Steve Iliopoulos v The Queen - [2017] VSCA 384

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0179

STEVE ILIOPOULOS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

S APCR 2016 0180

VASILIS BARIAMIS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, WEINBERG and PRIEST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	2 October 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 December 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 384
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2016] VSC 447 (Kaye JA)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Obtaining financial advantage by deception – Applications for bank finance – False statements about amounts receivable – Documents prepared by finance manager – Whether applicants knew of falsehoods – Whether finance manager’s evidence credible – Reasonably open to jury to convict – Applications refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception – Application for bank finance – False statements about amounts receivable – Bank detected anomaly in financial statements – Finance manager gave false explanation – No further information provided – Whether conduct merely preparatory – Application refused – R v Andreola (2002) 131 A Crim R 259 followed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception – Sentenced after trial to 5 years’ imprisonment – Sentenced as continuing criminal enterprise offender – Applicable maximum penalty doubled to 10 years – Amount applied for was $53 million – Applicant was owner and controller of corporate group – Sentence reasonably open – Application refused – Sentencing Act 1991 pt 2B.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant (Iliopoulos)	Mr M E Dempsey	Lethbridges Barristers & Solicitors
For the Applicant (Bariamis)	Mr D Gurvich QC with Mr L J D Howson	Dribbin & Brown Criminal Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr C B Boyce SC with Mr J Gullaci	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
WEINBERG JA
PRIEST JA:

The first applicant (‘SI’)[1] was found guilty by a Supreme Court jury of 11 charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, and one charge of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception. The jury acquitted him of two other charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. He was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 years.
[1]The use of initials has been used in the place of certain names throughout this judgment for ease of reference, rather than for the purpose of anonymisation.

The second applicant (‘BB’)[2] was convicted by the same jury of two charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, and one charge of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception. The jury acquitted him of one other charge of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. He was sentenced to 6 years and 5 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years.
[2]Mr Vasilis Bariamis also went by the name of Bill.

Each applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his convictions. SI also seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the attempt charge. For reasons which follow, we would…

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Continue reading Steve Iliopoulos v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Steve Iliopoulos v The Queen [2017] VSCA 384
Case: [2017] VSCA 384
Decision Date: 20 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steve Iliopoulos, the appellant, appealed against his conviction and sentence on charges related to obtaining financial advantage by deception. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The dispute centered around the appellant’s alleged involvement in making false statements about the amounts receivable when applying for bank finance. The case involved intricate financial documents prepared by the finance manager, raising questions about whether the appellant was aware of the false information contained within these documents. The central legal issues that the Court had to decide were whether the evidence was credible enough to support the jury's conviction and whether the conduct amounted to a substantive offence or was merely preparatory.

The Court assessed the credibility of the finance manager’s evidence and found it to be sufficiently reliable to allow the jury to reasonably convict the appellant. The Court determined that the evidence presented indicated that the appellant was aware of the false statements made in the financial documents. The appellant's control over the corporate group and the significant amount applied for, $53 million, further supported the conviction. The Court also concluded that the actions went beyond mere preparation, constituting a substantive attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception. The Court followed the principles established in R v Andreola (2002) 131 A Crim R 259, which helped in assessing the nature of the offence.

The Court further addressed the appellant's argument regarding his sentence, which was set at 5 years' imprisonment, with an additional 5 years due to being classified as a continuing criminal enterprise offender, bringing the total to 10 years. The Court found the sentence to be reasonably open, given the circumstances, including the significant amount involved and the appellant's control over the corporate group. The Court dismissed the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence, affirming the decision of the lower court.

Orders