Site Logo

DPP v Kawecki [2020] VCC 1751

sentence — 2 counts of engaging in dishonest conduct in relation to financial product in course of carrying on financial services business offence contrary to s 1041G of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) — nature and circumstances — s 16A(2)(a) — submitted applications for shares and table of applications for shares of two companies containing false or misleading information about beneficial holders of shares — benefit received was $47,700 — actions were not critical to listing of companies but offender did not know that at the time — towards lower end of objective seriousness— guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — pleas occurred at earliest possible opportunity — type of prosecution would be complex and protracted through need to prove various matters and call up to 26 witnesses to do so — contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — pleas are evidence of remorse — letters offender wrote to ASIC are evidence of remorse — mental condition — s 16A(2)(m) — frequently people invest because investment is recommended by persons whose judgment they trust — offenders symptoms of ADHD played part in offending — willingness to perform dishonest acts was influenced by condition — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(ja) — offences are hard to detect and prove — investigation was long and expensive — ASX relies on accuracy of shareholder details provided by companies — unrealistic to expect company or ASX to investigate each application as to validity of entity especially its address — general deterrence tempered by effect of ADHD — many persons in community would not identify with offender due to disorder — deterrence not tempered by publicity received in financial publications — if case receives further publicity then it simply fosters purpose of general deterrence — specific deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — despite proceedings banning from providing financial services and attempts to educate themselves on obligations offender remains involved with many companies trusts and other financial entities — remains some need for specific deterrence — parity — Ekman was involve in similar conduct — Ekman has not been charged with criminal offences or received banning order — Ekman is not co-offender in proceedings — principle cannot apply — offender fined $15,000 on each charge for total of $30,000
The CSD acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Australians and recognises their culture, history, diversity and their deep connection to the land. We acknowledge that we are on the land of the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present.

© 2023 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions