R v VASIL [2000] NSWCCA 421

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v VASIL [2000] NSWCCA 421 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60053/2000 HEARING DATE(S) : 11 October 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 11 October 2000

PARTIES : Regina Stephen Vasil JUDGMENT OF : Hulme J at 1; Barr J at 12

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0616 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Twigg DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Crown: P Hock Appellant: MJ Finnane QC SOLICITORS : Crown: SE O'Connor Appellant: Xenos Jordan

DECISION : Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed

- 6 - IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 60053/00

HULME J BARR J

Wednesday, 11 October 2000 REGINA -v- Stephen VASIL JUDGMENT 1 HULME J: This applicant for leave to appeal appeared before Twigg DCJ on twenty-one charges under s 300(2) of the Crimes Act of using an instrument which he knew to be false with the intention of inducing another person to accept the instrument as genuine and, because of that acceptance, to do or not to do some act to that other person's or another person's prejudice. Nineteen of the instruments were bank loan applications or other bank documents. One was a birth certificate and one a driver's licence. 2 His Honour was also asked to take into account a number of offences on a Form 1. Of these:- (i) Thirteen were offences under s 24(1) of the Financial Transaction Reports Act of opening an account with a dealer in a false name. (ii) Two were offences under s 178BB of the Crimes Act of making a false statement with intent to obtain money. (iii) Two were offences under s 302 of the Crimes Act of having custody of a false instrument, and (iv) Twenty were offences under s 300(1) of the Crimes Act of making a false instrument. 3 The penalties prescribed for each of these offences are:- (i) Those under s 300(1) and (2): ten years. (ii) Those under s 24(1): two years. (iii) Those under s 178BB: five years. (iv) Those under s 302: ten years. 4 In respect of the first charge under s 300(2) and taking into account the matters on Form 1, Twigg DCJ sentenced the applicant to six years' imprisonment consisting of a minimum term of three years from 11 January 2000 and an additional term of three years commencing 11 January 2003. In respect of the other twenty offences under s 300(2), the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of two years commencing on 11 January 2000. 5 The activities of the applicant which led to the charges consisted of a systematic scheme of defrauding banks over a period from late 1996 to May 1998 when he was arrested. They included the use of false documents to establish false identities and those identities for documentation in relation to the sale and purchase of real estate, to open bank accounts and to obtain loans. In aid, false employment records were also created. 6 The loss to the banks arising out of these transactions was, in round figures, $4 million. The gain to the applicant was $1,453,254, although it would seem that in large part this was dissipated either in gambling or by remission to his former wife in Greece. Something of the order of $750,000 was able to be seized from bank accounts he controlled at about the time of his arrest but it is not clear to me whether this formed part of the $1.4 million to which I have referred. 7 On behalf of the applicant it was submitted that his Honour had imposed a sentence which was excessive and that the applicant should be re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and six months, including a non-parole period of eighteen months commencing on 11 January 2000. Included within the criticisms of his Honour's approach - and which I repeat solely for the purposes of illustration without any attempt to be comprehensive - were the following:- "5.1 That his Honour failed in his reasons to give sufficient weight to the plea of guilty.