R v Valvo

Case [2025] NSWDC 422


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Valvo [2025] NSWDC 422
Hearing dates: 7, 12 February 2025
Date of orders: 12 February 2025
Decision date: 12 February 2025
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

See par [115].

Catchwords:

CRIME – SENTENCE – Engage in dishonest conduct in relation to a financial product while carrying out a financial services business – Approximately $10,000 taken from each of 12 victims’ superannuation accounts – Offender submitted Change of Account Fees forms to administrator of superannuation fund, known by him to be not genuine – All victims paid back (only 2x wholly by offender) – Little evidence as to financial standing of offender, fine of $20,000 imposed in addition to a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

Legislation Cited:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 760A, 1041G, 1311(1)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A(2), 16C, 17A(1), 20(1)(b)

Cases Cited:

DPP (Cth) v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1, [53]

Jahandideh v R [2014] NSWCCA 178

Nicholls v R [2016] VSCA 300, [42]

Texts Cited:

Nil.

Category:Sentence
Parties: Crown – R (Cth)
Offender – David Mario Valvo
Representation:

Counsel:
Crown – Ms Wootton, N.
Offender – Mr Clark, B.

Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Offender – Baker Ryrie Rickards Titmarsh
File Number(s): 2024/00113580
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: David Mario Valvo stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to a charge that between about 23 July 2019 and about 15 January 2020, at Sydney in this State, he did in the course of carrying on a financial services business in this jurisdiction engage in dishonest conduct in relation to a financial product, contrary to s 1041G and s 1311(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Corporations Act’). The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine in the circumstances of this case amounting to $945,000.

  2. The following are the particulars of the charge: the offender did on or about 23 July 2019, 7 August 2019, 3 September 2019, 7 November 2019, 26 November 2019 and 17 December 2019, in the course of carrying out the business known as Your Financial Freedom Pty Ltd, completed and submitted Change of Account Fees forms to Macquarie Investment Management Pty Ltd to pay “adviser fees - ad hoc” in the amount of $10,000 or $5,000 in relation to Wealthtrac Superannuation Master Trust and Todd Haywood, Deborah Logan, Francis Muir, Camille Usher, Garry Whan, Romolo Costagliola, Ilija Bicanic, Jane Aming, David Attard, Megan Attard, Alexandra Bartlett and Prodomos Aspris, which the offender knew were not genuine. The offence can be seen as a “rolled up” offence in respect of the 12 personal victims of the offender’s activity.

  3. The offender became a registered financial adviser on 1 February 2004. His registered number on the financial services register was 273031. At all relevant times during the period of his offending between July 2019 and January 2020, the offender was the sole director and…

Continue reading R v Valvo

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Valvo [2025] NSWDC 422
Case
[2025] NSWDC 422
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Valvo, the defendant was charged with engaging in dishonest conduct in relation to a financial product while carrying out a financial services business. Valvo was found to have taken approximately $10,000 from each of the accounts of 12 victims’ superannuation accounts through the submission of Change of Account Fees forms, which he knew to be not genuine. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Valvo’s actions constituted the criminal offence as alleged and, if so, what the appropriate sentence should be. The court needed to consider the nature and extent of the dishonest conduct, the number of victims affected, and the financial circumstances of the offender.

The court held that Valvo’s actions did indeed constitute the criminal offence, as he had knowingly submitted false documents to the administrator of the superannuation fund, resulting in the theft of significant sums from multiple victims. Given the gravity of the offence and the number of victims, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, suspended for two years, and a fine of $20,000. The court took into account the fact that all victims had been repaid, although only two were fully repaid by the offender himself. The court also noted the limited evidence regarding Valvo’s financial standing.

The court ordered that Valvo be subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment and a fine of $20,000. These orders reflect the court’s consideration of the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the limited financial information available regarding Valvo.

Orders

Orders of the court

See par [115].

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.