DPP V Lal [2006] NSWLC 18

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: DPP V Lal [2006] NSWLC 18 JURISDICTION: Criminal PARTIES: Director of Public Prosecutions Stanley Lal FILE NUMBER: PLACE OF HEARING: Parramatta Local Court DATE OF DECISION: 02/24/2006 MAGISTRATE: Magistrate R Brown CATCHWORDS: Obtain property by deception - Cheque defined - electronic transer of funds - impugned funds - Dishonesty - R v Smith (1987) 7 ACrim R 437 (CCAV) - Peters v The Queen [1998] HCA 7 LEGISLATION CITED: s 178 BA Crimes Act 1900 s 81 Crimes Act 1958 (VIc) R v Gilmartin [1983] QB 953 Winston Hamilton (1990) 92 Crim App R 54 CASES CITED: R v Beattie Unreported 22 June 1973 R v Simmonds Unreported 29 October 1992 Kennison v Daire (1986) 160 CLR 129 REPRESENTATION: Thompson - DPP Molloy - Defendant ORDERS: I find Mr Lal not guilty on all counts

Reasons for Decision

1 The defendant Stanley Lal is charged on 6 counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to s 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900. This section provides: "178BA Obtaining money etc by deception (1) Whosoever by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or herself or another person any money or valuable thing or any financial advantage of any kind whatsoever shall be liable to imprisonment for 5 years. (2) In subsection (1): " deception " means deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including: (a) a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or of any other person, and (b) an act or thing done or omitted to be done with the intention of causing: (i) a computer system, or (ii) a machine that is designed to operate by means of payment or identification, to make a response that the person doing or omitting to do the act or thing is not authorised to cause the computer system or machine to make." The facts are not significantly in dispute: the law, however, is hotly contested. 2 The defendant agreed with another person X to allow X to make certain deposits to D's bank account. When requested to by X, D made withdrawals from that account, and paid the money over to X, receiving a commission for these transactions. It is common ground that D had no part in the transactions whereby the funds were credited to D's account: again, there is little disagreement that those transactions were dishonest on the part of X. 3 The charges assert that the accused "did dishonestly obtained [sic] for the said Stanley Lal money, to wit, $7500 [or some other sum] by deception, namely receiving cash money from an unauthorised transaction where money was withdrawn from the account belonging to Stanley Lal of funds that he was not lawfully entitled to." (It seems probable that, on the agreed facts, any obtaining was on behalf of X and not for D, but nothing turns on this). What was the Deception?