R v Rosamond (No 3)

[2023] NSWDC 267

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Rosamond (No 3) [2023] NSWDC 267

Hearing dates:

26 April 2023

Date of orders:

20 July 2023

Decision date:

20 July 2023

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Sutherland SC DCJ

Decision:

The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 15 years with a non-parole period of 8 years.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Fraud — Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception

CRIME — Fraud — Corruptly give benefit

CRIME — Fraud —total transactions exceeding $19 million — Five-year period — Offender contracted by Bank to co-ordinate events — co-offender worker at Bank — symbiotic relationship between offender and co-offender — invoices fraudulently rendered or amended— expense reimbursement for extravagant non-work-related purchases and holidays

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

Cases Cited:

Daley v R (1983) 8 A Crim R 433

De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197

Edelbi v R (wrongly reported as R v Edelbi) [2021] NSWCCA 122

Holloway v R [2017] NSWCCA 17

Kapua v R [2023] NSWCCA 14

Kelly v R [2023] NSWCCA 104

Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606

McLaren v R [2021] NSWCCA 12

MO v R [2023] NSWCCA 26

Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610

Power v R [2002] NSWCCA 244

R v Albert [2019] NSWDC 869

R v Burke [2002] NSWCCA 353

R v Corbett (1991) 52 A Crim R 112 at 117

R v Cornell [2015] NSWCCA 258

R v David Charles Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430

R v Dimitri De Angelis [2013] NSWDC 79

R v Doorey [2000] NSWCCA 456

R v Eugene William Daley (1983) 8 A Crim R 433

R v Finnie [2002] NSWCCA 533

R v Glenister (1980) 2 NSWLR 597

R v Holder (1983) 3 NSWLR 245

R v McKechnie (unreported, NSWCCA, 1 October 1987)

R v Mears (1991) 53 A Crim R 141

R v Pont (2000) 121 A Crim R 302

R v Rosemary Rogers (unreported 17 January 2022, NSWDC) per Conlon SC ADCJ

R v Schofield [2003] NSWCCA 3; (2003)138 A Crim R 19

R v Stanbouli (2003) 141 A Crim R 531

Siwek v R [2017] NSWCCA 178

Subramaniam v R [2013] NSWCCA 159

Taouk v R (1992) 65 A Crim R 387

Tweedie v R [2015] NSWCCA 71

Upadhyaya v R [2017] NSWCCA 162

White v R [2019] NSWCCA 218

Woods v R [2018] NSWCCA 261

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Rex (Crown)
Helen Rosamond (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
K Mackenzie (Crown)
A Hughes (Offender)

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
AA Criminal Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s):

2019/000067521

INDEX

OVERVIEW

FACTS WITH RESPECT TO THE 90 GUILTY VERDICTS

TWO VERDICTS OF NOT GUILTY

ASSESSMENT OF OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

S 249B Provision of Corrupt Benefits

S 192E Obtain financial advantage

SUBJECTIVE FACTORS

MITIGATING FACTORS

COMPARATIVE CASES

PARITY

CONSIDERATION

Table summarising counts 

SENTENCE

OVERVIEW

1. The offender, Helen Mary Rosamond appears for sentence following a jury finding her guilty with respect to 59 counts of providing a corrupt benefit, 29 counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage, and two counts of attempting to obtain a financial advantage following a trial which extended over a period of approximately four months between August and November 2022.

2. The offending conduct arose in the context of an ongoing fraud committed by this offender and her co-offender, Rosemary Rogers, in a scheme to defraud the National Australia Bank (NAB) for their own personal enrichment.

3. The length and breadth of the fraudulent activity carried out pursuant to this joint enterprise was breathtaking in its audacity. The extravagance of their spending with the money fraudulently obtained and the opulence of the lifestyles they both pursued was stunning.

4. The counts with respect to which guilty verdicts have been returned against Ms Rosamond relate to fraudulent transactions involving in total involved in excess of $19 million. As I will detail, the corrupt benefits provided by Helen Rosamond to the employee inside the Bank, Rosemary Rogers, exceeded $5.5 million. The obtaining of financial benefits for the offender’s advantage was in excess of $9 million. A substantial proportion of this went to the payments given to Rogers. The ultimate loss sustained by the Bank was estimated between approximately $7 million and $9.8 million.

5. For reasons which will become clear, the criminal conduct was able to continue undetected by the Bank for more than five years.

6. The ability of the two co-offenders, Ms Rosamond on the outside of the NAB and Ms Rogers inside the NAB, to continue over such an extended period of time with their respective fraudulent activities and extravagant spending and acquisitions with the Bank’s funds, was facilitated in no small way by the first relevant CEO of the Bank, Mr Cameron Clyne, having provided Rogers with a delegated authority to approve expenditure up to $20 million.

7. Such an extraordinary delegation enabled Rosemary Rogers to escape the scrutiny and internal auditing which might otherwise have been expected to take place within such an institution. In due course, Mr Clyne’s replacement as CEO, Mr Andrew Thorburn, according to his evidence in the trial, did not even know that his Chief of Staff held a delegated authority up to such an amount.

8. A broad overview of the circumstances which gave rise to the systematic defrauding of the Bank's funds is that Helen Rosamond ran an event management company, Human Group Pty Ltd, which was retained to organise and manage events and functions for the National Australia Bank over a period of approximately 12 years.

9. Rosamond was a Director of Human Group Pty Ltd and effectively controlled it and its employees, particularly including the Accounting and Finance section of the company.

10. In the course of the provision of legitimate services to the NAB, Human Group was paid many millions of dollars to run legitimate events and functions for the Bank during the period it was retained. The total amount paid to Human Group between 2006 and 2018 exceeded $118 million. Of that amount, and including money fraudulently obtained, more than $54 million was paid by the NAB to Human Group during the period of the offending from 2013 to 2018.

11. Human Group had provided legitimate event management services to the NAB as early as 2006. Rogers and Rosamond came to have involvement with each other after initially meeting at an overseas NAB conference held in Hong Kong in 2006. In 2008 the Bank and Human Group entered into a formal contract to manage events and functions for the Bank.

12. In early 2009, Rosemary Rogers was appointed to the position of Chief of Staff to the Chief Executive Officer of the NAB. She had previously worked with Mr Cameron Clyne in one of the Divisions of the Bank, and had accompanied him when he was elevated to the position of CEO. She was accordingly in a position of influence and trust, exemplified by the quantum of her financial delegation. Amongst other duties, Rogers organised functions and events, including overseas conferences and workshops for predominantly senior Executives of the Bank, which had overseas offices worldwide.

13. From time to time, during the following years, the contractual service agreement between Human Group and the NAB was extended. From 2010 the Consulting Services Panel Agreement, as it was termed, was extended by the simple process of sending a one-page extension letter addressed to Ms Rosamond at Human Group. That occurred approximately every two years until February 2018 when the contract was terminated.

14. Rosemary Rogers was directly involved in engaging Human Group on a day-to-day basis for functions and events including leadership conferences and workshops held both domestically and overseas.

15. In the course of dealing with each other directly and regularly, a friendship developed between Ms Rogers and Ms Rosamond. They became extremely close and were in almost daily contact. They met for lunch regularly even though Rogers was based in Melbourne and Rosamond lived in Sydney. They dined at high-end restaurants and referred to each other in affectionate terms as part of an ‘extended family’. In text messages they referred to each other as “bestie” and “a sister from another mother”.

16. The ongoing defrauding of the NAB generally worked in the following manner:

1. Rosamond would create an over-inflated yearly budget for events which would be approved by Rogers. The practice of the NAB authorising a yearly budget upfront meant that there was little oversight of the cost of individual events or functions at the time of the event. This provided Human Group with a substantial pool of funds which were retained within their accounts, notionally in ‘trust’.

2. Rosamond would cause legitimate NAB expenditure relating to events and functions for the Bank, to be recorded against Project Codes in the MYOB system maintained in Human Group. Funds would be then ‘drawn down’ from the pre-payments so as to become revenue to Human Group.

3. Rosamond would also record non-NAB related expenses such as invoices for a car and a boat for Rogers, or in relation to personal expenditure for herself, in the MYOB records at Human Group which were allocated to a particular Project Code. This created over-inflated invoices to be issued leading to a drawdown from the retained monies received pursuant to the pre-payments.

4. Invoices were issued, by Human Group, without supporting documentation from third-party suppliers so that there was no ability for cross-checking within the NAB.

5. Rogers would approve the invoices for the Project Code without requiring any additional documentation or explanation.

6. A number of the benefits provided by Rosamond to Rogers were later linked to a Project Code invoice. The effect of this procedure was that whilst Rosamond was directly funding the benefits of a lavish lifestyle for Rogers through Human Group payments, or by the use of credit cards, she was later claiming the expenditure back via the NAB through the nominated Project Codes and invoices, which were ultimately approved by Rogers.

7. Some Project Codes and the invoices which issued contained both legitimate expenditure for NAB events as well as illegitimate non-NAB expenditure, such that the invoice did not disclose how the ultimate figure had been determined. Project names, on some occasions, indicated the illegitimate use of the money: ‘Project Outlaw’ was linked to an extravagant birthday party for Rosemary Rogers’ father-in-law and travel to Europe was linked to ‘Project Europe’.

17. During the years in which the fraud continued, both Rosemary Rogers inside the Bank, and Helen Rosamond with Human Group, were extremely efficient at carrying out their respective legitimate functions. Rosamond herself was well-known and had access to senior Executives within the Bank. Her capacity and apparent ability to obtain beneficial deals in travel and accommodation would appear to have become well-known by Executives in the Bank. Evidence that she facilitated the provision of purportedly ‘discount’ travel and accommodation for various Executives at the Bank was produced in evidence at the trial.

18. By way of example, Mr Andrew Thorburn and his wife had a holiday in Fiji which was organised by Rosamond. Steps were taken to ensure that no invoice for accommodation was given directly to Mr Thorburn by the hotel and all expenses were prepaid so that he was not aware of the true cost. In due course, he insisted on paying for this personal trip and a false invoice was created which he paid in full. Of course, it reflected an extremely reduced figure to the true cost of the travel and accommodation.

19. Similarly, when Mr Mike Baird was recruited as an Executive to the Bank after having left politics, a weekend away was organised at Wolgan Valley (the Emirates ‘One and Only’ Resort) for Mr Baird and his family.

20. When Cameron Clyne was CEO, personal travel and accommodation was similarly organised. Such arrangements were regularly done by the Executives through utilising Rosemary Rogers who, in turn, would rely on the ability to make arrangements by Helen Rosamond.

21. I should make it clear that by these references to particular Executives at the Bank the Court is in no way implying that they acted other than honestly.

22. However, the facilitation of matters on a personal level for various Bank Executives, not only ingratiated the two offenders with the Executives, but also clearly created a climate in which both Rogers directly within the Bank, and Rosamond as the person able to purportedly procure discounts or to access accommodation, were both highly regarded and heavily trusted.

23. The corrupt arrangement between the two co-offenders evolved such that Rosamond would supply benefits for Rogers on request. In return, Rogers would, without question, approve invoices received by the NAB from Human Group which she knew were over-inflated. Rogers would also take any necessary steps to ensure that the contract retaining Human Group would be continued from time to time and as required.

24. The charges brought against each of the participants in this criminal enterprise fell, broadly speaking, into a number of categories relating to the respective conduct of each them.

25. Rosemary Rogers pleaded guilty to 27 counts of corruptly receiving a benefit contrary to the provisions of s 249B(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. Each such offence carried a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. A further six similar matters were placed on Form 1 documents to be taken into account on sentence for the substantive counts.

26. In actual fact there were 60 instances of Rosamond corruptly giving a benefit to Rogers. The offence charged is a statutory equivalent to the more old-fashioned concept of bribery. Rosamond was found guilty with respect to 59 of the 60 counts. The difference in the number of counts as between the Rogers sentence indictment and the Rosamond trial indictment arises because each discrete instance of giving a benefit was the subject of a separate charge against Rosamond at her trial.

27. However, with respect to the sentence proceedings in which Rogers pleaded guilty, a number of separate instances of receiving a benefit were included in rolled-up counts whereby the total amount of the benefit received was pleaded notwithstanding that it reflected multiple separate instances of receiving a benefit. Other counts were placed on a Form 1.

28. Rosemary Rogers was also charged and pleaded guilty to five counts of dishonestly causing a financial disadvantage to the NAB by virtue of her approving invoices that she knew had been falsely inflated. (Some of these counts are misdescribed as ‘obtaining a financial advantage’ and ‘causing a financial advantage’ in the Rogers sentence judgment)

29. One of these counts related to approving a $2.2 million invoice said to relate to ‘Project Eagle’, the recruitment of Mike Baird to the NAB, but in fact connected with the purchase of a house. The other four offences were rolled-up charges relating to the systematic defrauding of the NAB by approving the over-inflated invoices issued by Rosamond annually, hence causing pre-payments in excess of the amount of a proper and legitimate budget. Each of the charges of causing a financial disadvantage contravened s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act and carried a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

30. With respect to the benefits received by Rogers, Rosamond was charged with the mirror image conduct, namely the corrupt giving of the identified benefits to Rogers. As already observed, there were 60 counts of corruptly giving a benefit, each of which contravened s 249B(2) of the Crimes Act and each carried a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The jury returned guilty verdicts with respect to 59 of these counts.

31. Rosamond also stood trial with respect to 30 counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage from the NAB. Each of these counts arose under s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act and carried a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The jury returned guilty verdicts with respect to 29 of these counts.

32. These completed offences fell broadly into firstly, a category of Rosamond’s own personal financial gain relating to the acquisition of goods and services including interior decorating services, the purchase of artworks, overseas holidays, boats, motor vehicles, and even the provision of a lavish birthday party for herself.

33. The second category of offences, also regarding the obtaining of a financial advantage, related to the occasions on which identifiable drawdowns from the NAB funds were obtained with respect to specific corrupt benefits which had in fact been supplied to Rogers. Other counts in the indictment related to identifiable markups and fees on top of the reimbursement of the benefits provided to Rogers.

34. A further two counts in the Rosamond trial were each of attempts to obtain a financial advantage, one in relation to the NAB and the other in relation to a different company. Each of these counts were similarly preferred pursuant to s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. The jury returned guilty verdicts with respect to both of these counts.

35. As already noted, Rosemary Rogers entered pleas of guilty. She also provided a statement and an undertaking to give evidence against Rosamond. She was sentenced by Acting Judge Conlon SC on 27 January 2021 to an aggregate sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 4 years and 9 months. That sentence reflected a discount of 40% as a consequence of her pleas of guilty and assistance. I note that the discount applies to the indicative sentences and not to the aggregate sentence: see Kelly v R [2023] NSWCCA 104 per Walton J at [99]). However, if the aggregation is taken to implicitly incorporate the discount applied to the indicative sentences, a notional starting point would be a head sentence of 13 years and 4 months.

36. Against the background of the above overview, I turn now to the detail of the charges against Helen Rosamond.

FACTS WITH RESPECT TO THE 90 GUILTY VERDICTS

37. In circumstances where the Crown Prosecutor’s closing address occupied the better part of eight sitting days and the Crown Case Statement of Facts is 93 pages in length, the Court does not propose to replicate that level of detail in recounting the facts for the purpose of these Remarks on Sentence. The Crown Case Statement is part of Exhibit 1 on sentence.

38. However, to simply itemise each of the 90 counts in the form of a Table would not adequately convey a proper picture of the fraudulent activity which has resulted in these guilty verdicts.

39. It will be necessary to set out a summary with some detail with respect to the individual counts. The summary in each instance indicates the facts, consistent with the jury’s verdicts, of which I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

40. An extension of the Human Group contract was signed in December 2012 for the ensuing 12 months.

41. Pursuant to the contract there were two Enterprise Leadership Program sessions required to be delivered in February 2013 and May 2013. The contract value was approximately $3.6 million. During the 12-month period 11 invoices were issued by Human Group to the NAB. All of these invoices were approved by Rogers and paid to a total value in excess of $11.5 million. None of the invoices had any supporting documentation.

42. During 2013 a series of corrupt benefits were paid to Rosemary Rogers by means of the provision of travel and accommodation for the Rogers family and other relatives, cash transfers and the provision of pre-paid Mastercards.

43. The following summary will deal with each count in the Rosamond trial indictment in numerical sequence. Where a benefit was received by Rogers, I will indicate the related count in the Rogers sentence proceedings both by reference to the count in the indictment and by reference to the sequence number which is the way the individual sentences are referred to in the judgment of Conlon SC ADCJ.

44. Count 1 related to Rosamond organising flights from Melbourne to Sydney and accommodation at the Four Seasons Hotel for a relative of Rosemary Rogers in February 2013. The cost of this weekend away was paid by Human Group to a value of $3,207.74.

37. The receipt of this benefit, together with three other received benefits were placed together in a rolled-up count, Count 1 (seq. 1), to which Rosemary Rogers pleaded guilty.

38. Count 2 related to providing a corrupt benefit of an overnight stay at Crown Towers in Melbourne in February 2013. This was organised by Ms Rosamond for Rogers and her husband. The cost was $1,624.68.

39. The receipt of this benefit was part of the rolled-up Count 1 (seq. 1) in relation to the Rogers sentence.

40. Count 3 related to the provision of flights from Melbourne to Sydney and accommodation at the Four Seasons Hotel between 8 - 11 March 2013 together with the provision of a chauffeur at the disposal of the family of Rosemary Rogers’ sister, Maree Cocks. The cost of this benefit given to Rogers for her sister’s family was $4,819.55.

41. This benefit was similarly part of Count 1 (seq. 1) in relation to the Rogers sentence.

42. Some two weeks later Rogers and her own family, together with her sister’s family and other extended family members, a total of 13 people, returned to Sydney between 22 and 26 March 2013 to celebrate the 50^th birthday of Rosemary Rogers’ brother-in-law. The entire group flew Business Class return from Melbourne, had four nights’ accommodation in the Four Seasons Hotel, and dined at Quay and Catalina restaurants. The use of a chauffeur and a private chartered boat on Sydney Harbour also contributed to the cost of this 50^th Birthday.

43. The expenses were recorded in the MYOB accounts of Human Group as ‘Project Outlaw’. The total cost of the weekend was $69,872.63. The provision of these benefits was Count 4 in the Rosamond indictment.

44. The receipt of this benefit was also part of the rolled-up Count 1 (seq. 1) against Rogers.

45. Count 5 related to the very next weekend which was the extended break over Easter. Ms Rosamond provided tickets for Rogers, her husband and their child to fly Business Class from Melbourne to Fiji. The cost of the flights was $7,517. The provision of this benefit was Count 5.

46. The receipt of this corrupt benefit was Count 2 (seq. 4) in the indictment to which Rosemary Rogers pleaded guilty.

47. Count 6 related to the provision of pre-paid Mastercards provided by Rosamond to Rogers. The account with Mastercard Pre-Paid Management Services was opened by Rosamond in her own name. She duly provided two pre-paid Mastercards to Rogers and in due course made cash deposits into the account. The Mastercards were provided to Rogers for her own personal use.

48. Payments totalling $37,616.99 were loaded on the prepaid Mastercards by Rosamond. The provision of this benefit was Count 6 in the indictment.

49. The receipt of this benefit was Count 3 (seq. 5) in the Rogers sentence proceedings.

50. Shortly after the provision of the Mastercards, Rogers and five other family members departed on a European holiday. All arrangements and payments for the holiday between 26 May 2013 and 30 June 2013 were made by Rosamond. The six people who went on the European holiday, including Rosemary Rogers, flew Business Class return from Melbourne to Europe at a cost in excess of $61,000. The group stayed at high-end hotels throughout Europe at a cost which exceeded $67,000. The group was also provided with the use of chauffeurs on a daily basis at a cost of approximately $31,000.

51. These benefits provided to Rogers and her family members by Helen Rosamond form the basis for Count 7 in the present proceedings. The total cost of the corrupt benefit was $159,490.59.

52. The receipt of this benefit was Count 4 (seq. 6) in the Rogers sentence proceedings.

53. In September 2013 Rogers told the offender Rosamond that she was having some ‘cashflow’ problems. Rosamond said that she would fix it and over the following weeks provided 15 Bank cheques to a total of $350,000 to Rogers. Each of the Bank cheques was made payable to Rosemary and Anthony Rogers. Rogers cashed each of them over the ensuing months. The provision of this benefit was Count 8 in the Rosamond indictment.

54. The receipt of this benefit was Count 5 (seq. 7) in the Rogers sentence proceedings.

55. In October 2013 Ms Rosamond arranged and provided to the Rogers family and also Rogers’ sister Maree Cock’s family, a weekend getaway holiday at the Emirates ‘One and Only’ Resort in the Wolgan Valley in New South Wales. This luxury resort was in the Mudgee region. The two families flew Business Class from Melbourne to Sydney and then were flown by private helicopter to the resort. The flights cost $12,320.48 for the 8 persons. Accommodation for three nights at the resort was almost $30,000. Additional private transfers cost $3,570.

56. The total cost of this weekend getaway was approximately $45,000. The provision of this corrupt benefit was Count 9 in the Rosamond trial.

57. The receipt of the benefit was Count 6 (seq. 8) in the Rogers proceedings.

58. The next count, Count 10 in the trial, related to the provision of an additional pre-paid Mastercard with an authorisation to the value of $10,000. It was provided by Rosamond to Rogers in December 2013, who then gave it to another employee who was an Executive Assistant to the CEO in the NAB. It was represented by Rogers to that employee that it was a ‘bonus’ from her and the CEO for her efforts. The CEO at the time, Cameron Clyne, had no knowledge of the provision of this Mastercard and said that had he intended to give that employee a $10,000 bonus from the Bank, it would have come from the bonus pool.

59. There was no corresponding charge against Rosemary Rogers in her sentence proceedings with respect to this transaction.

60. Count 11 related to a further weekend getaway for Rosemary Rogers’ family and her sister’s family in early December 2013. Two nights at Crown Towers in Melbourne was charged to Ms Rosamond’s American Express card and provided as a corrupt benefit for Rogers. The accommodation cost in excess of $4,000 for the two nights.

61. In the Rogers proceedings this matter was included on a Form 1 and taken into account with respect to Count 6.

62. Shortly before Christmas, on 23 December 2013, Rosamond transferred $145,000 into the personal Bank account of Rogers. The provision of this corrupt benefit was Count 12 in the Rosamond indictment.

63. The receipt of those funds was Count 7 (seq. 11) in the Rogers proceedings.

64. In due course, the Consulting Services Panel Agreement between the NAB and Human Group was extended for a further period ending in October 2016. Despite the original agreement requiring Human Group to enter into event specific contracts or engagement contracts as they arose, no such event specific engagement contracts were separately entered into by Human Group.

65. Work for the NAB continued to be arranged directly between Rogers and Rosamond and fraudulent invoices continued to be approved by Rogers.

66. During 2014 invoices to the total value of more than $9.8 million were issued by Human Group to NAB.

67. Rosamond continued providing corrupt personal benefits to Rogers.

68. In late February 2014 a yet further weekend getaway was organised and paid for Rosemary Rogers’ family, and again, the family of Rosemary Rogers’ sister. Business Class flights from Melbourne to Sydney cost in excess of $4,600 and accommodation and incidentals for two nights at the Park Hyatt Hotel in Sydney exceeded $35,000.

69. The total cost of the weekend away exceeded $40,000. The provision of this corrupt benefit was Count 13 against Rosamond.

70. The receipt of the benefit was Count 8 (seq. 12) in the Rogers proceedings.

71. After returning to Melbourne, Rosemary Rogers made arrangements in early March 2014 for the purchase of a Bayliner powerboat for $46,590. Rosamond made arrangements for the payment of the deposit direct to Avante Marine who were selling the boat and in due course payment for the balance, including a 220HP engine and a trailer. The boat was registered in the name of Rosemary Rogers’ husband.

72. The invoices issued by Avante Marine were in due course physically located following the execution of a search warrant at the Human Group offices in 2018. The remittance advice for the deposit and the invoice for the payment of the balance had details regarding the boat, the engine and the trailer deleted from them. The remittance advice for the deposit had the reference: ‘Office of the CEO costs held’ and the invoice had been altered by deleting the name of Rosemary Rogers and inserting the name ‘Human Group - Project UK/AUS Strategy’.

73. Whilst the payment for the boat, its engine and trailer provided the basis for the giving of a corrupt benefit in Count 14, the detailed alteration to the invoice and the remittance document were relied upon at trial to illustrate steps taken by the offender to conceal the nature of the payments from her own staff within Human Group.

74. The receipt of the payment for the Bayliner boat was the basis of Count 9 (seq. 13) in the Rogers proceedings.    

75. During Easter 2014 the Rogers family, again together with her sister’s family, flew Business Class for a holiday in Fiji. The Rogers family had time-share accommodation in Fiji but the cost of the return flights together with private transfers was $24,136.63 which was paid for by Human Group. The provision of this benefit was Count 15 in the Rosamond indictment.

76. The receipt of it was Count 10 (seq. 14) in the Rogers proceedings.

77. In February 2014 Rosamond provided two additional pre-paid Mastercards to Rogers for her personal use. In all, a total of $96,423.55 was paid into the pre-paid Mastercard account which was dissipated during the balance of the year by Rogers. The detail of Rogers’ use of the funds in that account included cash withdrawals in Torquay which was close to where the Rogers had their holiday house, payment for living expenses such as telephone and electricity bills, payments with respect to a time-share membership, and more than $30,000 for the services of a live-in nanny. The provision of these benefits is Count 16 in the present proceedings.

78. The receipt of these benefits was Count 11 (seq.15) in the Rogers proceedings.

79. Count 17 was the first of a number of charges relating to the obtaining of a personal financial advantage by the offender herself. In July 2014 Rosamond and her husband purchased a large inflatable boat called a Brig Falcon for use as a tender. $12,000 of the purchase price was paid by the Human Group. The tax invoice from the vendors of the boat, Sirocco Marine, was forwarded to Ms Rosamond by her husband.

80. The invoice was forwarded by the offender to the accounts section of Human Group described as an ‘Invoice relating to Job Centre 2013-30 Project Code 5-5041’. The attached invoice had been altered from that actually issued by Sirocco Marine to delete the references to the boat’s identification numbers and to a trade-in.

81. The payment was in due course entered into the MYOB accounts under ‘Project 30’ which was an actual NAB event and coded as ‘Job Centre 41’ relating to ‘theming’. The allocation of the costs in this manner in the Human Group accounts caused it to be charged to the NAB and taken from the money received by way of pre-payments. This obtaining of a financial advantage by deception is Count 17 in the present proceedings. It was one of a number of matters in which altered invoices or other documents were created to conceal the true disposition of the funds from the accounting and finance personnel within Human Group.

82. Count 18 related to the provision of another benefit to Rogers. Ms Rosamond arranged an extensive holiday in June and July 2014 for Rosemary Rogers and her family, together with Rogers’ sister’s family, for a luxury holiday to New York, Washington, Miami and Hawaii in the United States. Eight persons undertook the trip. The Business Class flights cost more than $144,000. Accommodation and other miscellaneous expenses including the charter of a private jet, a luxury yacht cruise in Hawaii, chauffeurs and travel insurance amounted to $476,536.58. The holiday was for a period of about 3 weeks and the total cost was $620,627.30.

83. Additional expenses were placed on some of the credit cards that had been previously provided to Rogers.

84. The receipt of this benefit was Count 12 (seq.16) in the Rogers proceedings.

85. Count 19 against the present offender related to the manner of charging to the NAB for some of the costs of the extended holiday to the United States. The cost had been accounted for in the Human Group MYOB accounting records as ‘Project 27 –NAB USA’. $142,904.93 was allocated under that heading and a markup and fees purportedly incurred with respect to that amount totalled an additional $86,502. The indictment, as ultimately particularised, identified the receipt of an amount between $142,904.93 and $210,521.90.

86. There was no corresponding count in the Rogers’ proceedings.

87. Count 20 again related to the provision of a benefit by the offender to Rosemary Rogers. Rogers and her husband owned a holiday house in Bellbrae, a semi-rural area south of Melbourne which is close to Torquay and Bells Beach. In 2014 they undertook extensive renovations of the holiday home. Various accounts for progress payments to the builder were forwarded by Rogers to Rosamond who then organised payment from the Human Group Bank accounts. Scanned copies of the invoices were altered to conceal the nature of the payments including the removal of all names and addresses from the invoices. These corrupt payments totalled $128,555.

88. The receipt of this benefit by Rogers was Count 13 (seq.17) in the proceedings against her.

89. Count 21 related to the obtaining of a financial advantage by Rosamond in orchestrating the payments to the builder to be charged to the NAB. Two separate accounts or invoices from the builder had been forwarded to the offender by Rosemary Rogers. The first, in the amount of $52,205, was allocated to NAB ‘Project 35’ in the Human Group accounts, whilst the second, in an amount of $38,175, was allocated to ‘Project 12’. The total paid by the NAB, namely $90,380, was the subject of this count.

90. Count 22 once again related to the provision of a corrupt benefit. In August 2014 another weekend away for Rosemary Rogers and her family, together with a different sister’s family, was organised at the Palazzo Versace, a 5-star hotel on the Gold Coast in Queensland. The party of seven flew Business Class from Melbourne. The return flights cost $11,623.43. The three nights’ accommodation cost $18,808.39. Private transfers and car cost an additional $4,030. The total cost was in excess of $35,000.

91. The receipt of this benefit was included as part of a rolled-up count relating to 5 separate receipts of benefits included in Count 14 (seq.18) in the Rogers’ proceedings.

92. Count 23 related to the obtaining of a financial advantage by Rosamond in causing payments directly linked to two of the invoices from the Palazzo Versace being paid by the NAB. Those two identified payments had invoices from Palazzo Versace attributed to ‘Project 35-ELT Off-site Aug’ in the Human Group accounting records and thereby drawn down from the NAB prepayments. These two identified invoices came to a total of $18,808.39.

93. Count 24 related to a further obtaining of a financial advantage by Rosamond. During the 2014/2015 financial year the offender purchased a Toyota Kluger for her parents-in-law to use in their home town of Tamworth and in commuting to Sydney to assist her in looking after the children. The purchase price of $39,390 came from the Human Group Bank account and the costs were then on-charged to NAB by being allocated in the MYOB accounts to ‘Project 12, Office of the CEO’ and the costs ‘category 41’ which related to ‘theming’. The vehicle was registered in the name of the offender.

94. Count 25 related to the provision of a corrupt benefit to Rogers. The offender paid for a 70th birthday celebration put on by Rosemary Rogers for her father-in-law in September 2014 at the Polperro Winery in the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria. This benefit to Rogers cost $15,230.

95. This benefit was part of the rolled-up Count 14 (seq. 18) in the Rogers proceedings.

96. Count 26 was an obtaining count related to causing the NAB to pay for this birthday celebration. This was a verdict of not guilty.

97. Count 27 arose as a consequence of a payment by way of a purported ‘gift’ from the offender to her sister-in-law and her partner. They were having some difficulties in their trucking business and the offender provided them with $33,000, inclusive of GST, to assist them through their difficulties. She obtained an invoice from them described as: ‘Project fuel logistics’. The payment to them, less GST, was entered into the MYOB accounts of Human Group as: ‘Project 42, ELT Off-site: Dec 2014’. The misleading of the accounts section at Human Group continued by allocating these costs in the accounting as: ‘Cost Centre 11 – logistics’.

98. The effect of charging the $30,000 gift to the NAB formed the basis for the obtaining of a financial advantage by Rosamond in Count 27.

99. In due course however, all items which had been placed in ‘Project 42’ had mark-ups and additional fees added to the amount and an additional figure of between $13,500 and $15,000 was added to the amount charged to the NAB. This represented a 45% mark-up. The variation in the fee charged to NAB arose because it was unclear as to whether the 45% mark-up was calculated with or without GST.

100. The added mark-up constituted the further financial advantage obtained with respect to Count 28.

101. Count 29 related to a further provision of a benefit to Rogers and her husband who were given a one-night stay at Crown Towers in Melbourne in October 2014. The cost of the overnight stay was $2,337.39.

102. The receipt of this benefit was also part of the rolled-up Count 14 (seq. 18) against Rogers.

103. Count 30 related to the provision of a BMW X5 to Rosemary Rogers in late 2014. Rogers herself had paid the $5,000 deposit, and the balance of $172,162.21 was paid by Human Group. The transaction description within Human Group was: ‘Office of CEO tx’.

104. The receipt of this benefit, namely the BMW motor vehicle, was Count 15 (seq. 21) against Rogers.

105. Count 31 related to causing the NAB to pay for the BMW. The obtaining of a financial advantage by Rosamond was caused by allocating it to ‘Project 12’ and ‘Costs Centre 41’ within the MYOB records of Human Group.

106. Count 32 related to a further personal financial advantage to Rosamond. She and her husband lived in a home at 18 Upper Spit Road in Mosman. Garden umbrellas were installed at a total cost of $39,700. That cost was allocated to two different NAB projects and described as ‘ELT Offsite – NAB conversations’.

107. Count 33 was a further benefit provided to Rosemary Rogers. This related to another weekend away for Rosemary Rogers and her family, her sister’s family and her in-laws at the Emirates ‘One and Only’ Resort in Wolgan Valley in October 2014. Nine people attended and return Business Class flights from Melbourne to Sydney cost $17,086. They then flew by private helicopter from Sydney to the resort at a cost of $10,710. Accommodation for two nights at the resort cost over $35,000 and there were additional private transfers to and from the airport of $2,200. The total cost of the weekend for the group was $65,527.96.

108. A number of the corrupt benefits provided to Rogers were allocated to ‘Project 42-ELT offsite Dec14 (Wolgan Valley)’ and on-charged to the NAB. These included the travel costs which had been booked through an agency.

109. The receipt by Rogers of the cost of this weekend at Wolgan Valley was not separately charged as a substantive offence against her but was included as part of the rolled-up Count 14 (seq. 18) in her sentence proceedings.

110. Count 34 was an additional overnight stay in Melbourne provided to Rogers and her husband in November 2014. The one-night stay at the Crown Metropole in Melbourne cost $4,732.82.

37. The receipt of this benefit was also part of the rolled-up Count 14 (seq. 18) in the Rogers proceedings.

38. Count 35 was a further provision of a benefit from Rosamond to Rogers. The offender arranged a marina berth at the Anchorage Marina in Williamstown for the Bayliner boat which had previously been purchased by Rogers and her husband and paid for by Helen Rosamond. Rosamond arranged to pay for the marina berth on an ongoing 12-month basis. The payment for the marina berth in December 2014, 12 months in advance, was $7,500.

39. In the Rogers proceedings the receipt of this benefit (seq. 24) was placed on a Form 1 together with three other matters to be taken into account with respect to the purchase of another boat (Count 23 seq. 39) to which we will come in due course.

40. In early 2015 Rosemary Rogers discussed with the offender the purchase of a caravan. In due course a 2015 Bunkhouse Caravan costing $93,290 was ordered by Rogers. She paid the deposit of $2,000 and the balance of $91,290 was paid by Human Group.

41. The provision of this benefit formed the basis of Count 36 against Rosamond.

42. The receipt of the benefit was Count 17 (seq. 26) against Rogers.

43. The on-charging of the cost of the caravan to NAB formed the basis for the obtaining a financial advantage by Rosamond in Count 37. It had been allocated in the MYOB accounts as ‘Project 46 - NAB conversations: Feb 2015’. The invoice from the company which sold the caravan had described the caravan as ‘2015 Bunkhouse’. The invoice was altered by removal of those words and substituting the words: ‘Project Offsite Logistic’. This concealed the personal nature of the expenditure from the accounting staff in Human Group.

44. Count 38 related to Rosamond providing Rogers with a holiday in Tasmania in March 2015 for Rogers’ tenth wedding anniversary. Rogers and her husband flew Business Class return from Melbourne to Hobart at a cost of $3,500. They stayed for three nights at the Sapphire Freycinet Lodge at a cost of $22,680. There were costs in excess of $3,000 for private transfers and chauffeurs. The total cost exceeded $29,000.

45. The receipt of this benefit by Rogers was part of a rolled-up Count 16 (seq. 25) which related to six separate instances of travel and accommodation to a total of $140,814.90.

46. Count 39 related to another provision of a benefit to Rogers in the form of another holiday. Rosemary Rogers and her family, together with her sister’s family, a total of eight persons, flew Business Class return from Melbourne to Fiji at a cost of more than $25,000. They then flew from Nadi to the privately owned island of Laucala at a cost of $22,568. Eight nights’ accommodation on the island, together with miscellaneous expenses, exceeded $200,000. The total cost of the one-week holiday and travel was $250,414,16.

47. The receipt of this benefit was separately charged against Rogers as Count 18 (seq. 27).

48. Count 40 related to the direct payment by Human Group to Laucala Island Resort Ltd of $221,285.95. it was on-charged to the NAB by it being allocated to ‘Project 52’.

49. In April 2015 Rosamond paid approximately $140,000 to a travel agency for part payment for a holiday for her family, including her husband, her twin sons, and her parents to the Canadian Rocky Mountains. The allocation of that payment to ‘Project 52 - Cost Centre 11’ caused the payment to be allocated to the NAB. This obtaining of a financial advantage from the NAB was Count 41.

50. The accused allocated a 50% mark-up to items in ‘Project 52’ which added an additional amount of almost $70,000 to the $140,000 dishonestly obtained from NAB. This separate obtaining of $69,925 was Count 42.

51. Count 43 was for the provision of flights from Melbourne to Adelaide for Rosemary Rogers’ husband and his brother-in-law. The cost of these flights was $3,913.

52. This benefit formed part of the rolled-up Count 16 (seq. 25) in the Rogers proceedings.

53. Count 44 related to the provision of further accommodation at Crown Towers in Melbourne. Rogers family, her sister’s family, and other guests stayed overnight. The one-night stay for 13 people cost $26,168.27.

54. The receipt of that benefit was similarly part of Count 16 (seq. 25) in the Rogers proceedings.

55. Count 45 related to Helen Rosamond’s own 40^th birthday party in May 2015. The party was held at the home of one of her acquaintances, Ms Rosalind Oatley. The private function included ice sculptures and singing waiters. The cost of the catering was $14,358.20. The caterers were asked to include the identification of ‘Project 54’ on the invoice provided to Human Group where it was allocated to a cost centre relating to catering for NAB events. The effective charging of the catering to NAB formed the basis for Count 45 of obtaining a financial advantage by deception.

56. Count 46 related to the obtaining of a financial advantage by Rosamond herself. The offender and her husband owned a catamaran called ‘Avalanche’. Repairs and installation of furniture on the boat incurred costs in excess of $32,000. The various invoices which were received were allocated to NAB project numbers and accordingly paid by NAB.

57. Count 47 related to the provision of a benefit to Rogers in the form of payment of return flights from Melbourne to Sydney for one of Rogers’ sisters. The cost was $4,345.50.

58. This benefit was included in the rolled-up Count 16 (seq. 25) against Rogers.

59. Count 48 related to the provision of a benefit relating to Rogers’ sister and her husband, who flew Business Class from Melbourne to Broome where they stayed at the Cable Beach Club Resort. The total cost of the holiday was $21,538.96.

60. The receipt of this benefit was similarly part of of the rolled-up Count 16 (seq. 25) in the Rogers proceedings.

61. Count 49 related to Helen Rosamond causing the NAB to pay for the design and construction of a new garden at her family residential home in Upper Spit Road, Mosman. Various invoices rendered by the garden construction company were allocated to different NAB project numbers and described as relating to Executive Leadership Team programs or meetings. The total cost paid by the NAB for the new garden was $372,611.

62. Count 50 related to a yet further weekend getaway to the Emirates Resort in Wolgan Valley. In August 2015 Rosemary Rogers and her sisters’ families, nine persons in total, flew Business Class from Melbourne to Sydney, stayed overnight at the Darling Hotel at Pyrmont, and on this occasion travelled via private limousine to Wolgan Valley near Mudgee where they stayed at the Emirates Resort for two nights. The total cost of this holiday was $55,472.17.

63. In the proceedings against Rogers the receipt of this benefit was part of the rolled-up Count 16 (seq. 25).

64. In December 2015, Ms Rosamond’s parents-in-law flew to Perth where they stayed for three days in the Hyatt Regency before boarding the Indian Pacific for return travel to Sydney. Rosamond organised the holiday and paid for it in July 2015 through Human Group. It was allocated to NAB ‘Project 69’ and described as an ‘Executive Leadership Team meeting’. The cost of $14,268 was charged to the NAB. This fraudulent obtaining was Count 51.

65. Count 52 was a further obtaining of a financial advantage by Rosamond. A company undertook electrical work at the offender’s Mosman residence. She requested that the description of the work be put simply as ‘electrical equipment as per scope of works – Project 61’. Various different invoices were allocated to NAB project numbers and on-charged to the NAB. The identified invoices totalled $11,987.80.

66. Count 53 related to the provision of benefits to Rogers. Pre-paid Mastercards were provided to Rosemary Rogers to a value of $110,000. The receipt of this benefit was Count 19 (seq. 33) against Rogers.

67. Count 54 related to charging the NAB for renovations to the offender’s home in Upper Spit Road, Mosman. Payment for the renovations of more than $86,000 was paid by Human Group. The offender specifically asked that the invoice be made out to Human Group and to add a Project Number. The invoice was allocated to a specific NAB project which caused the on-charging of the payment to the NAB.

68. Count 55 related to a second Mastercard pre-paid account and the provision of a further Mastercard to Rosemary Rogers with the same amount loaded onto it, namely $110,000. The provision of this benefit was Count 55 against Rosamond.

69. In the Rogers proceedings it was Count 20 (seq. 34).

70. Count 56 related to a further payment for 12 months for the marina berth at Anchorage Marina. The payment of this benefit of $7,500 was Count 56 against Rosamond.

71. It was sequence 59 placed on a Form 1 in the Rogers proceedings together with other matters on a Form 1 in relation to acquisition of another boat.

72. Count 57 related to the provision of a corrupt benefit in the form of flights from Melbourne to Perth return, and accommodation in Perth for a relative of Rosemary Rogers. The cost was $5,136.58.

73. This travel was part of Count 22 (seq. 36) with respect to Rogers.

74. Count 58 was again a provision of a benefit to Rogers by virtue of payment for her nanny to fly home to visit her family in Chile. The flights for the nanny and her own child to return to Chile was $6,398.86. The invoice which was issued referred to ‘South American Offsite’.

75. The receipt of that benefit was Count 21 (seq. 35) in the Rogers proceedings.

76. Count 59 related to $50,000 being paid into Mastercards used by Rosamond during a holiday in the United States. Each of the payments were coded in the MYOB accounts as ‘Project 75 - ELT Offsite: Feb 2016 - Cost Centre 11’. These payments were on-charged to the NAB.

77. In April 2016 the offender paid for the Rogers family and her sister’s family for a weekend at Crown Towers in Melbourne. The cost of this weekend was $8,331 and formed the basis of Count 60 against Rosamond.

78. The receipt of this benefit formed part of the rolled-up Count 22 (seq. 36) against Rogers.

79. The next guilty finding of obtaining a financial advantage by Rosamond was Count 61. It related to the acquisition of Aboriginal artwork which cost almost $18,000 and was allocated to an NAB project number. The artwork was placed in the home to which the offender moved after the breakup of her marriage and it was on the walls at the Potts Point premises when the search warrant was executed in 2018.

80. Count 62 was again the provision of overnight accommodation at Crown Towers in Melbourne for the Rogers family and her sister’s family. The one-night stay in April 2016 cost $4,472.

81. It formed part of the rolled-up count 22 (seq. 36) in the Rogers proceedings.

82. Count 63 related to the trading in of the Bayliner boat which had been paid for by Rosamond in March 2014 (Count 14) and the upgrading to a new boat by Rogers and her husband. The new boat was a 25-foot Chaparral which cost $145,000. A trade-in of $30,000 for the Bayliner powerboat left a balance of $115,000 to be paid. That amount was paid by Human Group direct to Aussie Boat Sales. At the specific request of the offender, Rosamond, the boat vendors added the words ‘Project 85 - Costs Centre 41’ to the Invoice. The provision of the benefit by payment for the boat was Count 63.

83. Obtaining the payment for the Chaparral boat by on-charging the NAB was Count 64 against Rosamond.

84. In the Rogers proceedings the receipt of the funds for this boat was Count 23 (seq. 39). This was the Count to which the four matters on a Form 1 attached.

85. Count 65 related to the payment of $468,726 to a builder undertaking an extension and renovations to the Rogers holiday house in Bellbrae Victoria. Rosamond sent instructions for the inclusion of a project number on the invoices and organised payments directly to the builder.

86. Count 66 was the counterpoint offence of causing the entire amount paid to the builder to be on-charged to the NAB.

87. The receipt of the benefit of the payments to the builder was Count 24 (seq. 40) in the Rogers proceedings.

88. Count 67 was for the provision of three nights’ accommodation at Crown Towers in Melbourne for Rogers’ family and her sister’s family at a cost of $5,240.87.

89. The receipt of that benefit was part of a rolled-up Count 25 (seq. 41) which related to six separate instances of travel and accommodation to various locations in the Rogers sentence proceedings.

90. Count 68 related to a further stay at Crown Towers in Melbourne. On 30 June 2016 Rogers flew from Melbourne to Sydney to have lunch with Rosamond who had booked the flights and restaurant. Rogers flew back to Melbourne that evening and then stayed for two nights at Crown Towers with her husband. The accommodation and miscellaneous costs were $23,570.84.

91. The receipt of this benefit was part of the rolled-up count 25 (seq. 41) against Rogers.

92. Count 69 related to a further stay at Crown Towers for Rosemary Rogers’ family, and again for her sister’s family. The two-night stay cost $5,389.43.

93. This additional accommodation formed part of Count 25 (seq. 41) against Rogers.

94. Count 70 was a further corrupt benefit to Rogers. It was another trip for the Rogers family and her sister’s family, together with some additional guests, to the Emirates ‘One and Only’ Resort in Wolgan Valley. The 10 persons flew Business Class from Melbourne to Sydney and then travelled via private helicopter to Wolgan Valley. The cost of the travel and transfers was over $41,000. The two nights’ accommodation and services at the resort was approximately $35,000. The total benefit as $75,865.11. The receipt of this benefit was part of the rolled-up Count 25 (seq. 41) with respect to Rogers.

95. Count 71 related to a payment for accommodation at Onshore Torquay for two nights while the nearby holiday house was still being renovated. The cost of the two nights’ accommodation for Rogers and her husband was $1,210.44.

96. This was dealt with as part of the rolled-up Count 25 relating to Rogers.

97. Count 73 related to the payment for accommodation in Torquay on another occasion at a cost of $1,089.72.

98. Count 74 related to a further stay in Torquay while the holiday house continued to be renovated. The cost on this occasion was $2,016.68.

99. Count 75 related to another weekend at Crown Towers in Melbourne for six people. It included Rogers and her family, and also her sister’s family. The accommodation and additional charges for the two nights came to $18,123.17.

100. Each of the stays at Torquay, and this most recent accommodation at Crown Towers, were included in the rolled-up Count 25 (seq. 41) relating to benefits received by Rosemary Rogers.

101. Count 76 was a further payment for 12-months for the marina berth at Anchorage Marina for the Rogers’ Chaperral boat.

102. The receipt of this benefit formed part of a further rolled-up count, Count 26 (seq. 51) relating to Rogers.

103. Count 77 related to Rosamond paying for Rogers and three others attending ‘Dinner by Heston Blumenthal’ at Crown Towers in Melbourne in 2017. The cost of the dinner was $1,446.15.

104. Count 78 related to the provision of a one-night stay by Rogers and her husband at Crown Towers in March 2017. The cost including transfers was $3,544.71.

105. In April 2017 Rosemary Rogers family, together with her sister’s family, flew from Melbourne to Cairns before transferring to Port Douglas for a nine-day holiday. The private transfers and daily limousines cost more than $16,000 and the total cost of the nine-day holiday exceeded $65,000 and was paid for in full by Human Group. The provision of this corrupt benefit is Count 79.

106. This matter would appear to have been included in the rolled-up Count 26 (seq. 51) relating to Rogers corruptly receiving $127,519.63 in corrupt benefits.

107. Count 80 related to Rosamond having engaged professional interior design services for her new residence in Victoria Street, Potts Point. The design service included the sourcing and installation of furniture. The interior design and furniture obtained cost $228,747.28. The invoices for work done were issued to Human Group and noted as ‘Project 106’. ‘Project 106’ related to ‘CEO Offsites 2017’ and the interior design payments were on-charged to the NAB.

108. In addition to the obtaining of a financial advantage of the primary amount mark-ups on the cost yielded an additional amount of between $45,000 and approximately $59,000 which were separately charged as Count 81.

109. Count 82 related to a further provision of a financial benefit to Rogers. In August 2017 Rogers and her family, together with her sister’s family flew from Melbourne to the Gold Coast where they stayed at the Sheraton Grande Mirage at Main Beach. The Business Class flights cost over $28,000; two nights’ accommodation was approximately $12,500; private transfers and daily limousines were approximately $5,000; and miscellaneous expenses including ‘Animal Encounters’ at Sea World were approximately $1,300. The total cost of the two-night holiday was $47,281.22.

110. Count 83 related to travel from Melbourne to Sydney the following month, September 2017. Rosemary Rogers, together with her husband and brother-in-law, flew to Sydney and stayed for one night at the Four Seasons hotel. The Business Class flights cost over $8,000 and three people for one night at the Four Seasons was approximately $1,400. Including private transfers, the total cost of the flights and one nights’ accommodation was $10, 819.34.

111. The trip to the Gold Coast and the weekend travel to Sydney would appear to have been included in the rolled-up count, Count 26 (seq. 51) in the Rogers proceedings.

112. From around July 2017 Rosemary Rogers and her husband had been looking to purchase a new home.

113. By August 2017 they were negotiating to purchase a house at 40 Power Street, Williamstown.

114. On 12 September 2017, Rogers and her husband signed a contract for the purchase of the premises for $3.8 million. On 15 September 2017, the offender, Ms Rosamond, paid the 10% deposit of $380,000 to the real estate agents with respect to the purchase. Numerous messages between Rogers and Rosamond referred to the house at 40 Power Street as: ‘CEO dialogues’. The provision of the $380,000 deposit was Count 84 in the Rosamond indictment.

115. Its receipt by Rogers was Count 27 (seq. 55) in the Rogers indictment.

116. Towards the end of September 2017 Human Group issued an invoice to the NAB for $2.2 million bearing the description: ‘Project Eagle’. ‘Project Eagle’ had in fact been the code name utilised within the NAB regarding the recruitment to the Bank’s Executive of the former NSW Premier, Mike Baird.

117. Rogers finessed this invoice through the finance section of the Bank by claiming that the payment related to the onboarding of Mr Baird. “Onboarding” appears to be the industry and commercial term for recruitment. The $2.2 million was paid by the NAB to Human Group in early October 2017.

118. In November 2017, while Rogers was negotiating with her own personal private Banker regarding a loan towards some of the house purchase, Rosamond transferred $1.5 million from the Human Group Bank account into her own personal Bank account. She subsequently drew a Bank cheque for $1.5 million which she provided to Rogers for payment towards the purchase price of 40 Power Street, Williamstown.

119. Count 86 in the Rosamond indictment related to the obtaining of the $2.2 million from the NAB to her own financial advantage, while Count 85 related to the giving of the corrupt benefit to Rogers in the form of the Bank cheque for $1.5 million.

120. Whilst the financial advantage of being able to use the entire $2.2 million as she saw fit gave rise to the amount in Count 86, after giving $1.5 million to Rogers, Rosamond retained $700,000.

121. The receipt of the $1.5 million by Rogers was Count 28 (seq. 56) in the proceedings against her.

122. Count 87 related to a further payment for the 12-month marina berth at Anchorage Marina by Rosamond for the benefit of Rogers.

411. I propose to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. I am, however, required to fix an appropriate sentence being the indicative sentence for each offence being the sentence which I would have imposed for that matter alone. The Court must then consider questions of accumulation and concurrence.

412. Ultimately it is important to consider the principle of totality as described by Street CJ in R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245:

“The principle of totality is a convenient phrase, descriptive of the significant practical consideration confronting a sentencing
judge when sentencing for two or more offences. Not infrequently a straight forward arithmetical addition of sentences appropriate for each individual
offence considered separately will arrive at an ultimate aggregate that exceeds what is called for in the whole of the circumstances. In such a situation the
sentencing judge will evaluate, in a broad sense, the overall criminality involved in all of the offences and, having done so, will determine what, if
any, downward adjustment is necessary, whether by telescoping or otherwise, in the aggregate sentences in order to achieve an appropriate relativity between the totality of the criminality and the totality of the sentences.”

418. The ultimate sentence must reflect the total criminality involved. The significance of general deterrence in white collar fraud has been repeatedly emphasised in numerous authorities. The aggregation of all of the sentences must result in a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality. The non-parole period must reflect the minimum period of imprisonment required to be served having regard to the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

419. I find that a combination of factors contribute to a finding of special circumstances which I will bear in mind when determining the non-parole period. These include Ms Rosamond’s prospects for rehabilitation, the likely effect on her future employment, the circumstance that this is her first term of imprisonment, and the factors identified in the psychologist’s report which will play a part in her ability to cope within the Correctional institution.

420. As indicated, I propose to proceed by way of the imposition of an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act). As I have also indicated, I will deal with the groups of offences by reference to the categories which I have identified earlier.

421. A Table will be annexed to these Remarks indicating each count, the category into which it falls, and the indicative sentence for each.

422. The indicative sentences are as follows:

• Category 1: provision of corrupt benefits between $250,000 and $1.5 million will be 4 years imprisonment with respect to each of the six counts: 8, 18, 39, 65, 84, and 85.

• Category 2: provision of benefits between $90,000 and 250,000 will be 2 years imprisonment with respect to each of the nine counts:7,12, 16, 20, 30, 36, 53, 55, and 63.

• Category 3 – provision of benefits between $10,000 and $75,000 will be 18 months imprisonment with respect to each of the 20 counts: 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 22, 25, 33, 38, 44, 48, 50, 68, 70, 75, 79, 82, and 83.

• Category 4 – provision of benefits between $1,000 and $7,500 will be 12 months imprisonment with respect to each of the 24 counts: 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 29, 34, 35, 43, 47, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, and 87.

• Category 5 – obtain financial advantage counts between $450,000 and $4.96 million will be 6 years with respect to each of the 3 counts: 66, 86, and 91.

• Category 6 – obtaining a financial advantage counts between $15,000 and $400,000 will be 3 years with respect to each of the 19 counts: 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 31, 32, 37, 40, 41, 42, 46, 49, 54, 59, 61, 64, 80, 81 88, and 89.

• Category 7 – obtaining a financial advantage counts under $15,000 will be 18 months with respect to each of the 5 counts: 17, 28, 45, 51, and 52.

• Count 90 – attempt to obtain $3.3 million from the National Australia Bank 5 years.

• Count 92 – attempt to obtain approximately $500,000 from Vicinity Centres 3 years.

423. The aggregate head sentence will be a period of 15 years. There will be a non-parole period of 8 years. The sentence and non-parole period will be backdated to commence on 2 December 2022. That date acknowledges the four days the offender spent in custody when first arrested and the order for detention made on 6 December 2022. She will be eligible for parole on 1 December 2030. The additional term of 7 years will expire on 1 December 2037.

Table summarising counts 

Count	Date	Amount ($)	Use of funds /Description of allegation	Section of Crimes Act	Category	Indicative Sentence
1	30 January 2013 – 4 February 2013	3,207.74	Flights and accommodation for relative of Rosemary Rogers	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
2	22 February 2013 – 26 February 2013	1,624.68	Overnight stay at Crown Towers for Rogers and her husband	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
3	7 March 2013 – 12 March 2013	4,819.55	Four-day Sydney holiday for Rogers’ sister’s family	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
4	21 March 2013 – 27 March 2013	69,872.63	Sydney holiday for Rogers’ brother in law’s 50th birthday (13 persons)	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
5	27 March 2013 – 6 April 2013	7,517.00	Business Class flights for Rogers’ family from Melbourne to Fiji	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
6	13 May 2013 – 5 July 2013	37,716.99	Pre-paid Mastercards for Rogers	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
7	25 May 2015 – 1 July 2013	159,490.59	One-month European holiday for Rogers and 5 other family members (6 persons)	s 249B(2)	2	2 years
8	11 September 2013 – 14 March 2014	350,000.00	15 bank cheques for Rogers for ‘cashflow’ problems	s 249B(2)	1	4 years
9	9 October 2013 – 14 October 2013	44,911.58	Wolgan Valley weekend getaway for Rogers’ family and Rogers’ sister’s family	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
10	25 November 2013 – 3 January 2014	10,000.00	Pre-paid Mastercard	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
11	5 December 2013 – 9 December 2013	4,006.13	Two nights’ accommodation Crown Towers Melbourne for Rogers’ family and Rogers’ sister’s family	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
12	22 December 2013 – 24 December 2013	145,000.00	Electronic transfer to Rogers’ account	s 249B(2)	2	2 years
13	21 February 2014 – 25 February 2014	40,143.20	Accommodation and incidentals for Sydney weekend away for Rogers’ family and Rogers’ sister’s family	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
14	3 March 2014 – 18 March 2014	46,090.00	Balance (after deposit paid) for Rogers’ Bayliner Boat	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
15	15 April 2014 – 25 April 2014	24,136.63	Return flights and transfers for Fiji holiday for Rogers’ family	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
16	19 February 2014 – 13 May 2015	96,423.55	Two pre-paid Mastercards given to Rogers. Used by Rogers for living expenses at Torquay holiday house, time-share membership, and live-in nanny services	s 249B(2)	2	2 years
17	1 July 2014 – 30 June 2015	12,000.00	Purchase of inflatable tender by Rosamond and her husband	s 192E(1)(b)	7	18 months
18	12 June 2014 – 15 July 2014	620,627.30	One-month (approx.) US holiday for Rogers and Rogers’ sister’s family (8 persons)	s 249B(2)	1	4 years
19	1 July 2014 – 30 June 2015	142,904.93 -  210,521.90	Mark up on invoices from Count 18 which were fraudulently charged to NAB.	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
20	13 August 2014 – 13 January 2015	128,555.00	Progress payments for Rogers’ renovations to her Torquay holiday home	s 249B(2)	2	2 years
21	1 July 2014 – 30 June 2015	90,380.00	Non-NAB related expenditure charged to NAB for costs associated with Count 20	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
22	21 August 2014 – 2 September 2014	35,096.07	Gold Coast (Qld) weekend away (3 nights) for Rogers’ family and her other sister’s family	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
23	30 January 2014 – 30 September 2014	18,808.00	Non-NAB related expenditure charged to NAB for costs associated with Count 22	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
24	1 July 2014 – 30 June 2015	34,390.00	Purchase by Rosamond of Toyota Kluger for her in-laws	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
25	20 September 2014 – 23 September 2014	15,230.00	70th birthday party for Rogers’ father-in-law	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
27	1 July 2014 – 30 June 2015	33,000	‘Gift’ from Rosamond to her sister-in-law and her partner	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
28	1 July 2014 – 30 June 2015	13,500.00 - 15,000.00	Mark-up and fees charged to NAB for non-NAB expenditure in Count 27	s 192E(1)(b)	7	18 months
29	3 October 2014 – 6 October 2014	2,337.39	One night stay at Crown Towers Melbourne for Rogers and her husband	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
30	12 October 2014 – 31 January 2015	172,162.21	Balance (excluding deposit) for BMW X5 purchased by Rogers	s 249B(2)	2	2 years
31	1 July 2014 – 30 September 2015	172,162.21	Fraudulent issuing of invoices to NAB for non-NAB expenditure related to count 30	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
32	1 July 2013 – 30 September 2015	39,700.00	Garden umbrellas for Rosamond’s Mosman residence	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
33	23 October 2014 – 27 October 2014	64,469.96	Weekend away at Wolgan Valley for Rogers, Rogers’ sister’s family, and Rogers’ in-laws	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
34	7 November 2014 – 10 November 2014	4,732.84	One-night stay at Crown Metropole, Melbourne for Rogers and her husband	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
35	5 December 2014	7,500.00	Rogers’ marina berthing fees	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
36	22 February 2015 – 17 April 2015	91,290.00	Balance payable for Rogers’ Bunkhouse Caravan (excluding deposit)	s 249B(2)	2	2 years
37	1 July 2014 – 30 June 2015	91,290.00	Fraudulent invoices issued to NAB for non-NAB expenditure related to Count 36	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
38	26 February 2015 – 6 March 2015	29,377.00	10th Wedding Anniversary trip to Tasmania for Rogers and her husband	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
39	2 April 2015 – 12 April 2015	250,414.16	8-night Fiji holiday for Rogers and her sister’s family	s 249B(2)	1	4 years
40	1 March 2015 – 30 September 2015	221,285.95	Fraudulent invoices issued to NAB for non-NAB expenditure related to Count 39	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
41	1 April 2015 – 30 September 2015	139,841.00	Part-payment for Canadian Rockies holiday for Rosamond, her husband, her twin sons and her parents (6 persons)	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
42	1 April 2015 – 30 September 2015	62,000.00 - 70,000.00	Fraudulent invoices including 50% mark-up on non-NAB related expenses in Count 41	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
43	29 April 2015 – 3 May 2015	3,913.00	Flights from Melbourne to Adelaide for Rogers’ husband and brother-in-law	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
44	26 June 2015 – 27 June 2015	26,168.27	One night stay at Crown Towers Melbourne for Rogers and 12 other guests	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
45	1 April 2015 – 30 September 2016	14,358.20	Catering for Rosamond’s 40th birthday party	s 192E(1)(b)	7	18 months
46	1 February 2015 – 30 September 2016	32,712.70	Repairs and installation of furniture on Rosamond and her husband’s catamaran	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
47	4 July 2014 – 11 July 2015	4,345.50	Return flights from Melbourne to Sydney for Rogers and one of Rogers’ sisters	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
48	17 July 2015 – 26 July 2015	21,538.96	Broome Holiday for Rogers’ sister and her husband	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
49	30 June 2015 – 30 September 2016	372,611.00	Garden renovations at Rosamond’s Mosman home	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
50	27 August 2015 – 31 August 2015	55,472.17	Wolgan Valley getaway for Rogers’ family and her sister’s family	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
51	1 July 2015 – 30 September 2016	14,286.00	Perth holiday for Rosamond’s parents in law	s 192E(1)(b)	7	18 months
52	1 July 2015 – 30 September 2016	13,981.30	Electrical work at Rosamond’s Mosman residence	s 192E(1)(b)	7	18 months
53	13 October 2015 – 14 October 2016	110,000	Prepaid Mastercards	s 249B(2)	2	2 years
54	13 October 2015 – 14 October 2016	86,413.26	Renovations at Rosamond’s home	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
55	13 October 2015 – 14 October 2016	110,000.00	Two pre-paid mastercards	s 249B(2)	2	2 years
56	7 December 2015	7,500.00	Rogers’ marina berthing fees	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
57	30 December 2015 – 11 January 2016	5,136.58	Return flights from Melbourne to Perth for one of Rogers’ relatives	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
58	30 August 2015 – 24 January 2016	6,398.86	Return flights from Melbourne to Chile for Rogers’ nanny and her nanny’s child	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
59	1 July 2015 – 30 September 2016	50,000.00	Prepaid Mastercard	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
60	31 March 2016 – 4 April 2016	8,331.08	Weekend at Crown Towers Melbourne for Rogers’ family and Rogers’ sister’s family	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
61	1 July 2015 – 30 September 2016	17,888.88	Aboriginal Artwork purchased by Rosamond	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
62	14 April 2016 – 18 April 2016	4,472.04	Overnight accommodation for Rogers’ family and Rogers’ sister’s family	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
63	27 April 2016 – 24 May 2016	115,000.00	Amount payable for Chaparral boat purchased by Rogers after trading in Bayliner boat	s 249B(2)	2	2 years
64	1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016	115,000.00	Fraudulent invoices charged to NAB for non-NAB expenditure related to Count 63	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
65	14 May 2016 – 18 May 2017	468,726.00	Extensions and renovations at Rogers’ holiday house in Bellbrae, Victoria	s 249B(2)	1	4 years
66	1 July 2016 – 30 June 2017	468,726.00	Fraudulent invoices charged to NAB for non-NAB expenditure related to Count 65	s 192E(1)(b)	5	6 years
67	15 June 2016 – 20 June 2016	5,240.87	Three nights accommodation at Crown Towers Melbourne for Rogers’ family and Rogers’ sister’s family	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
68	29 June 2017 – 3 July 2017	23,570.84	Return trip from Sydney to Melbourne for Rogers to meet Rosamond. Accommodation and miscellaneous expenses at Crown Towers Melbourne for Rogers and her husband (2 nights)	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
69	28 July 2016 – 1 August 2016	5,389.43	Two nights accommodation at Crown Towers for Rogers’ family and Rogers’ sister’s family	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
70	25 August 2016 – 29 August 2016	75,865.00	Wolgan Valley trip (2 nights) for Rogers’ family, Rogers’ sister’s family and other guests (10 persons)	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
71	8 September 2016 – 12 September 2017	1,210.44	2 nights accommodation at Onshore Torquay for Rogers and her husband	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
73	13 October 2016 – 17 October 2016	1,089.72	Accommodation at Onshore Torquay for Rogers and her husband	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
74	23 November 2016 – 29 November 2016	2,016.68	Accommodation at Onshore Torquay for Rogers and her husband	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
75	8 December 2016 – 12 December 2016	18,123.17	Two nights accommodation and miscellaneous charges at Crown Towers for Rogers family and Rogers’ sister’s family	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
76	6 January 2017	7,500.00	Rogers’ marina berthing fees	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
77	23 February 2017	1,446.15	‘Dinner by Heston Blumenthal’ for Rogers and three others	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
78	17 March 2017 – 20 March 2017	3,544.71	One night stay at Crown Towers Melbourne for Rogers and her husband	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
79	13 April 2017 – 24 April 2017	65,874.36	Nine-day holiday in Port Douglas for Rogers’ family and her sister’s family	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
80	1 September 2016 – 30 September 2017	228,747.28	Interior design services including sourcing and installation of furniture for Rosamond’s residence at Potts Point	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
81	1 September 2016 – 30 September 2017	45,000.00-59,951.58	Fees and mark-up on invoice to NAB for non-NAB related expenditure in Count 80	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
82	24 August 2017 – 27 August 2017	47,281.22	Gold Coast Holiday for Rogers’ family and her sister’s family	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
83	8 September 2017 – 11 September 2017	10,819.34	Travel from Melbourne to Sydney (one night) for Rosemary Rogers, her husband, and her brother-in law	s 249B(2)	3	18 months
84	15 September 2017	380,000.00	Deposit for purchase of house in Williamstown, Victoria by Rosemary Rogers	s 249B(2)	1	4 years
85	1 October 2017 – 25 November 2017	1,500,000.00	Bank Cheque provided to Rosemary Rogers for payment towards purchase price of house in Williamstown	s 249B(2)	1	4 years
86	26 September 2017 – 30 June 2018	2,200,000.00	Fraudulent invoice created for ‘Project Eagle’ of which Rosamond retained $700,000 (related to Count 85)	s 192E(1)(b)	5	6 years
87	12 December 2017	7,500.00	Rogers’ marina berthing fees	s 249B(2)	4	12 months
88	1 June 2017 – 30 June 2018	82,642.89	Payments for rent of Rosamond’s premises in Potts Point	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
89	1 July 2017 – 30 June 2018	16,511.92	On-charging of Rosamond’s parents’ rent for their rental property in Potts Point	s 192E(1)(b)	6	3 years
90	22 February 2018 – 28 February 2018	3,331,153.13	Fraudulent invoice issued to NAB following whistle blower letter	s 192E(1)(b)	Attempt	5 years
91	1 July 2014 – 30 June 2018	2,396,000.00 - 4,956,000.00	Undeclared prepayments not returned to the NAB	s 192E(1)(b)	5	6 years
92	25 November 2015 – 13 February 2016	500,000.00 -  520,000.00	Inflated Invoice for services to Vicinity Centres for Christmas parties organised	s 192E(1)(b)	Attempt	3 years

**********

Decision last updated: 20 July 2023