sentence — conspiring with another to dishonestly cause a loss to Commonwealth contrary to s 135.4(5) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — conspiring with another to deal with proceeds of crime valued above $1,000,000 contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 400.3(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — offences involved a sophisticated tax fraud scheme and dealing with proceeds of that scheme — essence of Crown case was that offender and co-conspirator agreed to cause a company to make false depreciation claims of hundreds of millions of dollars — proceeds of conspiracy distributed offshore to accounts controlled by entities associated with offender and then repatriated to Australia — injury, loss or damage — s 16A(2)(e) — loss intended to be caused to Commonwealth was $135M — injury suffered from tax fraud is a collective financial injury and loss of confidence in efficacy and integrity of taxation system — specific deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — Crown contended that sentences imposed should encompass element of specific deterrence given offender not acknowledged wrongdoing and offender may have opportunity to re-enter business world upon release — as superficially attractive as that argument may appear no certainty that offender will be involved in similar criminal activity on release —surprising if offender were prepared to risk more time in custody after release — offender attempted to take own life in shadow of original sentencing proceedings — awful prospect of imprisonment for a person of offenders age, having enjoyed social recognition is difficult to overestimate — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(ja) — doubt about effectiveness of general deterrence in cases of spontaneous acts of violence — prospect that offenders in such cases consider in advance consequences of their actions is likely to be small — position different in cases of well-planned, commercial crimes where extended periods available to contemplate consequences of detection — antecedents — s 16A(2)(m) — offender suffers from series of medical conditions including heart disease, cancer, arthritis and a depressive illness — Crown suggested that need for general deterrence lessens weight of good character — while argument accepted should not derogate from strength of offenders subjective case and extent to which it distinguishes offender from co-conspirator — delay — offender arrested and charged on 24 April 2012 — due to factors outside offender’s control trial process concluded on 13 June 2017 — to some extent these delays should be taken into account in determining sentence — delays are beyond offender’s control and likely to be more significant given offender’s age — serving a sentence starting at offender’s age likely to have caused concerns that might not have been present three or four years earlier — deterioration of offender’s physical and mental health considered — offender sentenced to 10 years’ and 3 months imprisonment with 7 year and 6 month non-parole period
