Site Logo

DPP v Korras [2019] VCC 1681

sentence — dishonestly causing a loss or risk to the Commonwealth knowing or believing that the loss would occur or that there was a substantial risk of the loss occurring offence contrary to s 131.1(5) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — offence relates to $85,638 of tax evaded — nature and circumstances of the offence — s 16A(2)(a) — offender not instigator of scheme but knew what was happening and turned a blind eye to it — while this lessens moral culpability to some extent, offender was joint owner of company and in position to stop offending conduct which lasted more than 3 years — modestly serious example of this offence and offender’s moral culpability is high — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(ja) — general deterrence and denunciation are prime considerations in respect of this offence — courts have significant responsibility to protect integrity of revenue system by imposing punishment for deliberate and sustained fraud to deter others — tax fraud has many harmful, but often hidden, social consequences, is difficult to detect and if undetected the rewards can be great — crimes not victimless because burden of fraud falls on whole Australian community — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — plea entered at first reasonable forensic opportunity and plea has significant utilitarian benefit in light of the likely length and complexity of any trial — it also indicates an acceptance by offender of responsibility for offending conduct and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice —— character — s 16A(2)(m) — contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — reparation — s 16A(2)(f)(i) — offender of relevantly prior good character, worked hard to provide for family and contributed to community in number of ways — offender sentenced on the basis that offender is truly remorseful for offending — also evident by fact offender has made full restitution to the ATO — specific deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — rehabilitation — sentencing judge accepted offender learnt salutary lesson from investigation, charging and legal process of this matter — accordingly, sentencing judge gave no weight to specific deterrence or protection of community in sentencing, and assessed prospects of rehabilitation as being very good — delay — delay in finalising proceedings through no fault of offender, with matter hanging over offender’s head for some time this delay caused degree of stress and anxiety to offender — hardship — s 16A(2)(p) — offender’s care of handicapped mother not such as to constitute exceptional circumstances of type sufficient to enliven s 16A(2)(p), however sentencing judge accepted any sentence of imprisonment by reason of offender’s mother’s ill health would weigh heavily on offender in a custodial environment — sentence imposed 2 years’ and 6 months imprisonment, offender released immediately on recognisance release order and a $10,000 fine — s 6AAA — sentencing judge would have imposed sentence of 3 years’ and 6 months imprisonment with a 2 year non-parole period and a $12,500 fine but for offender’s plea of guilty
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.

© 2024 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions

top-arrow