 10 years. An appeal from the overall sentence of eight years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years and four months, was dismissed.
The various crimes charged in that matter involved the provision of false information concerning alleged purchases which were claimed to have incurred GST hence giving rise to an entitlement to a refund of what had been paid, but which, of course, had in fact not been paid.
Following their consideration of these comparative sentences, the need for a “significant sentence”, and the absence of subjective circumstances which might have warranted significant mitigation of the penalty imposed upon him, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the sentence imposed on Dickson of seven years and six months with respect to the conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth pursuant to s 135.4(5) was manifestly inadequate. The Court resentenced him to a term of imprisonment of nine years.
The Court also found that the sentence of nine years imprisonment with respect to the money-laundering offence was similarly manifestly inadequate. Dickson was resentenced to a term of 12 years with respect to this offence.
The overall sentence was accordingly increased from 11 years with a seven year non-parole period, to 14 years with 9 years and 3 months non-parole. That sentence was passed in the Court of Criminal Appeal in June 2016.
Following the discharge of the jury with respect to Dickson’s then co-accused Issakidis at the joint trial in 2014, Issakidis eventually stood trial to completion in 2017. Issakidis gave evidence that the fraud, which had undoubtedly been committed, had been carried out exclusively by his co-director Mr Dickson. Issakidis, who was a former solicitor, claimed to have had no knowledge of Dickson’s fraudulent activities. His counsel had addressed the jury in the following terms:

“Now let me be crystal clear on what the defence position is in relation to Anthony Dickson. He is a liar. He is a deceiver. He has, you would conclude, committed very serious criminal offences against the Commonwealth of Australia and in all likelihood the Internal Revenue Department of New Zealand. But just because Anthony Dickson is a liar, a deceiver, and a criminal, do not presume Michael Issakidis is.
…
If Anthony Dickson was in the witness box right now and told you the sun was up, I would think you would all look outside., He is pathologically dishonest and he is a deceiver, and this is where you use your common sense, and when you assess the evidence Michael Issakidis gives, and he gives evidence that he was deceived…”

The retrial was conducted before Harrison J and the jury returned verdicts of guilty with respect to Mr Issakidis in June 2017. With respect to the same two counts for which his co-conspirator Dickson had been sentenced, and after the imposition of the increased sentences in the Court of Criminal Appeal regarding Dickson, Issakidis, whose role was accepted as somewhat lesser than Dickson, was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for the conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and 8 years and 3 months with respect to the conspiracy to deal with the proceeds of crime, described as the money-laundering offence.
An appeal against conviction was dismissed. No challenge to the sentence was brought. In relation to the conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, per Schmidt and Wilson JJ (Macfarlan JA agreeing) held that the offence was concerned not only with losses, but also risks of losses (Issakidis v R[2019] NSWCCA 302at [159]).
In R v Blackburn [2023] NSWDC 1, the offender made similar fraudulent Medicare claims to the offender in the present matter. Ms Blackburn, a practice manager in a physiotherapy practice, submitted a total of 4,030 false claims to Medicare for patient services that were not provided. The total amount fraudulently obtained was $314,233.60, in addition to a further attempted amount of $47,805.22. The offending took place over a 4-and-a-half-year period from March 2014 to August 2019.
In sentencing Ms Blackburn, Colefax SC DCJ remarked that her offending was “brought about by [her] deliberately abusing Medicare’s bulk billing of claims process – a process which is highly reliant on the integrity of the healthcare professionals using that system.” Her offending was sustained, deliberate and sophisticated. Ms Blackburn continued offending even after she was interviewed by officers from the Department of Health concerning her conduct. Funds were used to maintain the physiotherapy business, and to sustain her sister’s drug habit and her brother’s gambling addiction, and eventually Ms Blackburn’s own drug habit.
Ms Blackburn had no criminal history and received a 25% discount on sentence due to her early pleas of Guilty. Ultimately Ms Blackburn was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. She was also ordered to pay reparation to the Commonwealth in the amount of $314,253.60.
In Ensor v R [2022] NSWCCA 278, the offender filed false business activity statements to fraudulently obtain GST refunds. Mr Ensor filed 89 false business activity statements over a 3-year period. The total amount fraudulently obtained from the Commonwealth was $3,467,921.90, comprised of fraudulent refunds of $1,884,263.90 paid to Mr Ensor, and unrecovered GST of $1,583,658. Funds were used to meet expenses in developing beachfront luxury apartments, and fund the purchase of a Marina and catamaran, among other things.
In sentencing Mr Ensor, Hunt DCJ remarked that his conduct represented a serious and planned systematic fraud upon the Commonwealth, above the mid-range but below the high range of objective seriousness. Significant pre-planning and dishonesty had been involved.
Mr Ensor had no criminal history and at the time of sentencing suffered from a range of serious health difficulties. Mr Ensor received a 10% discount for his pleas of Guilty. Ultimately Mr Ensor was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years.
The Court of Criminal Appeal refused leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence. Wilson J, with whom Meagher JA and Button J agreed, said at [57]: “…for a sustained period of planned and systematic fraud involving the loss of a substantial sum to the Commonwealth, the sentence imposed was modest.”
In R v Emile George El Soury [2018] NSWDC 450 the offender also submitted false Business Activity Statements to fraudulently obtain GST refunds. Mr El Soury filed 77 false Business Activity Statements over a 4-and-a-half-year period. The total amount fraudulently obtained was $127,366, with a further $79,732 claimed but unpaid after intervention by the ATO. The funds were used to support the offender’s drug habit.
In sentencing Mr El Soury, Montgomery DCJ noted that:

“The obviously high criminal culpability involved conduct spanning four and three-quarter years of deliberate and planned fraud on the community of Australia through false lodgement of BAS’s, deliberate evasion and deception and provision of consciously false information in a course designed to mislead authorities. The offending was available only because of the offender’s exploitation with the specialist knowledge in accounting matters obtained through the privilege of tertiary education intended to qualify him to work in a position of trust as a professional in the community. He used his specialist knowledge to criminally abuse that trust. He deliberately achieved taxation agent registration only to defraud the community.
In my opinion, the level of deception, dishonesty and fraud is above that which is inherent to the type of offending. In the sequence 78 and Item 1 offending, when audited, rather than admit his wrongdoing and cooperate with authorities, he expanded his deception and dishonesty.”

His Honour went on to say at [35]-[37]:

“The Commonwealth collection of revenue, by this system, relies upon entities and when they choose to do so, through the services of tax agents operating on their behalf, to make declarations honestly and accurately. Offending of this type causes the direct and obvious damage to the community of the loss of revenue which loss inevitably will be picked up by taxpayers and to some extent suffered by those in the community for whom the Commonwealth fiscally is unable to provide.
There is also a broader damage which is that should this type of fraud go without punishment the effect would be the entrenching and encouraging of others to so defraud the Commonwealth and benefit from the ill-gotten, lucrative gain. That is why his deliberate steps of deception and dishonesty even after becoming aware of audit are so relevant in the identification and assessment of the objective seriousness of the subject offending. That said, whilst the culpability is above middle range and the sums involved significant, other cases have involved far higher sums.
His offending was not victimless. Every member of the Australian community was a victim.”

Montgomery DCJ imposed an aggregate sentence of four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and ten months.
In Ryan v The King [2024] VSCA 74, the offender was a medical practice manager who used the provider numbers of 8 medical practitioners employed in her practice to lodge 115 false Medicare claims over a 12 month period from March 2018 to March 2019. The total amount fraudulently obtained was $82,228.20.
Ms Ryan suffered from a number of mental and physical health difficulties at the time of sentence. She had had a deprived upbringing. She also had previous convictions for dishonesty offences and breaches of court orders.
On appeal, McLeish JA stated at [38] that

“This was significant and serious offending by a person with relevant prior dishonesty convictions who exploited a position of trust in order to commit the offences over a period in excess of one year. General deterrence was a primary sentencing consideration.”

Ms Ryan’s appeal was dismissed and her sentence at first instance upheld, being a sentence to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 31 months, with a recognisance release order imposed and the offender released after 12 months’ imprisonment. Ms Ryan was also ordered to pay reparation to the Commonwealth in the amount of $81,288.20.
In R v Zoghbi [2022] NSWDC 219 the offender was a pharmacist who conspired with his co-offender to falsify approximately 5,500 prescriptions to enable 29 fraudulent claims for reimbursements from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme over a 15-month period. The total amount fraudulently obtained was $19,345,614.78.
Mr Zoghbi’s subjective circumstances comprised of diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, benzodiazepine, stimulant, and opioid use disorder, and bipolar II disorder, difficulties with asthma, and the financial hardship of his family as a result of his incarceration.
The offender was convicted by a jury following his trial and therefore did not receive any discount on the basis of his plea. The offender did however receive a 20% discount to account for his cooperation with authorities. Ultimately Mr Zoghbi was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 4 years.

DETERMINATION

Factors described as being of universal application in fraud matters which have been identified as influencing the assessment of the gravity of the offending include:

The amount of money involved and whether the loss is irretrievable;

The length of time over which the offences are committed;

The motive for the crime;

The degree of planning and sophistication; and

Any accompanying breach of trust.

Offences against the Commonwealth are subject to a legislative regime which applies to the sentencing of offenders. The legislative provisions are found in Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Subsection 16A(1) mandates that the sentence imposed must be “of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence.” Subsection 16A(2) sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters which must be taken into account in determining an appropriate sentence.

Nature and Circumstances of the Offence

Subsection 16A(2)(a) requires consideration to be given to the “nature and circumstances of the offence.” I have earlier in these Remarks described in detail the factual circumstances of the offence. There are a number of features of the repeated offending in this matter that warrant a conclusion that this particular offending is properly described as a “grave instance” of such type of offending.
The Court is required to have regard to the maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament as an indicative yardstick in determining the appropriate penalty. The maximum penalty is reserved for the “worst category” of offences and once it is recognised that an offence falls properly within that description, it is beside the point that it may be possible to conceive of an even worse instance of the offence (see Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 per Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, and Toohey JJ). However, the High Court has made it clear that the use of such a description is to be avoided where such an offence is not so great as to warrant the imposition of the maximum prescribed penalty (see The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48 [18]-[20]).
There are a number of factors that justify a conclusion that the present matter is a grave instance of defrauding the Commonwealth. The actual loss to the Commonwealth, at this stage with nothing having been repaid, is $2,215,341.00. The defrauding pursuant to the Medicare Benefits Scheme was an ongoing course of conduct extending over a period of almost 3 years. The dishonest and fraudulent conduct, in its initial stages, might be perceived as a fairly simple but unsophisticated method of over-claiming. In some circumstances a patient had in fact been treated, but what was claimed by way of rebate were more services than had in fact been performed. The fraudulent conduct, however, evolved into more sophisticated dishonest conduct involving the electronic “cloning” of machines at practices which were physically remote from the offender. The level of sophistication resulted in claims being made in the names of other practitioners at remote practices from his location with respect to services which had not been provided. The utilisation of what can only be presumed to have been some kind of inside contact with respect to the acquisition of the “rolling passwords” and the carriage of a HICAPS terminal while engaged in overseas travel elevate the seriousness of the nature and circumstances of this offending above that which is frequently brought before the Courts. The level of criminality is further exacerbated by the obtaining of forged Medicare cards from the Chinese website.
A further factor of significance is the effective position of trust in which the processes of the Medicare Benefits Scheme place practitioners and other medical and allied health practitioners. The offender used his knowledge of the operational procedures and systems to cause harm, not only to the financial resources of the Commonwealth, but also to the individual patients whose entitlement to obtain physiotherapy services were discovered by some of them to have evaporated without them having received those services.

Course of Conduct

Section 16A(2)(c) requires the Court to consider whether the offence forms part of a course of conduct. As I have already described, it clearly did. This subsection is intended to require a Court to give consideration to the circumstance in which a single charge may reflect, for example, a rolled-up charge of repeated defrauding which might be charged as a single offence rather than as a series of repeat individual offences.
An offender is not to be punished for committing separate acts of dishonesty which have not been individually charged. However, individual acts of defrauding within the eight substantive charges before the Court have been identified with a degree of precision and particularity. Such identification permits the Court to be satisfied that the ongoing course of conduct is a relevant factor to be taken into account in the overall instinctive synthesis (cf R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268 per Beech-Jones J at [109]). In the present matter the 8 individual substantive charges are, within themselves, rolled-up charges.

Injury, loss or damage

Subsection 16A(2)(e) requires the Court to consider “any injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence”. I have referred earlier to the detail of the actual loss by way of payments by the Commonwealth made pursuant to the Medicare Benefits Scheme as a consequence of the fraudulent claims for rebate by the offender.
A fraud on the revenue of the Commonwealth impacts “all other taxpayers who lawfully pay what is due for the maintenance of our governments, their institutions and services for the common good” (per Dunford J; Beazley JA and Wood CJ at CL agreeing, Stitt v R (1998) 102 A Crim R 428 at 430).
As described by McClure P in R v Host [2015] WASCA 23 at [24]:

“…the real victims of such conduct are the members of the Australian community as a whole because it reduces the funds available for essential and other services and increases the taxation burden on honest taxpayers.”

The indefinable loss or damage as a consequence of frauds of this kind include the introduction into the system of audit and investigation systems in order to protect the revenue. Breaches of trust by practitioners such as the offender aggravate the need for such preventative measures. The fraudulent conduct contributes in a real way to this type of consequential damage to the revenue.

The degree to which the person has shown contrition

Subsection 16A(2)(f) requires the court to take into account the degree to which an offender has shown contrition by taking action to make reparation or in any other manner by which they have demonstrated contrition. Contrition is a term which stresses the sorrowful regret that constitutes true penitence. Penitence itself is the action of feeling or showing sorrow and regret for having done something wrong.
I have no doubt that the present offender is remorseful for the position in which he has placed himself. However, he has continually sought to advance the proposition that but for his cocaine use, the offending would not have occurred. I entertain a degree of reservation about full acceptance of that proposition. His recurrent dishonesty, exhibited in his criminal acts and his dishonest interactions with the Physiotherapy Council, reveal what might colloquially be described as a dishonest “streak” which would appear to have been motivated by factors other than the use or abuse of cocaine. His involvement in gambling is manifest in the expenditure which is detailed. I also note that there have been, to this point, no repayments or reparation.

Specific Deterrence

Subsection 16A(2)(j) requires the Court to consider “the deterrent effect that any sentence or order under consideration may have” on the offender.
Notwithstanding the recognised diminished likelihood of reoffending as a general proposition by so-called “white-collar criminals” there is clearly a need for proper consideration of specific deterrence in the present matter.

General Deterrence

Subsection 16A(2)(ja) requires the Court to consider “the deterrent effect that any sentence or order under consideration may have on other persons”. The need for general deterrence in sentencing for “white-collar offences” has been repeatedly emphasised by appellate Courts. Similarly, defrauding social security, taxation, Medicare, and other predominately Commonwealth social services provisions have attracted firm judicial statements of principle with respect to the weight to be given to appropriate general deterrence.
Frauds committed against the public purse vary between defrauding the Social Welfare system, the Australian Taxation Office, grants intended to be for Research and Development, the Medical Benefits Scheme, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and other circumstances of Commonwealth or State benefits and grants being available for eligible persons.
Notwithstanding the sentencing regime in 1984 being very different, the words of Sir Laurence Street in Regina v Van Tung Luu (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 7 December 1984, unrep) remain apposite. Street CJ (Lusher and Roden JJ agreeing) said:

“The courts of this State have uniformly sought to make plain to persons who abuse the system of social welfare that they must expect to face heavy penalties. The introduction into the administration of that system of overly meticulous preliminary checks before benefits are paid could result in real hardship to persons whose need for benefits is urgent and immediate. Thus it is that such susceptibility is open to abuse, which results in persons who do abuse it receiving salutary penal consequences at the hands of the courts.”

Such observations from as long ago as 1984, remain apposite with respect to the variety of benefits, including rebates under the Medicare Benefits Scheme, made available by the Commonwealth Government.
Similarly, Sheller JA said in 1988, in DPP v Hamman (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 1 December 1989, unrep) at 30-31: “General deterrence is a predominant consideration when sentencing for offences of defrauding the revenue…”
There are a veritable multitude of cases in which similar expressions of principle may be found. The comments of Keane JA in R v Price[2008] QCA 330 involving a medical practitioner who provided unauthorised prescriptions to patients for drugs that attracted Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme subsidies are worthy of repetition. His Honour said at [26]:

“…Crimes which involve a deliberate decision to abuse governmental arrangements for the provision of social welfare are crimes of calculation. It is not at all unreasonable to suppose that in this field of conduct potential offenders may be deterred from offending by calculating the prospect of punishment…the imposition of penalties is the only way to deter “those minded to defraud governmental agencies” from engaging in this kind of activity.”

General deterrence is a significant factor in consideration of the appropriate sentence in the present matter. I do, however, note that the matters required to be taken into account pursuant to s 16A(2) “are not set out in a hierarchy of importance or significance” (see Bell CJ in Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75 at [83] and [100]).

Adequate punishment

Subsection 16A(2)(k) requires the court to ensure that an offender “is adequately punished for the offence.”A determination of adequate punishment will be tempered and influenced by the various identified factors including the objective assessment of the seriousness of the offending and the offender’s subjective circumstances.

Subjective circumstances of the offender

Subsection 16A(2)(m) requires the court to consider the “character, antecedents, background and physical or mental condition of the offender.” The offender is now 28 years of age and has lost his right to practice as a physiotherapist. In his evidence and discussions with the psychologist he appears to retain aspirations, indeed hope, for reinstatement to that ability to practice the profession for which he is qualified. That will, in due course, be a matter for other authorities than this Court.
Whatever good character the offender enjoyed up until the time he left university, his demonstrated dishonest conduct in 2019 and further fraudulent and dishonest conduct over the ensuing period of almost 3 years with respect to the present offending, militate against it having any significance. I observe that prior good character assumes less significance as a mitigating factor in circumstances involving a systematic defrauding of revenue, particularly where such conduct has been a course of conduct over an extended period of time (see Ly v R [2014] NSWCCA 78per Leeming JA; Hall and Schmidt JJ at [86]).
The offender did not come from a deprived background. He grew up in a stable and apparently well-off family who continue to support him. He has in recent times been employed in his father’s business and has undertaken extensive steps towards rehabilitation from his use of cocaine. I do note and take into account his comparative youth at the time of the offending.

Prospects of Rehabilitation

Subsection 16A(2)(n) requires consideration of the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation. The offender has expressed, both in his letter of apology and in his evidence before the Court, his future intentions to live a law-abiding life. In light of the steps he has taken towards rehabilitation from drug use, I would assess his prospects of rehabilitation as reasonably good. Such an assessment must, however, carry some degree of reserve should he return to the type of lifestyle in which he previously participated. I also note that the Sentencing Assessment Report assessed his risk of re-offending as Medium-Low.

Probable Effect on the Offender’s Family

Subsection 16A(2)(p) requires consideration that a court must take into account the probable effect that any sentence would have on a person’s family. In the circumstance of the offender being an adult son in his family, other than shame, there is no relevant probable effect which has any role to play in the determination of an appropriate sentence.

Other Relevant Factors: Extra-curial Punishment

It is accepted that loss of career and professional reputation are factors capable of amounting to a form of “extra-curial” punishment (see Ryan v R (2001) 206 CLR 267;[2001] HCA 21 at [54] per McHugh J). However, the offender’s professional position as a physiotherapist provided to him the opportunity and the ability to commit the fraudulent offending against the Commonwealth. Whilst the loss of his professional career is an inevitable consequence of his breaches of trust as a physiotherapist, this factor carries little weight in an appropriate determination of a proper sentence.

Other Relevant Factors: Delay

There has been a period of more than 5 years between the commencement of the course of conduct involved in the criminal offending, and the determination of these proceedings. There has been a period of some 2 years and 7 months since the time of his arrest. The subsequent delay in passing sentence has been occasioned by a number of factors relating initially to delay in finalising and serving the brief of evidence and consequently by the withdrawal of a number of Counsel for ethical reasons, the substitution of a number of Counsel, and the termination of the retainer of Defence solicitors. Whilst delay in the matter progressing in this Court has, to some extent, been occasioned by matters resting at the Defence end of the bar table, those factors do not serve to aggravate an appropriate sentence. Taking into account the various factors which have contributed to the delay, any amelioration of sentence by virtue of the delay is slight.

Plea of Guilty

Pleas of Guilty to the 8 sequences in respect of which he now appears for sentence were first indicated in the Local Court. However, it was indicated that there was a dispute on the facts. Subsequently Agreed Facts which were tendered by consent were sought to be withdrawn and ultimately discussions and negotiations with the Crown led to further amendments to those Agreed Facts. The original defrauded total was in excess of $2.4 million and the reduced amount was ultimately in excess of $2.2 million. The number of services fraudulently claimed was similarly adjusted from approximately 44,500 to approximately 40,800. Whilst recognising the pleas of Guilty as contributing to an assessment of remorse and contrition, the circumstances of a resuscitated dispute as to the Facts does operate to reduce the utilitarian value of the pleas. However, in my assessment, a discount in the order of 20% is still appropriate.

Objective Seriousness

In my view, taking into account the relevant factors surrounding the nature and circumstances of the offences, the breach of trust, the quantum obtained, and the duration of the offending, viewed as a continuing course of conduct, the matter falls above a mid-range of objective seriousness.

Totality

In circumstances where there is an overlap chronologically with much of the offending and with respect to the identity of the different allied health practitioners and businesses which were the vehicle for the fraudulent conduct, the principle of totality will need careful attention. It is inevitable that there must be a substantial level of concurrence and overlapping of sentences in circumstances where the differentiation between the vehicle used for the separate defrauding is the basis for the separation of the substantive charges.

Sentence

I propose to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. I am therefore required to set out the indicative sentences which I would have imposed were I dealing with the substantive offences separately. The indicative sentences will each respectively reflect the discount of 20%. In each instance I will refer to the quantum of the amount defrauded and also the duration of the offending in relation to the respective Counts.
The indicative sentences are as follows:

Sequence 4 - Diamond Standard Physio; $1,010,855.00 over 12 months: 5 years, 7 months

Sequence 5 - Neeta City Medical and Dental, Dr Chung; $129,943.85 over 2 months: 2 years

Sequence 6 - Neeta City Medical and Dental, Dr Chung; $667,135.05 over 7 months: 4 years

Sequence 7 – Neeta City Medical and Dental, Dr Yang; $26,697.60 over approximately 5 days: 16 months

Sequence 8 - Neeta City Medical and Dental, Dr Yang; $24,249.70 over 2 months: 16 months

Sequence 9 – Primary Physiocare, Mr Jadid; $110,482.70 over 1 month: 2 years

Sequence 10 – Bankstown Physio, Ms Bota; $30,104.40 over 1 week: 16 months

Sequence 11 – Bankstown Physio, Ms Luk; $215,882.70 over approximately 2 and a half weeks: 3 years

The offender is convicted. I impose an aggregate sentence of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months. The sentence and non-parole period will be backdated by a period of 2 months to take into account the 19 days of actual pre-trial custody and an additional period in recognition of the quasi-custody and restrictions during his time in the rehabilitation program. Accordingly, the sentence and non-parole period will commence from 29 March 2025. The offender will be first eligible for parole on 28 November 2029. The additional term of 2 years and 4 months will expire on 28 March 2032.
Pursuant to s 21B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) I order the offender to make reparation to the Commonwealth in the sum of $2,215,351.

**********

Annexure A Table of Expenditure (411 KB, pdf)

Amendments

21 August 2025 - Paragraph [18] - removed date of birth.

Decision last updated: 21 August 2025

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Mehieddine [2025] NSWDC 326
Hearing dates:	4 October 2024,10 October 2024, 9 December 2024, 15 April 2025
Date of orders:	29 May 2025
Decision date:	29 May 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months, at [305]. The offender to make reparation to the Commonwealth in the sum of $2,215,351, at [306].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Fraud offences – Obtain a financial advantage by deception – Defrauding the Commonwealth – Defrauding the Medicare Benefits Scheme – Offender abusing position as a healthcare provider and physiotherapist – Submitting false claims for services never provided – Initial offending unsophisticated – Initial offending involved over-claiming for patients under his care – Later offending more sophisticated – Later offending involved claiming on behalf of other practitioners at other practices for patients he had never seen – Obtained HICAPS terminal to continue conduct – Began “cloning” HICAPS terminal identifications at other practices by using a “rolling password” – Obtained counterfeit Medicare numbers online – Offending occurred over a period of 3 years – Total amount dishonestly obtained of $2,215,351 SENTENCING – Subjective factors on sentence – Offender on conditional liberty at the time of offending – History of dishonesty offences – Offender’s comparative youth at time of offending – Offender’s ongoing conduct motivated by drug and gambling addiction – Extensive expenditure on luxury car rentals and restaurants overseas – Drug rehabilitation prior to sentence – Delay due to disputed facts negotiations and changes in representation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 53A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss Pt 1B, 16A, 16G, 21B Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 82(1) Criminal Code (Cth) ss 134, 135 Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) s 32 Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA
Cases Cited:	Canning v Northcott [1988] WASC 200 Corbett v R (1991) 52 A Crim R 112 Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 DPP (Cth) vPhan [2016] VSCA 170 DPP v Golic [2014] VSCA 355 DPP v Hamman (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 1 December 1989, unrep) El Rakhawy v R [2011] WASCA 209 El-Chaar v R [2007] NSWCCA 16 Ensor v R [2022] NSWCCA 278 Environment Protection Authority v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 152 Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Issakidis v R [2019] NSWCCA 302 Ly v R [2014] NSWCCA 78 O’Meara v R [2009] NSWCCA 90 PC v R [2020] NSWCCA 147 Quetcher v R [2010] NSWCCA 257 R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268 R v Blackburn [2023] NSWDC 1 R v Buckman [2016] QCA 176 R v Cox; R v Cuffe; R v Morrison [2013] QCA 10 R v Dunn (No 9) [2014] WASC 61 R v Emile George El Soury [2018] NSWDC 450 R v Host [2015] WASCA 23 R v Martin [2005] NSWCCA 190 R v Price [2008] QCA 330 R v Zoghbi [2022] NSWDC 219 Regina v Van Tung Luu (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 7 December 1984, unrep) Ryan v R (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21; Ryan v The King [2024] VSCA 74 Stitt v R (1998) 102 A Crim R 428 The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48 Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Majd Mehieddine (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: D Jordan (Crown) J Trevallion SC with A Chauvet (Offender) Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Truth Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2022/319885