Bassani & Ginzburg [2026] FedCFamC1F 32 (23 January 2026)

1. The Principal Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) refer the following documents to the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of whether Mr Ginzburg should be prosecuted for the offence of bigamy or another other offence in respect of his conduct in purporting to marry Ms Bassani when he was already lawfully married:

(a) Initiating Application filed 9 July 2025;

(b) Affidavit of Ms Bassani filed 9 July 2025;

(c) Affidavit of Mr Ginzburg filed 9 July 2025;

(d) Divorce Order dated 23 July 2025;

(e) Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Behrens dated 23 January 2026; and

(f) Orders dated 23 January 2026.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. By joint Initiating Application filed 9 July 2025, the parties seek a decree of nullity in respect of their purported marriage entered into the later part of 2024.
2. The applicants seek such a decree on the ground that the purported marriage is void by reason of s 51 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") and s 23B of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) as one of the applicants, namely, Mr Ginzburg, was married to another person (Ms B) at the time of the marriage.
3. Proceedings for a decree of nullity of marriage may be instituted by the parties jointly (as is provided by s 44(1A) of the Act).
4. In these proceedings, I received into evidence:

(1) an affidavit of the first Applicant (Ms Bassani) filed 9 July 2025 with its annexures;

(2) an affidavit of the second Applicant (Mr Ginzburg) filed 9 July 2025 with its annexures;

(3) a Divorce Order of a Deputy Registrar of this Court in respect of the marriage of Mr Ginzburg and Ms B dated mid 2025.

1. By way of background, Ms Bassani gave evidence that she is "ordinarily resident" in Australia. She does not give evidence about what class of visa entitles her to be present in Australia. She gives evidence that she "married" Mr Ginzburg "on or about" the latter part of 2024, and that he is also "ordinarily resident" in Australia. Again, I do not know about Mr Ginzburg's immigration status, save that he is domiciled in Australia. In evidence is a certificate of marriage which confirms the applicants were married in the latter part of 2024 in the State of Queensland, Australia. That certificate describes Mr Ginzburg's marital status at that time as "Never Validly Married" and Ms Bassani's marital status as "Divorced". They were both born in China.
2. Ms Bassani gave evidence that in around December 2024, she attempted to apply for a partner visa, presumably on the basis of her "marriage" to Mr Ginzburg. She says she was then informed by the Department of Home Affairs that Mr Ginzburg was married to a Ms B. Upon inquiry to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages Victoria and on or about early 2025, Ms Bassani was provided with a marriage certificate showing that Mr Ginzburg and Ms B were married in early 2020, and their marriage was registered a month later in the State of Victoria, Australia. That marriage certificate was in evidence before me. That certificate describes Mr Ginzburg's marital status again as "Never Validly Married" and Ms B's marital status as "Never Validly Married". Ms B was also born in China.
3. Mr Ginzburg gave evidence that he and Ms B had married in or around early 2020. He gave evidence that "[h]owever, I never received an official marriage certificate". He gave evidence that:

Shortly after our marriage, [Ms B] frequently stayed out overnight, and I was unable to ascertain her locations. Despite my repeated efforts to communicate, the situation remained unchanged.

From June 2020 onwards, [Ms B] became completely uncontactable. Given her disappearance and the irretrievable breakdown of our relationship, I vacated the apartment and began living alone. Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, I did not take further steps to formalise the dissolution of the marriage.

1. Mr Ginzburg does not give evidence that he took any step at all to obtain a divorce from Ms B prior to his purported marriage to Ms Bassani so I do not understand why he refers to no "further steps".
2. Mr Ginzburg then gives the rather extraordinary evidence that it was only after Ms Bassani received notification from the Department of Home Affairs that "I became aware of the registered marriage between Ms B and me. I sincerely apologise for my oversight and ignorance".
3. I do not understand how it could be that Mr Ginzburg was unaware that he was lawfully married to someone else when he married Ms Bassani.
4. At the commencement of the hearing, I indicated to the parties that I did not have sufficient evidence to enable me to be satisfied that, at the time of their purported marriage, Ms B was still alive and/or had not applied for herself and obtained a divorce order without Mr Ginzburg knowing about that. When I made it clear to the parties that I did not have the necessary evidence to satisfy me that Mr Ginzburg was married at the time of their purported marriage because of the absence of evidence about whether Ms B was alive at that time and whether she had successfully obtained a divorce order, I was told that Mr Ginzburg has now obtained a divorce order from Ms B and that divorce order made in mid 2025 was tendered in the proceedings.

1. Section 51 of the Act provides that an application for a decree of nullity shall be based on the ground that the purported marriage is void. The bases on which a marriage is void are set out in s 23B(1) of the Marriage Act (1961) (Cth) which relevantly provides as follows:

(1) A marriage to which this Division applies that takes place after the commencement of section 13 of the Marriage Amendment Act 1985 is void where:

(a) either of the parties is, at the time of the marriage, lawfully married to some other person;

...

1. Thus, a decree of nullity must be made if either of the parties was, at the time of the purported marriage, married to any other person.
2. By s 113 of the Act, I have the power to make such declaration as is justified in proceedings for a decree of nullity, which these are.

1. I am satisfied on the evidence that Mr Ginzburg remained lawfully married to Ms B when he purported to marry Ms Bassani. He was not divorced from Ms B until mid-2025 - that is, after his purported marriage to Ms Bassani. He must have satisfied the Court in the divorce order proceedings that Ms B was alive at that time.
2. In circumstances where Mr Ginzburg was married to another person at the time of his marriage to Ms Bassani, the purported marriage between Mr Ginzburg and Ms Bassani is void and a decree of nullity must be made.
3. Accordingly, pursuant to s 113 of the Act, I declare that the second applicant was married to another person at the time of his purported marriage to the first applicant. The purported marriage between the first applicant and the second applicant is therefore void and on that basis a decree of nullity must be made.
4. Accordingly, I will make a declaration that the marriage between the first and second applicants conducted on 12 August 2024 in the State of Queensland ("the purported marriage") is void by reason of the operation of s 23B(1)(a) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth).
5. I make a decree of nullity in respect of the purported marriage.

BIGAMY: REFERRAL TO THE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

1. The serious criminal offence of bigamy is created by s 94 of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth). That section relevantly provides as follows:

94 Bigamy

(1) A person who is married shall not go through a form or ceremony of marriage with any person.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

(1A) For the purposes of an offence against subsection (1), strict liability applies to the physical element of circumstance, that the person was married when the form or ceremony took place.

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

(2) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) if the defendant proves that:

(a) at the time of the alleged offence, the defendant believed that his or her spouse was dead; and

(b) the defendant's spouse had been absent from the defendant for such time and in such circumstances as to provide, at the time of the alleged offence, reasonable grounds for presuming that the defendant's spouse was dead.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), proof by a defendant that the defendant's spouse had been continually absent from the defendant for the period of 7 years immediately preceding the date of the alleged offence and that, at the time of the alleged offence, the defendant had no reason to believe that the defendant's spouse had been alive at any time within that period is sufficient proof of the matters referred to in paragraph (2)(b).

(3A) To avoid doubt, section 9.2 of the Criminal Code (mistake of fact) does not apply in relation to the matters mentioned in subsections (2) and (3).

...

1. Prima facie, Mr Ginzburg has committed the offence of bigamy and does not have any available defence.
2. It may be that immigration fraud offences have also been committed, and/or that Mr Ginzburg has committed an offence by telling the celebrant of his purported marriage that he had never been married.
3. Accordingly, I will refer the matter to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of whether Mr Ginzburg should be prosecuted for any offence in respect of his purported marriage to Ms Bassani.

I certify that the preceding twenty-four (24) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Behrens.