R v Rosamond (No 3)

Case [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…

Continue reading R v Rosamond (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Rosamond (No 3) [2023] NSWDC 267
Case
[2023] NSWDC 267
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rosamond (No 3) involved an individual who was found guilty of multiple counts of fraud by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, contracted by a bank to coordinate events, engaged in a scheme with a co-offender who was a bank employee. Together, they manipulated invoices and expense reimbursements over a period of five years, resulting in a financial gain exceeding $19 million through fraudulent means. The court had to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception and if there was sufficient evidence to prove the corrupt giving of benefits.

The primary legal issues centered around the interpretation of dishonesty and the scope of the fraudulent activities. The court needed to assess whether the defendant's conduct was dishonest under the common law definition, and whether the transactions were corruptly given benefits as per the Criminal Code. Additionally, the court examined the symbiotic relationship between the defendant and the co-offender and its impact on the financial transactions. The court's analysis focused on the nature of the deception, the extent of the financial gain, and the involvement of the co-offender in the fraudulent scheme.

The court found the defendant guilty of all charges, emphasizing the significant scale of the fraud and the defendant's active role in orchestrating the scheme. The court noted the defendant's sophisticated manipulation of the bank's systems and the substantial financial advantage obtained through fraudulent invoices and expense claims. The symbiotic relationship with the co-offender was deemed to be a critical factor in facilitating the fraud. Considering the gravity of the offences and the extensive period over which they were committed, the court imposed a sentence of 15 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years.

The court's final orders included the imposition of an aggregate term of imprisonment of 15 years with a non-parole period of 8 years, reflecting the severity and impact of the defendant's fraudulent activities. The sentencing also included provisions for the confiscation of any proceeds obtained from the fraud, ensuring that the defendant does not benefit financially from their criminal conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.