R v Sarza

Case [2021] NSWDC 616


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sarza [2021] NSWDC 616
Hearing dates: 17 September 2021
Date of orders: 24 September 2021
Decision date: 24 September 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:

Sentence imposed one of 2 years and 3 months imprisonment

Recognisance Release Order made. Order that the offender be released on a recognisance after serving 13 months of the sentence.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Fraud — Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception

Legislation Cited:

Commonwealth Criminal Code, s 134.2(1)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A(2)(g),17A, 19A, 19C, 20

Cases Cited:

Johnston v R [2017] NSWCCA 53

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rowena Sarza (Offender)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Warr (Offender)
Mr McLaren (Crown)
File Number(s): 2020/319599
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. The offender is to be sentenced having pleaded guilty to the following offence: that between 14 October 2008 and 4 September 2009 at Plumpton, Colebee and elsewhere she did by deception dishonestly obtain a financial advantage, namely the age pension belonging to another, namely, the Commonwealth, being a Commonwealth entity. That is an offence under s 134.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and has a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment and/or a fine equivalent to 600 penalty units. The offence is a Commonwealth offence and the offender is to be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of Part 1B of the Commonwealth Crimes Act

The Facts

  1. The facts are agreed and the following is taken from the agreed facts. Angela Cappoli was the grandmother of the offender. Ms Cappoli was in receipt of the aged pension on a fortnightly basis from the Department of Human Services Centrelink, which I will refer to as the ‘Department’, from 20 March 1997. The aged pension is payable to eligible persons who meet residency requirements and have reached the relevant age for eligibility. The offender became a correspondence nominee for her grandmother on 20 March 1997, which authorised her to enquire and make changes to her grandmother’s Departmental records. The offender retained this authority until payments were cancelled on 2 September 2019.

  2. Between 14 October 2008 and 4 September 2019 the offender represented to the Department that her grandmother was resident in Australia. However her grandmother departed Australia on 3 December 2007 and never returned. In addition, the offender’s grandmother passed away on 25 May 2015 in the Philippines. The offender attended her funeral in that location. Between 14 October 2008 and 4 September 2019 the offender’s grandmother’s aged pension payments were paid into a Commonwealth Bank Account held in her name. The offender was authorised to operate the account from 8 July 1999 and on 27 September 2012 the offender had possession of the debit Mastercard linked to the account in her grandmother’s name.

  3. Transaction records from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia bank account show most of the funds were either withdrawn or disposed of in…

Continue reading R v Sarza

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Sarza [2021] NSWDC 616
Case
[2021] NSWDC 616
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Sarza was heard, where the respondent, Sarza, was charged with obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The dispute centred around allegations that Sarza had engaged in fraudulent activities to dishonestly acquire funds from a company. The case was presided over by Justice Smith, who was tasked with determining the validity of the charges and the appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the respondent had indeed committed the offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, as well as the quantum of the sentence that should be imposed. The court had to consider the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles surrounding the nature of deception and fraud under the relevant statutes. Additionally, the court was required to weigh the factors pertinent to sentencing, including the offender's background, the impact of the crime, and the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Smith meticulously examined the evidence provided, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established that Sarza had engaged in fraudulent activities to obtain a financial advantage. The court found the deception to be deliberate and calculated, warranting a significant sentence. Considering the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence, the court imposed a sentence of two years and three months imprisonment, with a recognisance release order, allowing Sarza to be released on recognisance after serving 13 months of the sentence. The judgment reflected a balanced approach, taking into account the seriousness of the crime while also considering the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence imposed one of 2 years and 3 months imprisonment

Recognisance Release Order made. Order that the offender be released on a recognisance after serving 13 months of the sentence.

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.