R v Munt - [2015] VSC 132

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 0095 of 2014

THE QUEEN

ALAN MUNT

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 February 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 April 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Munt
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 132

---

Solicitor operating ‘Ponzi Scheme’ – Theft – 9 Charges, obtain property by deception – 8 Charges, deficiency in trust account – 8 Charges, obtaining financial advantage by deception – 2 Charges, continuing criminal offences, quantum in excess of $4,000,000.00, lengthy period of offending (11 years), co-operation, plea of guilty, remorse.
Sentence: 8 years and 6 months. Minimum non parole period: 5 years and 6 months.

But for your plea of guilty, and pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, you would have been sentenced to 10 years with a minimum of 7 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Silbert QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G Lyon QC with Mr P Doyle	Amad & Amad

HER HONOUR:

Alan John Munt, on 5 February 2015 you pleaded guilty to an indictment containing 27 charges, comprising nine charges of theft: charges 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 17 and 21; eight charges of obtaining property by deception, charges 2, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20; eight charges of deficiency in trust account, charges 3, 10, 15, 19, 23, 24, 26 and 27; and two charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception, charges 22 and 25.

The earliest date of the indictment was 30 January 1998. The last charge related to 23 September 2009, a period in excess of 11 years.

The quantum of funds misappropriated by you and included in this indictment was $4,819,061.90.

The maximum penalties available for your offending are complicated by two factors; firstly, changes in legislation during the relevant period; and, secondly, that some of the applicable sentences are aggravated by the provisions relevant to continuing criminal enterprise offenders contained within the Sentencing Act.

The charges of theft, deceptions and obtaining financial advantage by deception, where the value is in excess of $50,000, carry a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment pursuant to the continuing criminal enterprise sections of the Sentencing Act contained in ss 6G, and 6H, which effectively doubles the maximum penalty for those offences.

Thus, charges 4, 5, 7, 13 and 21, charges of theft of an amount exceeding $50,000, carry a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. Charges 1, 6, 9 and 17, being charges of theft of an amount less than $50,000, carry a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

The obtaining property by deception charges comprising charges 2, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 all relate to amounts in excess of $50,000, and accordingly each carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. Equally, in respect of the charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception, charges 22 and 25, being…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Munt

Details

AGLC: R v Munt [2015] VSC 132
Case: [2015] VSC 132
Decision Date: 9 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Munt, the appellant, a solicitor, was found guilty of running a Ponzi scheme over an 11-year period, involving multiple charges of theft, obtaining property by deception, and discrepancies in trust accounts. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the appellant faced a total of 19 charges, with the total value of the stolen funds exceeding $4,000,000. The legal issues that the court had to address included the appropriate sentencing for the appellant, given the extensive nature of the offending and the appellant’s eventual guilty plea and demonstrated remorse.

The court considered the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act, specifically section 6AAA, which emphasises the need to deter the offender and others from committing similar offences. The court acknowledged the appellant's guilty plea and expressed remorse as mitigating factors, but also highlighted the seriousness of the offences, the substantial amount of money involved, and the lengthy period over which the offending occurred. The appellant’s co-operation with authorities and the absence of any previous criminal history were also taken into account.

Ultimately, the court sentenced the appellant to eight years and six months imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of five years and six months. The court noted that, had the appellant not pleaded guilty, the sentence would have been significantly harsher, at 10 years imprisonment with a minimum of seven years non-parole. The court emphasised the importance of the appellant's early guilty plea in reducing the severity of the sentence. The final orders of the court reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed, while also taking into account the mitigating factors present in this case.

Orders