appeal against sentence — 8 counts of engaging in dishonest conduct in relation to providing financial services contrary to s 1041G(1) Corporations Act — 4 further offences of the same kind taken into account pursuant to s 16BA — original sentence imposed 10 years’ imprisonment with 6 year non-parole period — nature and circumstances — s 16A(2)(a) — objective seriousness — offender worked as financial advisor and provided financial advice to 12 clients who gave offender approximately $6,473,707 to invest on their behalf — offender used money as they pleased including paying personal and business expenses — offender made false representations to clients about availability of capital protection or capital guarantee and true risk of recommended investments — total loss by all clients was approximately $5.1 million — offender’s conduct was deliberate premeditated planned and systematic — offender did not intend to lose money but used victims money as pleased for own purposes and benefit — four of the offences were more serious bases upon losses suffered by victims — each offence falls into high range of seriousness for these types of offences — what was important was type of scheme devised not how it was different to other schemes — as part of scheme offender deceived clients not only by giving false assurances but in using technology to create false impression that funds deposited were safe — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — offender pleaded guilty but did not do so at first available opportunity in that plea came on fifth day after date set for trial — victim of the offence — s 16A(2)(d) — each victim was vulnerable and looked to offender for guidance and trusted offender with their savings — offender was told by victims that they sought safe investment — offender built trust and then betrayed it — many victims remain unpaid meaning they have lost means by which they were going to support themselves later in their lives — contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — offender was remorseful and contrite and truly sorry for losses incurred by victims — remorse was somewhat limited in that there was lot of self-pity — offender’s insight into offending was once deficient it was improving with passage of time — delay — delay should not be taken into account as discounting fact — complexity of investigation required to set out fully extend of offending — leave to appeal granted — appeal dismissed
