R v Glyn Leonard Raines [2017] NSWDC 217

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Glyn Leonard Raines [2017] NSWDC 217 Hearing dates: 4 August 2017 Date of orders: 18 August 2017 Decision date: 18 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Whitford SC DCJ Decision: See paragraphs [63]-[65] and [68]-[70] Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s1307(1); s1309(1) Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995, s11.5(1). Cases Cited: Tyler v R; R v Chalmers (2007) 173 A Crim R 458 at [78]-[86] DPP (Cth) v Estrada; DPP (Cth) v Yuan; DPP (Cth) v Byun [2015] VSCA 22. R v Couper [2013] VSCA 72 at [108] Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown) Glyn Leonard Raines (Offender) Representation: Counsel: Mr L Crowley – Crown Mr D Randle - Offender Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Armstrong Legal File Number(s): 2016/353154; 2016/353169

REMARKS ON SENTENCE 1. Mr Glyn Leonard Raines is before the Court for sentence, having pleaded guilty at the earliest possible opportunity to two counts of conspiracy to falsify books relating to the affairs of a corporation and one count of conspiracy to knowingly make false information available to an auditor of a corporation. The first two counts are offences contrary to s 1307(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and s 11.5(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995. The third is contrary to s 1309(1) of the Corporations Act and s 11.5(1) of the Criminal Code. 2. Remarkably for offending which, as the Crown submits, is capable of going to the integrity of the market among other significant consequences, Parliament has indicated how seriously it regards this type of offending by prescribing maximum penalties of only two years imprisonment or a fine of $11,000 for the offence the subject of the first two counts and five years imprisonment or a fine of $22,000 for the offence the subject of the third count. 3. The offending arises out of three separate, though closely related, conspiracies in which the Offender participated in the period 7 November 2008 to 30 June 2011. All three conspiracies concern falsification of financial records of Hastie Services Pty Ltd ("Hastie Services"). 4. The facts of and surrounding the offences are set out in a detailed agreed Statement of Facts that runs to some 60 pages in length. A more concise summary of the offending is set out in a document titled Summary of Offending, which reveals the following matters. 5. From 7 November 2008 to 30 June 2011 (relevant period) the Offender engaged in three separate conspiracies relating to the falsification of financial records of Hastie Services Pty Ltd ("Hastie Services") with a more senior employee, Joseph Farrugia, an employee who was more or less a peer of the Offender, Ian Thompson, and a more junior employee, Samantha Kate Cousins. 6. Hastie Services was a wholly owned subsidiary of Hastie Group Ltd, a public company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). Hastie Services provided technical installation and maintenance of smaller scale fit outs for commercial air conditioning systems. 7. As Hastie Services was a wholly owned subsidiary of Hastie Group, the financial results were consolidated, which meant that the financial results of Hastie Services were included in the financial results of Hastie Group. 8. Throughout the relevant period: 1. Farrugia was the Chief Executive Officer, and a director, of Hastie Services. 2. Thompson was the General Manager of various branches of Hastie Services and he reported to Farrugia. 3. The Offender was the Chief Financial Officer of Hastie Services and he reported to Farrugia. 4. Cousins was Finance Manager of various branches of Hastie Services, and she reported to Thompson but also took instructions from the Offender. 1. Each year Hastie Group and Hastie Services prepared a budget for the forthcoming financial year containing, among other things, forecast Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT) and each month Hastie Services reported to Hastie Group on the extent to which it had achieved its forecast results. 2. During the relevant period Hastie Group and Hastie Services were under pressure to meet their forecast EBIT and Farrugia pressured the Offender, Thompson and Cousins to report that forecast EBIT had been met even if it had not.