Site Logo

Nakhl v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 201

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  
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