The Queen v Arora

[2018] VCC 1563

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA  Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 16-01610

The Queen

v

REKHA ARORA
RAKESH KUMAR
BALJIT SINGH
MUKESH SHARMA

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE O'CONNELL
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19, 20 and 27 July 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 September 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Arora & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VCC 1563

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Catchwords:  Conspiracy to influence a Commonwealth Public Official; Conspiracy to deal in proceeds of crime; Lengthy trial; Operation of Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) as a single fraudulent enterprise; Wholesale fabrication of documents to deceive regulator; Dealing in proceeds of crime-government subsidies; False claims that students adequately taught and trained; Sentencing principles; Role of individual offenders; Third party hardship involving one offender; Exceptional circumstances.

Legislation Cited: s.135.4(7), s.11.5(1) and s.400.3(1) of Criminal Code (Cth)
s.16A(2) of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
  s.320 of Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 (Cth)

Cases Cited:R v Thai [2005] VSCA 283, R v Xeba, Rovena [2009] VSCA 205, R v Carmody100 A Crim R 41 , R v Nagul [2007] VSCA 8, R v Host [2015] WASCA 23

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	Ms K. Breckweg	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
For Accused ARORA For Accused KUMAR For Accused SINGH For Accused SHARMA	Mr D. Sheales Mr L. Barker Mr D. Sheales Mr L. Howson	Madison Branson Lawyers Emma Turnball Lawyers Madison Branson Lawyers Melbourne Legal Group

Introduction

1On 13 March 2018, a jury was empanelled to try Baljit Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Sharma, Varinder Kaur and Rekha Arora on the following two charges. 

First, that between 1 July 2011 and 5 August 2015, they did conspire with each other to dishonestly influence a Commonwealth public official in the exercise of the official's duties, contrary to s.135.4(7) of the Criminal Code (Cth).

Second, that between 10 March 2014 and 7 July 2015, they conspired with each other to deal with money that was and that they believed to be, proceeds of crime, and at the time of dealing with the money or property, it was $1m or more, contrary to ss.11.5(1) and 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).

2Each of the accused pleaded not guilty to both offences.  In support of its case, the prosecution called fifty-six witnesses, occupying thirty-nine sitting days.  No evidence was called by any of the accused.  On 25 May 2018, Baljit Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Sharma and Rekha Arora, were found guilty on both charges.  Varinder Kaur was acquitted of both charges.

Overview of Offending

3Both charges concerned two private colleges or schools operated as Registered Training Organisations (RTOs), St Stephen Institute of Technology, (SSIT), located at Level 1, 909 High Street Reservoir and Symbiosis Institute of Technical Education, (SITE), located at Level 1-3, Whitehall Street in Footscray.  Each school catered to both international students and domestic students.

4International students studying in Australia on student visas, paid fees directly to the schools for the provision of Vocational Education and Training (VET) courses.  They were full fee paying, self-funded and received no subsidy from the Commonwealth or Victorian governments. 

5The two schools were also registered with the Victorian Department of Education, to provide VET courses to domestic students under what was called the Skills Victoria Grants Program.  Through that program, Registered Training Organisations were eligible to apply for and receive subsidies payable by the Victorian Department of Education for VET courses provided to domestic students. 

6The prosecution case accepted by the jury was that between 1 July 2011 and 5 August 2015, the two RTOs were deliberately managed and operated by the accused, in a way which was designed to give the appearance that the schools were providing approved VET courses to students, as genuine RTOs, when in reality they were not.

7The evidence demonstrated that the two RTOs were in fact operated as a single fraudulent enterprise.  The prosecutor submitted in his closing address to the jury that these schools were a sham, where a facade of legitimacy was used to fraudulently obtain thousands of dollars from international students and thousands from the Victorian government in subsidies for domestic students.  The jury's verdicts reflect their acceptance of that submission.

8The first charge was concerned with a standing plan to present whatever documents were required, to make it look like the schools were complying with the required standards.  At the sentencing hearing, the Crown argued the facade of legitimacy maintained in respect of each school involved the following.

"….maintaining and occupying rented premises for the schools.  Employing a minimum number of staff, creating and maintaining generic policy and procedure documentation.  Creating and maintaining generic teaching and assessment guides that were never genuinely utilised or implemented.  Publishing websites with limited functionality and content that appeared to comply with TRO and VET course requirements.  Providing attending students with a limited number of classrooms, computers and printers.  Failing to provide any genuine teaching and assessment in accordance with the guidelines and standards set by the relevant authorities. 

Students were not genuinely assessed as to their competency in accordance with course progress policy, nor did they receive genuine teaching and assessment, as outlined in teaching and assessment guides, including structured classes, individual and group assessment and simulated workplace environments. They maintained false timetables for class times and subjects.  Students did not attend for structured subject base classes at all. 

Students were enrolled, sometimes falsely and without their knowledge and were kept on record with the creation of the superficial student files, fake student assessments and completed assignments and other false documents and records as required.  In a large number of instances, the accused collectively, either directed or knew students were being directed to fabricate or copy existing assessment templates to be submitted as the students purported assessment as to their competency”.

9In fraudulently satisfying any compliance checks if audited by the regulator, both schools were able to retain their status as RTOs, which enabled them to continue to operate, to charge fees and to remain eligible to apply for government funding. 

10Charge 2 was concerned with a plan formulated between the defendants to deal in proceeds of crime, being the subsidies paid by the Victorian state government for educating and training domestic students.  These subsidies were fraudulently claimed because the students were not being properly taught, if at all.

11Both RTOs failed to provide adequate instruction and teaching in respect of the courses for which they were registered.  Students were enrolled, sometimes falsely and without their knowledge, and were kept on record with the bare minimum being done, so that the schools could receive government funding.  The total amount obtained in the period of March 2014 to July 2015 was $2,007,487.75, inclusive of GST. 

Background to Offending – St Stephen Institute of Technology

12On 28 July 2008, St Stephen was registered with ASIC with Baljit Singh as its director.  On 11 October 2010, St Stephen became registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, (CRICOS).  Education providers registered on CRICOS gained the authority to market to and create enrolments for overseas students, which enabled them to apply for a visa to study in Australia.

13On 22 November 2010, Mr Kumar acquired a 25 per cent stake in St Stephen, having assisted Mr Singh to obtain RTO status.  Both Mr Singh and Mr Kumar had access to the Provider Registration and International Student Management System known as PRISMS, a database which enabled them to create certificates of enrolments for overseas students. 

14On 1 July 2011, legislative change resulted in the establishment of the Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA as the regulatory authority.  Under that regulatory regime, St Stephen was approved to deliver vocational education training and assessment in a number of VET courses, including Certificate IV in Business, Diploma of business, Advanced Diploma of Business, Diploma of Management, Diploma of Information Technology Networking and Advanced Diploma of Information Technology Project Management.  These courses ranged in duration between six to eighteen months.

Background to Offending – Symbiosis Institute of Technical Education

15Symbiosis was registered as an RTO on 31 July 2010.  Mukesh Sharma purchased the business on 21 February 2014 and as at 7 April 2014,
Mr Sharma held, approximately, a 10 per cent stake in Symbiosis,
Mr Kumar's wife, Nancy Wadhwa, held approximately 90 per cent.  Symbiosis obtained its CRICOS registration in February 2011 and it was approved to deliver VET approved training and assessment in courses of Diploma of Business, Advanced Diploma of Management, Certificate IV in Accounting, Certificate III in Printing and Graphic Arts (Multimedia) and Certificate IV in Printing and Graphic Arts (Multimedia).  These courses also ranged in duration between six to eighteen months.

Relationships Between the Defendants

16An important component of the prosecution case in proof of the conspiracies was the family and work relationships between the accused.  Baljit Singh was co-director, the chief executive officer, a majority shareholder of St Stephen and he is married to Rekha Arora.  Rakesh Kumar was co-director, RTO manager in a minority owned shareholder at St Stephen.  He also worked as a trainer and assessor and compliance contractor for Symbiosis.  Mr Kumar is married to Nancy Wadhwa who is the majority shareholder in Symbiosis and Mr Kumar is the brother of Rekha Arora, and therefore the brother in law of Baljit Singh.

17Mukesh Sharma was the CEO of Symbiosis and a minority shareholder.  He was also the enrolment officer at St Stephen. Mr Sharma met Baljit Singh through Mr Singh's Australia Post Business, where Mr Sharma originally worked as a courier driver, and then ultimately as a manager.  Ms Arora was a trainer and assessor for St Stephen and also for Symbiosis.  As I have indicated, she is the sister of Mr Kumar and is married to Mr Singh.

18The accused who was acquitted, Varinder Kaur, worked in administration at
St Stephen. She was the sister of Baljit Singh. 

Evidence relied upon at trial – The mechanics of the VET system

19At the commencement of the trial, the prosecution called a number of witnesses describing the operation of RTOs and the legislative, regulatory and educational environment in which they were to operate.  To the credit of the parties, much of that technical evidence was admitted through a Notice of Agreed Facts.

20Further ‘foundational evidence’ was called to explain generally how vocational education and training should be delivered.  What emerged was that the system was essentially self-regulating, but lacked accountability.  For example, education providers could use what was described as a ‘course progress policy’ rather than a ‘course attendance policy’.  Under a ‘course progress policy’, students did not have to attend classes or school.  Their progress was supposed to be monitored by the student forwarding assignments electronically.  The policy could only work as intended if the school genuinely engaged and followed up on students.  As the evidence unfolded, it became clear that the accused sought to deceive ASQA into accepting that students were being genuinely monitored and properly taught, when that was not so. 

21In the case of the Victorian system which provided subsidies to domestic students and was relevant to Charge 2, the evidence described how each school uploaded information as the training progressed through the Skills Victoria Training System, (SVTS).  Payments for the training of each individual student were claimed monthly.  Each time a payment was claimed, the school represented that the training had been delivered to the student concerned, to the standard required.  The following passage from the evidence of the witness
Ms Leigh Watts is instructive.  Ms Watts was the Assistant Deputy Secretary of Vocational Education and Training Reform Group within the Victorian Department of Education and Training.  She said:

"…in terms of ethical behaviour, there are requirements within the contract that relate to being a fit and proper person, maintaining the standards the Victorian government expects of its outsourced delivery agents.  Being honest, being credible, and most importantly, putting the interests of students of the centre of their training...” 

“…Registered training organisations currently have a period of a window of sixty days after training has occurred, to be able to make a payment claim.  Within that period of time, they are able to, and should be ensuring that what they are making a claim for is accurate and realistic by checking their records.  Each time a payment claim is made, in effect, the person who is making the claim is attesting to the veracity of that claim".[1]

[1] Pp. 404-405 TT.

22Through Ms Watts, the prosecution tendered the Skills Victoria Training System payment history for each school, Exhibits B3.1 and B3.2.  Payments to St Stephen ranged between approximately $7,600 to $3,000 in total for each student.  The payments to Symbiosis ranged approximately between $4,700 to $3,700 in total for each student.

23The second charge alleged that a conspiracy to deal in the proceeds of crime of $1m or more.  The jury was directed that if they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the alleged quantum of $1m, it was open to them to return a verdict on a lesser alternative charge, alleging a conspiracy to deal in the proceeds of crime of $100,000 or more.  In the event, the jury returned verdicts in respect of the more serious charge, alleging the $1m quantum.

24It followed that the jury took the view that all, or virtually all of the claims made by the schools, with respect to domestic students were fraudulent and that more or less, the whole education program for domestic students was a sham. 

25During the period 10 March 2014 to July 2015, St Stephen claimed fraudulent subsidies for two hundred students, purportedly enrolled in Diploma of Information Technology Networking.  The total amount involved was $1,183,747.50, or $1,302,122.25 inclusive of GST. 

26During the period 28 October 2014 and July 2015, Symbiosis claimed fraudulent subsidies for one hundred and forty-eight students purportedly enrolled in Diploma of Business or Certificate IV in Printing and Graphic Arts Multimedia.  The total involved was $637,605 or $701,365.50 inclusive of GST. 

27The total amount of fraudulent subsidies claimed and received by the schools pursuant to this agreement was $1,821,452.50 or $2,700,487.75 inclusive of GST.

Evidence relied upon at trial the Symbiosis audit. 

28On 20 April 2015, a principal regulatory officer from ASQA, Mathew McMahon, was assigned the task of conducting a VET renewal audit of Symbiosis.  The audit was triggered by a renewal application submitted by Symbiosis for its VET registration.  On 20 May 2015, Mr McMahon contacted the third accused Mukesh Sharma, as the CEO of Symbiosis, to arrange a suitable time for the registration compliance visit. Mr McMahon requested various documents to be sent to him in advance of that visit.

29In response, on 10 June 2015 Mr Sharma sent an email to Mr McMahon attaching a series of documents which came to form Exhibits B4.1.2 to B4.1.3, A – P.  These documents consisted generally of training and assessment strategies, delivery assessment plans, policy documents as to monitoring academic progress, timetables and the curriculum vitaes of trainers.  The prosecution argued, and it is plain that the jury accepted, that Mr Sharma in forwarding these documents, represented to ASQA that Symbiosis was providing training in the manner described in the documents.  In fact, it was doing no such thing.

30For example, the documents contained timetables that were a work a fiction  Students were not attending classes at all, nor were they being genuinely monitored or taught.  Twenty-two of the forty-seven students called at trial were in one way or another enrolled at Symbiosis.  Seventeen of those twenty-two were domestic students.  Five were international students.  Twelve had never attended the college at all.  Five did attend to enrol, but never engaged in any study at all.  Five of the twenty-two students were enrolled and did complete some learning tasks.  The files of those students, whether they completed some learning tasks or not, invariably contained fabricated assessments and/or plagiarised answers, together with fake administrative records.

31On 24 and 25 June 2015, Mr McMahon together with other ASQA colleagues attended at Symbiosis and spoke with Mr Sharma, who introduced himself as the CEO and Mr Kumar, who introduced himself as the RTO manager.  Baljit Singh told the police in his Record of Interview that he was present at the time of the audit at Symbiosis to provide what he called "moral support" to the others. 

32Each of the defendants had received training in what an RTO was required to do, in order to obtain and maintain registration.  They each had undertaken a Certificate IV in training and assessment for RTOs in order to qualify to hold positions of responsibility in the two schools, and they all understood exactly what the auditors would need to assess. 

33At that audit, ASQA officers were provided with various further documents, including assessment tools relating to specific units of competency, student handbooks, staff handbooks, policies and procedures, list of current students, student files and assessments.

34The prosecution contended that a large proportion of those documents were not genuine and in many instances fabricated.  For example, policy and strategy documents purported to outline the procedures adopted by Symbiosis to monitor and address the attendance and academic progress of students.  The evidence from the students overwhelmingly established that these policies and strategies were not applied in the manner outlined in the documents.

35The list that students provided to Mr McMahon named many people that had never attended at Symbiosis or had only attended once to enrol.  The evidence further demonstrated that the audit process was flawed in that it examined compliance essentially on paper alone.  Auditors did not, for example, speak to students or attend classes to assess what was actually happening within the school. In essence, the audit looked at the paper, not at the teaching.

36It followed that if a group of people who knew what was required and were prepared to fabricate documents purporting to show compliance, then it was possible for them to create the facade of a compliant and well-functioning RTO. That is what the accused did.  To the extent that non-compliance was identified in the audit, schools were given, as a matter of practice, an opportunity to rectify that non-compliance.  The accused understood this.  It followed that the deception of the regulator by each of the accused needed only to be substantive, not perfect. 

37Ultimately, in forwarding the documents to ASQA in June and in his dealings with Mr McMahon on 24 June 2015, Mr Sharma, together with Mr Kumar and Mr Singh, falsely represented to ASQA during the renewal audit process that Symbiosis was complying with the policies and standards required of a Registered Training Organisation.

Evidence relied upon at trial - the St Stephen audit

38The prosecution case was that St Stephen was operated in readiness to respond to an audit by the regulator and to present whatever was needed to maintain registration.  On 1 July 2015, a Principal Compliance Officer from ASQA, Katherine Owen, phoned Baljit Singh as the CEO, to arrange for ASQA to conduct a compliance visit at St Stephen.  After some discussion and a number of calls, it was agreed that the compliance visit would take place on
20 July 2015.

39At the time these arrangements were made, Mr Singh's telephone service was lawfully intercepted.  In addition, optical surveillance devices were installed under warrant inside St Stephen.  In this way, the AFP were able to monitor the accused response to ASQA's proposed compliance visit.  The prosecution argued that the telephone intercept evidence showed the accused setting about arranging to produce fabricated documents, that would enable them to pass the audit.  It was perhaps the most damming piece of evidence relied upon at trial.

40The following extract of a call between Mr Singh and Mr Kumar provides some sense of the type of discussions that took place in the calls.  This extract is taken from Call 3 at 12.08 on 1 July 2015, paragraphs 47 to 59.

"Singh: Mate, the condition is that we don't have time to breathe.  We just had the re-registration done and now this audit. 

Kumar: Whenever we tried to do some work on this side, something always goes wrong on other side. 

Singh: That's the problem I said, but our assessments of college are all correct. 

Kumar: We just made them. 

Singh: Is Advanced Diploma all done? 

Kumar: Only three, four were left and now I will make them.  They can check any one of them.  Nothing will happen.  The reason I left them was we are not getting any student up until next year. 

Singh: But they will say because you have the course, you must have that.

Kumar: They will say that and we have to get everything ready now. 

Singh: The rest is under control, we already kept that isn't it? 

Kumar: It's five year record Bobby and we cannot. 

Singh: Mate, they're not going to check five year record.  That did not happen in Symbiosis.  At the max, they will only check last year's record.  They are not going to check that much.

Kumar: I will try, let's see what will come out.  We need to work as per policy, validation, et cetera and it's never ending work and we're not doing everything legitimate, that everything will work out by itself. 

Singh: No one does it in correct way.  No college has that.  You can go to any college. 

41The jury was able to assess what was said in these calls in the light of what was said by the students themselves about their own student files.  Of the twenty-eight students called to give evidence in connection with St Stephen, each was shown their student administration file.  Overwhelmingly, call records, meeting records were confirmed as having never taken place and thus fabricated. Emails on file were never received.  Signatures on many of the administration documents were often forged.  By its verdict, the jury clearly accepted that these documents were placed in the files for the purpose of deceiving of ASQA officers that St Stephen was complying with the required standards. 

42Five of those twenty-eight students had never attended the college.  Seven had enrolled, but did not thereafter pursue their studies.  Sixteen performed some learning tasks, but for the most part, their files were replete with fabricated work and fake assessments.

43As part of the evidence it relied on, the prosecution tendered what was called ‘comparison bundles’ and these were folders which grouped together student assignments and completed tasks that demonstrated widespread plagiarism and fabrication of student work. 

44The optical surveillance device, which operated 24 hours a day showed a telling lack of activity at St Stephen during times when classes were supposed to be held, or teaching was supposed to be conducted.  The summary of that evidence was tendered by agreement as Exhibit CC.

45As the prosecutor submitted to the jury, the surveillance device showed very little going on and that was precisely why it was an important part of the Crown case.  It showed that no classes were conducted, only minimal staff were in attendance and if students attended, it was most often to pay their fees. 

46The only exception to the lack of activity shown on the surveillance device is what occurred in early July when it became known that the audit would be taking place. On 2 July, after the audit was arranged, the device showed numerous computer keyboards, monitors and a printer being brought up into the school by the accused.  The obvious purpose of doing so was to bolster the impression to be conveyed to the auditors that St Stephen was a properly functioning training college. 

47On 5 August 2015, police executed search warrants and seized a large number of hardcopy and electronically stored documents which, among other things, contained timetables, training package documents and other teaching materials that set out the number of teaching hours per unit, practical sessions to be held and when face to face classroom teaching was to take place. The surveillance device product showed a reality gap between what the documents at the school purported to show was taking place and what was in fact taking place. 

48Part of the training packages to students required industry consultation.  This too was shown to be a lie.  During the search on 5 August 2015, police located fabricated documents, purporting to be minutes of meetings with industry representatives that were shown to have never taken place. 

49The school website was part of the facade maintained as part of the conspiracy. Forensic examination of the website which was filmed and shown to the jury, showed some functionality, but like so much of what was found at St Stephen when interrogated, it provided no genuine assistance.  The combination of this evidence established the Crown contention that both schools were operated as a single fraudulent enterprise. 

50The purpose of the enterprise was to obtain money from international fee paying students and obtain subsidies paid by the Victorian Department of Education for domestic students, for the ultimate benefit of each of the accused.  The Crown position on the plea was that it could not quantify what was obtained because of the other business interests of the defendants and the intermingling of their resources.

The content of agreement in respect of Charge 1

51Having set out the evidence, that in my view was accepted by the jury, I turn now to the specifics of the agreement, the subject of each charge.  As to Charge 1, the jury were directed they had to be satisfied that the accused whose case they were then considering, knew or believed the following key facts that formed the subject of the agreement. 

1.  That ASQA officials would be provided with materials and/or information purporting to evidence the general operations of the RTOs, providing VET courses, teaching and assessment to students in accordance with the prescribed standards and guidelines for RTO registration and compliance. 

2.  That in reality, the RTOs were not providing genuine teaching and assessment to students in accordance with the prescribed standards and guidelines.

3.  That the offenders intended that the ASQA officials would accept the materials and/or information as genuine, and therefore the ASQA officials would audit and assess the registration and compliance of the RTOs, as compliant with prescribed standards and guidelines.

52In sentencing on Charge 1, I must proceed on the basis that the jury were satisfied that each accused knew or believed those key facts.  Each of the four offenders joined that agreement at some point between, at the earliest, March 2014, when Symbiosis became part of the single fraudulent scheme, to at the latest, early 2015 when Mr McMahon announced his upcoming re-registration audit of Symbiosis.

The content of agreement in respect of Charge 2

53As to Charge 2, the jury were directed that they had to be satisfied that the accused whose case they were then considering, knew or believed the following key facts that form the subject of the agreement.

1.That they were going to deal with the proceeds of fraudulent subsidy claims made by the Victorian Department of Education and Training under the Victorian Training Guarantee (VTG) Program for domestic students, by both St Stephen and Symbiosis and;

2.That the fraudulent subsidy claims were made by falsely representing that they were providing training to eligible students as per the VTG program requirements, when they were in fact not doing so. 

54In sentencing on Charge 2, I will proceed on the basis that the jury were satisfied that each accused knew or believed those key facts.  Each of the four offenders joined that agreement from the commencement of the charge period, 10 March 2014, when Symbiosis became a part of the single fraudulent scheme.  Given the jury rejected the alternative verdict available, the agreement must have been formed upon the entry of Symbiosis into the scheme in March 2014. 

Baljit Singh – Personal Circumstances

55Having set out the circumstances of your offending, and before I deal with the submissions on sentence, I need to briefly set out the personal circumstances of each of you.  I turn first to Baljit Singh.

56Mr Singh, you were born on 21 February 1981 are now 37 years of age.  During the timeframe of the first charge, you were aged 30 - 34, and you have no prior convictions.  You were raised in an upper middle class family in the province of Punjab in northern India.  Your father was involved in farming and politics and the family generally was well known and well respected in the local area.  Your father was the president of the local branch of the Indian Congress Party and was on the board of the Cooperative Society Bank in India.

57You were particularly close to your father who died from liver cancer in September 2011.  As the eldest child, the responsibility fell to you to provide direction, assistance and if necessary, financial support to your two younger siblings.  One of those siblings was Varinder Kaur who was acquitted of these charges.

58Your mother who raised the children apparently still suffers symptoms of grief and depression arising from her husband's death in 2011.  According to the evidence, she is quite frail.  Your younger brother and younger sister both now reside in Australia.  Ms Kaur is married with two children of her own.  Unfortunately, your younger brother developed a dependency on methamphetamine and his relationship with the rest of the family, has for that reason been problematic. 

59You were educated at private colleges in India and finished Year 12 as a slightly above average student.  You obtained a student visa to study in Australia when you were 18 years of age and arrived in this country on 18 December 1999.  You completed a marketing diploma at Holmesglen TAFE, and thereafter a diploma in Information Technology at the same institution.  You also studied IT at City College.  You then enrolled in a Bachelor of Accounting Degree course through Central Queensland University at their Melbourne campus.  Although you completed quite a number of subjects in that course, you did not finish it because of developing business commitments. 

60In around 2003, you started your own business known as Home Security Professionals Proprietary Limited.  The business supplied security guards to organisations such as Chubb Security, Woolworths and various shopping centres.  In about 2005, you expanded the business so as to involve, contracted delivery services throughout Victoria to Australia Post.  You eventually provided around 70 to 80 subcontractors to Australia Post and after some time, that became your main business.  You told your assessing psychologist
Mr Cummins, that you became the largest contractor in Victoria that provided delivery services to Australia Post.  It seems now that all of what you had built, in your legitimate business pursuits has been lost. I will return to the significance of that loss shortly.

61You are a person who, since coming to this country, has shown a great deal of drive and initiative in many legitimate respects.  You clearly have entrepreneurial skill.  You aspired to be a leader within the Indian community and entertained hopes of entering politics.  You have now lost any realistic hope of achieving those goals and you presented to Mr Cummins as a man who:

"…historically has been proud of himself and proud of his business related and family related achievements, but now feels crushed, depressed and overwhelmed with the jury verdict".

62You married your wife Rekha Arora in Melbourne in 2003.  There are three children of the marriage.  Two daughters aged ten and a half and nine and a son who is now two and a half.  As I will explain when dealing with your wife's personal circumstances, you were only able to have your youngest child after a lengthy time undergoing In Vitro Fertilisation.  That process was particularly stressful for both of you.  Mr Cummins formed the view that you had developed a major depressive disorder at the time your wife was experiencing difficulties in becoming pregnant and undertaking the IVF treatment.

63In addition, the outcome of your wife's case and where and how your children will be looked after, if you were both to be imprisoned has been a real source of distress for you.  Mr Cummins notes that in the context of these charges and the pressures associated with undergoing trial, you have been abusing alcohol.  He has diagnosed you with an alcohol use disorder of moderate severity.  You are on antidepressants having been assessed as being severally depressed and it is clear that the three year period between arrest and conviction, has weighed heavily on you.  I will take that delay into account in formulating sentence.

Rakesh Kumar – Personal Circumstances

64I turn to Rakesh Kumar's personal circumstances.  Rakesh Kumar, you were born on 19 January 1978 and are now 40 years of age.  During the timeframe of the first charge, you were between 33 - 37 years of age.  You are married with two children aged ten and seven and you have no prior convictions.  You grew up in Punjab in northern India.  Your family was hardworking and well respected.  You have two younger sisters, Rekha Arora the fifth defendant and Seerat Arora, who is married with one child.  Seerat has an MBA and works as bank executive and lives in Mumbai.  In India, your father owned a business selling electrical goods that has been quite successful.  Your mother worked raising the children and assisting in the family business.

65Significantly, your father travelled to Australia from India to attend the plea hearing in support of you and your sister, Ms Arora.  He has provided a reference to which I will refer shortly.  At school you excelled academically.  You completed your Year 12 at SN College in the city of Banga, achieving very high marks.  In 1999, you completed a Bachelor of Science Degree at university in Amritsar.  You then sat an exam to undertake a Master's degree in computer science.  In the result, you were ranked second amongst all candidates throughout India.  You completed that degree at the prestigious Indian Panjab University in Chandigarh.

66Thereafter, you worked in high level positions as a software engineer for multinational companies both in India and the US and I was told that your family is quite culturally traditional.  In 2006, you married Nancy Wadhwa.  The marriage had been arranged between your two families and has been successful.  In 2006 and 2009, you visited your sister Rekha in Australia and although you had been successful in India, you saw Australia as providing the best opportunities for your family and you migrated here in January 2010.

67Initially the family lived with Mr Singh and Ms Arora for about six months.  You then lived in a share house in Lalor for about six months until you were able to purchase a home in Epping in November 2011.  I was told that your children have been almost wholly raised in Australia and regard themselves as Australian, however, recognising the inevitability of the imposition of a term of imprisonment, arrangements have been made for Ms Wadhwa and the children to return to India to live with the paternal grandparents in Punjab.  That decision was made, taking into account the lack of family support if they were to remain here. I will return to the significance of that issue shortly.

68In terms of work in this country, you worked as a courier driver in Mr Singh's Australia Post business and with the financial assistance of your father, purchased a 25 per cent stake in St Stephen for $100,000 in around 2010.  Whilst working at St Stephen, you undertook work in a second job, either as a courier or at a shipping company and so you worked long hours.  Ms Wadhwa worked in a number of jobs such as cleaning and in childcare. 

69In the months prior to your arrest, you and your wife purchased a restaurant in South Morang for approximately $310,000.  In the wake of your arrest and the surrounding publicity, you were forced to sell that restaurant at a significant loss. I will return to that issue also when dealing with submissions as to sentence.

70Eight personal references were tendered on your behalf. It is evident that you have endured a great deal of humiliation as a result of your involvement in this offending.  Even so, you still hold the respect of many within your community, despite the fact that your conviction has become well known here and even in some parts of India.  Your father and your wife in particular, provided moving references that describe your upbringing and the circumstances in which you came to Australia.  You come from a loving family and are fortunate to enjoy their support.  It seems to me that those matters enhance, all the more, your prospects for rehabilitation. 

Mukesh Sharma – Personal Circumstances

71Mukesh Sharma, you were born on 11 May 1973 and are 45 years of age.  During the timeframe of the offending, you were approximately 38 to 42 years of age and you are married with two children aged 12 and 16. You have no prior convictions.

72You were raised in a small city in Punjab in northern India.  You were the youngest of three boys and remain close to your older brothers who have provided references in support of you on your plea.  Your parents remain in India.  They are in their 70s, retired and in poor health.  Before retirement, your father worked as a regional manager in a homeopathic company.  Your older brothers work in high level managerial positions.  You have not been able to travel to India to see your parents since your arrest in August 2015 and that has been a source of great distress to you.  You have not seen them for seven years and fear you may never have the opportunity to see them again.

73It appears you were brought up in a caring and supportive environment.  You attended a well-regarded primary and secondary school where you performed at an above average standard academically and in school sports.  You went onto study a Bachelor of Arts at Delhi University which you completed in 1994.  After working in your cousin's security company, you started your own business in that field in 1996. 

74With the assistance of one of your older brother's, you built up the business so much that it employed something in the order of a thousand people.  In addition, you purchased a restaurant with that brother which was also successful. 

75In 2000, you married your wife Reshma to whom it is said you are devoted.  Two longstanding friends who had established themselves in Australia encouraged you to do the same and come and settle in Australia.  You gifted your restaurant and security businesses to your brother and came to Australia on a student visa in 2006.

76You studied commercial cookery with a view to opening a restaurant and your wife and children joined you in 2007.  In Australia you found work as a security guard and as a courier and through this latter work you met the first defendant, Baljit Singh and formed a close alliance.  You worked as a subcontractor in
Mr Singh's Australia Post courier business.  You went onto work from an office at St Stephen managing much of that courier business. 

77You, together with your wife have worked hard to establish yourselves in this country and to provide opportunities for your children.  Your wife wrote a moving reference emphasising your good nature, your charity and the humiliation you have also endured after this offending was exposed. 

78In a report provided by Pamela Matthews, forensic psychologist of 26 July 2018, you were described as a well-educated man of good family, without indications of personality disorder or antisocial characteristics and no history of criminality.  Whilst you did not suffer from any mental health issues before your arrest, you subsequently developed significant depressive symptoms.  Ms Matthews, in her report states as follows:

"Mr Sharma first presented to his doctor on 25 August 2015 with depression and was placed on the antidepressant Mirtazapine.  He felt well enough to cease this medication on 5 October 2016.  He was found guilty after trial.  The writer has no clear date of the guilty verdict.  Mr Sharma represented to his doctor on 21 June 2018 with symptoms of depression and was placed on the antidepressant Luvox.

He was later admitted on 14 July 2018 to Mercy Werribee Psychiatric Unit where he stayed until discharge on Mirtazapine on 23 July 2018.  Of concern were his symptoms of depression with suicidal ideation and indications of a clear plan related to the stockpiling of rat poison, and other plans such as jumping from a high building or walking into the sea.

He currently presents as depressed with reporting both appetite and sleep disturbance of six or so weeks duration, increased alcohol, cigarette consumption, low mood, social withdrawal, observed crying, feelings of hopelessness, lethargy and suicidal ideation.  He would meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder, in the context of an adjustment disorder with mood disturbances as defined by DSM-5".

79She goes onto state:

"The writer agrees with the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depression, in that Mr Sharma's depression is reactive to his legal situation.  The level of distress he evidences in response to his conviction however appears to have a cultural context of shame, in relation to family and community.  Another aspect of his distress appears to be his emotional dependence on his wife and fear of separation from her, additional (sic), there appears to be a less clearly stated fear of never seeing his parents again".

80Mr Sharma has also been abusing alcohol at alarming levels.  Ms Matthews concludes as follows:

"About potential imprisonment and the effects on Mr Sharma, there is psychiatric care in prison and if this is a disposition imposed by the court, the writer advises that on initial reception, Mr Sharma will be at his highest risk of acting upon suicidal ideation and most likely would require a Muirhead cell.

There are indications that Mr Sharma's mental state improves as the stressor lessens, for example, between October 2016 and June 2018.  Hence with good psychiatric care in custody, it is likely Mr Sharma may settle to a degree, with some resolution of his depressive symptoms.  However, the persistent cultural shame of imprisonment is likely to maintain at least moderate to mild levels of depressive symptoms.

Further, he will be vulnerable to situational triggers such as music, his parents' health in India, or news of social shame or ostracisation that family members in India may be subject to.  His suicide risk is likely to increase rapidly and unpredictably at these times.  Overall, it is the writer's view, Mr Sharma's mental state is unlikely to fully resolve if he is in custody and any time he might spend in custody will be more onerous it might otherwise be if he was not suffering depression".

Rekha Arora – Personal Circumstances

81I will turn to your personal circumstances, Ms Arora.  You were born on 20 June 1981.  You are now 37 years of age and you were between approximately 30 and 34 years of age during the timeframe of the first charge.  You are married to the first defendant Mr Singh and have three children, aged ten, nine and two and a half.  You are the younger sister of the second defendant Rakesh Kumar. You have no prior convictions.

82As I mentioned in summarising Mr Kumar's personal history, you have one younger sister who is married and works in Mumbai as a banking executive.  As I also mentioned, your father travelled to Australia from India to support you and your brother at the plea.  You were awarded a commerce degree majoring in accounting from the University of India and then travelled on a student visa to Australia to further your studies in accounting at Latrobe University.

83You had met Mr Singh when you were about 16 and you eventually married him in Melbourne in 2003.  Whilst in Australia, you worked to support yourself by working in a call centre for about eighteen months after which you secured employment as a customer services officer with the Commonwealth Bank. 

84A significant feature of your personal circumstances is the fact that you have been, and remain the primary carer for you and Mr Singh's three children. Accordingly your involvement in your husband's business activity was punctuated by tending to that responsibility.  You told your assessing psychologist Mr Watson-Munro that you worked only part-time at St Stephen and Symbiosis because of your need to care for the children.  Your two older daughters were young at the time Mr Singh became involved in St Stephen and significantly, you were, during the time of much of the offending, periodically undertaking IVF treatment in Thailand.

85At the time of the execution of the search warrants on 5 August 2015, you were heavily pregnant with your youngest child.  In the three and a half to four years before then, you had been through a protracted period of unsuccessful transplants, which according to Mr Watson-Munro, had dramatically impacted upon your mood.  Your youngest child, a son was born in December 2015.  As to your concerns with respect to the children, Mr Watson-Munro stated:

"Ms Arora stated that she and her husband do their best to reassure the children, but they are nonetheless fearful that they may not only be raised by strangers, but in a worst case scenario, that they could be separated from one another.  Ms Arora stated that she is finding this psychologically devastating and that it is a terrifying prospect for the children.  She reported that her son has been entirely dependent upon her emotionally and physically.  He does not attend childcare because of logistic and financial issues.  She described the children as being extremely well bonded to one another, as well as to their parents.  They are clearly picking up on the escalating stress which is occurring within the home".

86Four personal references were tendered on your behalf, each of those references stress the closeness of the relationship you have with the children, and the pivotal role you play in their care.  The references are strongly supportive of the comments you made to Mr Watson-Munro as to your relationship with the children and they serve to emphasise the adverse consequences to them, were you to be incarcerated.

Crown submissions on sentence

87I will turn now to Crown submissions on sentence. Section 17A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) declares that a sentence of imprisonment can only be imposed if the court is satisfied there is no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. In formulating sentence, I was reminded that I must have regard to the matters set out in s.16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Applying those matters here, the Crown submitted that the only appropriate sentencing disposition for each of you is a term of imprisonment. In essence, the submission relied on the objective circumstances of the offending, the quantum of the offending and the level of sophistication of the scheme employed to effect this offending.

88The Crown emphasised in its submissions that in cases involving the dishonesty influencing of a Commonwealth public official, general deterrence must be the predominant consideration in determining the appropriate sentence.  Offences of this kind are generally difficult to detect, investigate and prosecute successfully.  It was submitted that the previous good character of the accused persons attracts less weight in such matters as this because the good character is often used to facilitate the offending. 

89Here, each of you, Mr Singh, Mr Kumar and you Mr Sharma, were all ASIC registered directors of the relevant schools.  You were required to provide statutory declarations to the regulator attesting to your good character, that you understood the regulatory framework and required standards.  As directors or CEO’s of an ASIC registered company, you were in positions of trust in your dealings with ASIC, the regulator and the students that enrolled in the schools.  That trust it was submitted was abused.  Those factors pointed to a high degree of moral culpability for the offending. 

90In this case, each of you had acquired a specialist knowledge in the operation of the RTOs.  You were all aware of how ASQA was likely to audit the schools and your familiarity with the ‘tick and flick’ compliance checks enabled you to exploit the system to your advantage.  A telling example was the use of the course progress method of assessment, rather than the course attendance method of assessment, which avoided difficulties caused by there being no students in attendance at scheduled classes, as set out in false timetables. Using devices of this kind enabled you to defeat the audit process, so as to maintain the facade of compliance.  In this way the audits were unlikely to uncover the sham these schools really were. 

91Similar considerations applied, the Crown submitted, in respect of the money laundering offence.  Those considerations included:

a)the maximum penalty being 25 years;

b)the fact that this offending is in the highest category in the hierarchy of money laundering provisions set out in the Code, being in excess of $1m;

c)the fact that the fact actual value of the money dealt with pursuant to the agreement was just over $2m, including GST;

d)the fact that the required state of mind in this instance was one of actual belief that the money was the proceeds of crime;

e)the fact the offending persisted over a sustained period;

f)the fact that there was a high degree of planning and deceit; and

g)the fact that the offending involved a large number of transactions in this instance, on a monthly basis, in respect of each student.

92Because of those matters, your moral culpability was said to be high and general deterrence should also be the primary sentencing purpose in respect of that charge. As to role, it was submitted that you Mr Singh, were the principal offender as the CEO, director of St Stephen and in directing Mukesh Sharma at Symbiosis.  You were a registered user of the SVTS system.  You were present at the time of the Symbiosis audit.  You coordinated St Stephen response to the proposed July audit. 

93It was argued that you Mr Sharma, acted as Mr Singh's right hand man.  You were the CEO at Symbiosis.  You had also been an enrolment officer at St Stephen.  You were a registered of the SVTS system, you were the front man in respect of the audit at Symbiosis, you were intimately involved in the response to the proposed audit at St Stephen.

94It was also argued that you Mr Kumar were essentially Mr Singh's left hand man.  You were the RTO manager at St Stephen and also at Symbiosis.  You were critical to each of the schools complying with the requirements of RTO registration and functioning.  You were also intimately involved in the Symbiosis audit and in the response to the proposed audit at St Stephen.

95You, Ms Arora, it was said played the role of "on the ground trainer/assessor at both organisations".  Ms Sheridan-Smith who appeared on behalf of the prosecution on the plea, and with Mr Crowley at trial, puts your role as being "slightly less" than that of the others. 

96The prosecution were unable to quantify the direct financial benefit to each of you, but submitted that all of you clearly did benefit. Some funds must have been directed to operational costs and to the further development of the businesses.  However, it was submitted that that was with a view to expanding the number of students and maintaining the illegitimate facade. 

97It was submitted that both offences were committed out of greed.  It was acknowledged that I can take into account automatic disqualification of the defendants' ability to hold directorships as part of the punishment that will inevitably be suffered by each of you Mr Singh, you Mr Kumar and you Mr Sharma.

Defence submissions as to sentence – General

98As to defence submissions, I will deal with submissions specific to each accused shortly, but with respect to general submissions made by the Crown, I did not understand that there was significant dispute with much of what was put.  It was suggested by some counsel that this offending was not particularly difficult to detect.  It was said that if the auditors from ASQA had delved further, for example, by actually speaking to students, they would have discovered that these schools lack legitimacy. 

99Dealing with that submission directly, I take the view that whilst the auditing process left much to be desired, it still took an extensive police investigation utilising telephone intercepts, surveillance devices, search warrants and a large number of student interviews, to uncover the scale of the deception engaged in by all of you and I do not accept that this factor therefore ameliorates the need to emphasise general deterrence to any degree.

100On the other hand, as I noted earlier, this matter has taken a long time to resolve and that delay, over three years since arrest, has understandably weighed heavily on each of you.  Moreover, throughout all of that period, you have been required to comply with onerous conditions of bail.  I was told that your compliance with those conditions had been without blemish.  Accordingly, I will take that delay and the restrictions to your liberty imposed by those bail conditions, into account in your favour. 

101Each of your personal histories had much about them that is positive.  You have each strived in many legitimate ways to lead productive lives, although good character may attract less weight for offending of this kind, I will nonetheless take into account your previous good character and proven abilities, to sentence each of you on the basis that you have good prospects for rehabilitation.

Baljit Singh – Sentencing submissions

102Turning to submissions specific to the accused and first to Mr Singh. 
Mr Sheales argued that the characterisation of you Mr Singh as the primary offender, with Mr Kumar and Mr Sharma acting as your right and left hand men at your direction was inaccurate.  He argued you had very little to do with the hands on operation at St Stephen.  He said you were very much a figure head who was focused on your Australia Post business and concerned only with the marketing of St Stephen and its staffing.  As to Symbiosis, he argued you played virtually no effective role other than, as you said in your record of interview, to provide ‘moral support’. 

103He submitted that your Australia Post business which was entirely legitimate, was destroyed by the publicity associated with your arrest.  In particular, he relied upon a report that was broadcast on ABC television on the night of your arrest. The report focused on allegations concerning the use of students to perform Australia Post, delivery work.  It was essentially alleged that you were running some form of immigration racket.  No allegations of that kind were substantiated and you were not even charged with any offending alleging that you had illegally used students to work for you.  Nonetheless, given the publicity Australia Post, as it was put, effectively had no choice but to cancel your contracts immediately.

104In the four year period between 1 July 2011 and 5 August 2015, your Australia Post business had turned over a sum in the order of $17.5m.  Accordingly it was submitted that your arrest and the associated publicity was not simply humiliating, but had literally cost you millions of dollars.  You therefore paid an extremely heavy price for this offending. 

105Mr Sheales also submitted that a close examination of your finances revealed that you did not derive much benefit from this offending. He relied on aspects of the forensic accounting report from Matthew Oliveiro to argue that your family's lifestyle was not funded in any substantial respect by moneys derived from the schools and that you did not benefit greatly from your association with St Stephen or Symbiosis.  Mr Sheales argued that I should take into account the efforts made by you and also the other defendants in seeking to settle proceeds of crime litigation arising out of this offending, pursuant to s.320 of the Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 (Cth), and also taking into account s.16A(2)(f) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

Rakesh Kumar – Sentencing Submissions

106Mr Kumar, as to your role, Mr Barker explained when you first came to Australia, you enrolled at Ashton College to learn about compliance procedures in respect of RTOs and gained a Certificate IV qualification for that purpose. Once you had learnt about the VET system, you were able to assist St Stephen achieve RTO status and pass its first audit.  You went onto manage compliance, oversee the preparation of course materials and act as a trainer and assessor.  You also applied on behalf of St Stephen for extensions to the scope of courses taught.

107Mr Barker did not take much issue with the factual matters relied upon by the Crown.  He conceded, as I understood his submission, that you could be seen as the right or left hand man to Mr Singh.  In your role as RTO manager, there was no denying that you played a central role in the commission of the offences.  Mr Barker submitted on the basis of the available documents and estimates that you received approximately $316,000 from St Stephen in the timeframe of the first charge and something in the order of $40,000 to $50,000 from Symbiosis. 

108As I mentioned earlier, you had purchased an Indian restaurant in mid-2015, just before your arrest for which you paid $310,000. However, with the fallout and publicity associated with this matter, the Indian community stopped going to the restaurant and it was sold in October 2017 for $180,000.  A significant loss.

149On any view, the prospect that three young children, one of them born three months after the arrests, should be taken from their mother's care and placed in the care of the Department of Health and Human Services is a significant matter.  It appears that there is no hard and fast rule that this sort of situation will or will not constitute exceptional circumstances.

150Previous cases of this kind reveal an approach that is very much dependent on the particular circumstances attaching to that case. See for example the decisions of R v Nagul[2007] VSCA 8, R v Carmody 100 A Crim R 41, R v Thai [2005] VSCA 283 and R v Xeba, Rovena [2009] VSCA 205. Moreover, the pre-Markovic authorities need to be read, understanding that there is now no residual discretion to exercise mercy in respect of family hardship, where the relevant circumstances are not shown to be exceptional.

151As I indicated, Ms Sheridan-Smith submitted that the circumstances here were not shown to be sufficiently exceptional.  However, the sworn evidence which I accept is that such extended family who live in Australia, are either not capable or not prepared to care for these children.  There appears to be no alternative arrangements that can be made.  To my mind, the prospect that all of these three children would go into care, if both of the parents were to be imprisoned, is an exceptional circumstance.  I readily infer that going into care would have a substantial adverse effect on those children and that inference is supported by Mr Watson-Munro's opinion where he states:

"The literature is replete with examples of the potentially life long impact of disrupted and dislocated bonding between siblings and parents in situations where there is a fracturing of the family unit.  Children in care, fare particularly poorly.  Mr Arora's daughters are ten and nine and clearly have a well-established bond with their parents and younger brother.

By her account, they are terrified of the prospect of being declared wards of the state and placed in foster care, with the additional dynamic of the possibility of being separated from one another.  This may well impact upon their education.  They are currently attending at St. Luke’s primary school and there is concern that not only if they lose their parents, but also their peer group, if they were forced to relocate to another suburb whilst in foster care.

The two and half year old son would also suffer a great deal because of this dynamic.  Arising from this, it would be difficult to reconstitute the type of stability that the children are currently experiencing, particularly with the support of their mother.  This in turn would lead to escalating feelings of insecurity, depression, anxiety and possible hostility directed towards the parents, which may well require considerable and intensive psychotherapy over the years to address these problems.  Ms Arora stated that the two girls school performance has already deteriorated because of their anxieties concerning the future".

Sentence – Baljit Singh

152On the charge of dishonestly influencing a Commonwealth public official, Mr Singh, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years to commence from today and expire on 20 September 2023.  On the second charge of conspiring to deal in the proceeds of crime, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four years, such sentence to commence on 21 September 2020 and expire on 20 September 2024.  

153To be clear, it is my intention in sentencing you, that twelve months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1, making a total effective sentence of six years. 

154I will fix a non-parole period of three years and nine months to commence from today and expire on 20 June 2022, when you will become eligible for parole.

Sentence – Rakesh Kumar and Mukesh Sharma

155As to you Mr Kumar and to you Mr Sharma, on the charge of dishonestly influencing a Commonwealth public official, you are each convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four years to commence from today and expire on 20 September 2022.  On the second charge of conspiring to deal in the proceeds of crime, each of you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years, such sentence to commence on
20 September 2020 and expire on 19 September 2023.

156To be clear, it is my intention in sentencing you that twelve months of the sentencing imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1, making a total effective sentence of five years. 

157I will fix a non-parole period in respect of each of you, that is of you Mr Kumar and you Mr Sharma, of three years to commence from today and expire on
19 September 2021, when you will become eligible for parole.

158Pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) as applied by s.16E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), I declare that you Mr Singh have spent fifty-seven days and you Mr Sharma and Mr Kumar have spent fifty-six days by way of pre-sentence detention not including this day and that that is to be reckoned as a period of imprisonment already served under the sentence and I direct that that declaration be entered in the records of the court.

159I am required by s.16F of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to explain to the three of you, that is you Mr Singh, you Mr Sharma and you Mr Kumar, the purpose and consequences of fixing a non-parole period. The service of your sentence will entail a period of imprisonment of not less than the non-parole period and if a parole order is made, a period of service in the community called the parole period, to complete the service of that sentence. If a parole order is made, the order will be subject to conditions and the parole order may be amended or revoked. If you fail without reasonable excuse to fulfil those conditions, the consequences may be that you will be required to serve the full term of six years or five years imprisonment, as the case may be. You may be seated for the moment please.

Sentence – Rekha Arora

160Ms Arora, would you please stand.  On the charge of dishonestly influencing a Commonwealth public official, you will be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years and six months to commence from today and expire on 20 March 2021.  On the second charge of conspiring to deal in the proceeds of crime, you will be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years.  Such sentence to commence on 20 September 2019 and expire on 19 September 2021. 

161To be clear, it is my intention in sentencing you that six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1, making a total effective sentence of three years. 

162I will further order that pursuant to s.20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), that you be released forthwith upon you entering into a recognisance of $5,000 to comply with a condition that you be of good behaviour for a period of three years.

163The effect of that order will be that you will be released today, however, you will have a term of imprisonment hanging over your head for a period of three years.  You will need to sign a document called a recognisance which is effectively a promise, to be of good behaviour for the next three years.  If you breach that condition, you would be likely brought back before me and you would forfeit the amount of the recognisance, the $5,000 and you would be liable to serve that three years sentence.  Is that clear?  You may be seated for the moment.