CDPP v Deng [2025] VCC 1840

1. The circumstances of offending for both indictments was set out in a prosecution summary for the plea hearing.
2. On 8 August 2012 you registered Smart Kids as a company and you were the sole registered director and secretary. On 24 September 2013 you opened a Westpac account for Smart Kids Family Day Care Pty Ltd for which you were the only signatory. On 25 September 2013 you applied for Smart Kids to become an approved child care service and indicated the service's standard fee for all age groups would be $7.00 per hour. You made undertakings and declarations in the application form. On 24 October 2013 you attended a pre-approval education session in Melbourne which covered topics such as Family Day Care Service Operator Legal Obligations and common issues such as compliance reviews and charging rates. On 29 October 2013 Smart Kids was granted approval for Family Assistance Law purposes to take effect 7 October 2013. On 10 March 2016 this approval was suspended and then cancelled on 26 June 2016.
3. Between 2013 and 2016 Smart Kids employed 227 educators and 262 families had children enrolled with its service.
4. As a result of your offending the Commonwealth made payments to your business of $1,850,766.97 as a result of you engaging in five different types of fraud.

1. For Charge 1 you falsely claimed you were enrolled in a study course to obtain Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance (JETCCFA) payments in relation to care sessions for your own children.
2. The payments were received from the JETCCFA scheme, which is a scheme to assist low-income families with the costs of child care while parents look for work or undertake further education and training to improve their employment prospects.
3. Between November 2013 and March 2014 Smart Kids submitted data it had provided 68 individual care sessions for your four children. From approximately November 2013 to March 2014 the total quantum received by Smart Kids in relation to Charge 1 was $64,808.98.

1. Charge 2 relates to payments received from the same JETCCFA scheme as Charge 1.
2. The total quantum received by Smart Kids in relation to Charge 2 was $148,577.28 between May 2014 and March 2015.
3. The details of the offending for Charge 2 are as follows.
4. On 28 May 2014 your co-offender Mr Elshafie attended the Centrelink Services Centre in Sunshine and applied for JETCCFA scheme payments. In support of his application, he provided Centrelink with a document purporting to be an original copy of a letter from Carol Wenning of the Malka Group dated 14 April 2014.
5. The letter outlines the details of a course entitled CHC30712 - Certificate III in Children's Services' which was to run for 12-month period commencing 28 April 2014 for 40 hours per week.
6. On 17 June 2014 the letter was accepted by the Department of Human Services as proof Mr Elshafie was enrolled in an approved course of study and eligible for JETCCFA scheme payments. The Department backdated his eligibility to 28 April 2014.
7. This letter was false. An audit of records undertaken by the Malka Group revealed that Mr Elshafie did not enrol in course CHC30712 - Certificate III in Children Services and that the letter was not authored by the Malka Group.
8. Between May 2014 and March 2015, Smart Kids submitted 181 individual care sessions relating to your children. As a result of these submissions, the Australian Government made payments totalling $148,577.28 as part of the JETCCFA scheme which Mr Elshafie was not eligible for. These payments were made by the government into the Smart Kids nominated bank account.

1. Charge 3 relates to payments received by Smart Kids after you submitted to the Australian Government that Smart Kids educators had provided 1,456 care sessions to children while the educators were not in Australia and did not provide those sessions.
2. The time period relevant for this charge is between 2013 and 2016, and the total quantum received was $103,080.80.
3. In total, 19 Smart Kids educators names were used. The prosecution summary included a table outlining the educators names, the dates they were overseas, the total amount of care sessions submitted for the period they were overseas and the total quantum Smart Kids received from the Australian Government.

1. Charge 4 relates to payments received by Smart Kids after you submitted to the Australian Government that Smart Kids educators had provided 145 individual care sessions to children when those children were at a different approved child care service location. In essence, the fraud involved you submitting that your own children were being cared for by Smart Kids when, in fact, they were enrolled and attending a different day care centre.
2. The time period for this offending is between 2013 and 2014. The total quantum received by Smart Kids under this Charge was $7,940.38.
3. The three specific occurrences of this offending are as follows.
4. In August 2013 you enrolled two of your children, (one was aged five and the other was aged three), at the Rose Garden Sunshine Early Learning Centre. Between 26 August 2013 and 29 January 2014, both attended long day care on Monday and Wednesday, with occasional absences, at Rose Garden.
5. Rose Garden submitted attendance data, and received fee assistance payments from the Australian Government, the benefit was passed on to you by way of reduced fees. During this time, you and Mr Elshafie made fortnightly child care fee payments to Rose Garden.
6. Between 28 October 2013 and 13 January 2014, you, through Smart Kids, submitted 30 attendance sessions for those two children at Smart Kids during the time they were attending Rose Garden. As a result of those false submissions, a total of $3,157.98 was paid to Smart Kids that it was not entitled to.
7. The second occurrence was during May 2014 while four of your children were enrolled at Brimbank Family Day Care Scheme. Smart Kids submitted attendance days on 12 occasions alleging that one child had been in the care of Smart Kids when attendance data instead shows he was at Rose Garden.
8. As a result of this, the Government made payments totalling $1,075.36 to Smart Kids.
9. The third occurrence is that, during October 2014, one of your children was re-enrolled with Rose Garden. Between 14 October 2014 and 15 December 2014 Smart Kids falsely reported there were 103 sessions when he was at Smart Kids when in fact he was attending Rose Garden.
10. As a result of the falsely-reported sessions, the Government made payments to Smart Kids totalling $3,707.04.

1. The crux of offending for Charge 5 is that between 2013 and 2016 Smart Kids submitted data for individual care sessions where a parent was receiving JETCCFA. Smart Kids inflated its rates and charged those parents hourly rates that were significantly higher than the rates being charged to parents who were not receiving JETCCFA.
2. Charging inflated fees was a breach of Smart Kids' legal obligations under section 219BD of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth).
3. On multiple occasions you resubmitted data after a parent was approved for higher JETCCFA payments, in order to retrospectively receive higher JETCCFA payments.
4. The extent of the inflation was significant, and in the 2013/2014 period families not eligible for JETCCFA payments were charged on average $6.72 per hour, while those who were eligible were charged $25.42 per hour. In the 2014/2015 year families not eligible for JETCCFA were charged $8.30 per hour, and those eligible were charged $30.60 per hour.
5. The total amount of JETCCFA scheme payments to Smart Kids as a result of inflated payments because of this scheme was $1,140,208.95. In total 28 parents were subject to these inflated charges.
6. As part of its summary, which is not in dispute, the prosecution prepared a table to illustrate this offending, outlining the time period, number of sessions, hours of care, the hourly rate these parents were charged, and the hourly rate other parents were charged during the same time periods. This table also indicated the instances in which you resubmitted session data to retrospectively obtain higher JETCCFA payments and the total amount you illegally claimed.

1. Charge 6 relates to offending where you falsely advised the Australian Government that your four eldest children had entered the full-time care of Ms Mary Chol, (your mother and their grandmother), and you applied for and received assistance payments based on this false claim. In fact, the children remained in your and Mr Elshafie's care.
2. A second component to this fraud involved advising the Australian Government that Mr Elshafie's brother, Ibrahim Elshafie, who became a registered carer with Smart Kids, was caring for your children when he was not.
3. The specific circumstances and background leading to this offending are as follow.
4. On 19 March 2015, Mr Elshafie contacted the Department by telephone to advise that your four eldest children had departed his care.
5. On 25 March 2015, Ms Chol is recorded as having contacted the Centrelink Liverpool Call Centre by phone to lodge a verbal claim for fringe tax benefits for four additional children, (being your children), since 5 March 2015.
6. On 7 April 2015 Ms Chol attended the Sunshine Centrelink Service Centre and an appointment was booked for 13 April 2015. A file note of this attendance by Ms Chol recorded in summary she had four children in her care, she claimed to be in hardship and was seeking urgent assessment.
7. On 20 April 2015 Ms Chol reattended the Centrelink Service at Sunshine and completed and signed a Customer Declaration Form in support of her application for Parenting Payment Single. The form only listed her own daughter (aged 16) as a dependent, but Centrelink records indicate she again stated that four of your children had entered her full-time care on 5 March 2015.
8. All interactions up until 20 April 2015 were recorded with Centrelink officers other than Ms Kolang.
9. On 28 April 2015 Ms Kolang began dealing with this application. On this date documents were lodged in respect of Ms Chol's application for Parenting Payment Single and Fringe Tax Benefit, being a letter from St Paul's Primary School in the name of Ms Chol dated 26 April 2015 and a 'Details of your child care arrangements' form (known as an FA012). This form was handwritten, but not by Ms Chol.
10. The FA012 form stated that four of your children were in Ms Chol's full time care, on an 'indefinite/ongoing' basis and that you and Mr Elshafie had no contact with them. The form appears to have been signed by Ms Chol and co-signed by Mr Elshafie.
11. As noted, the claim that your four children had entered Ms Chol's care from March 2015 was false.
12. On 29 April 2015, Ms Kolang approved this application. She purported that Ms Chol attended the Sunshine Office and made a verbal application for child care benefits commencing 5 March 2015. The application was approved. Ms Chol was granted the grandparent rate of child care benefits by way of fee reduction. She became eligible to claim Grandparent Child Care Benefit payments in relation to the cost of child care for your four eldest children, now recorded as her dependents, as well as for her own 16-year-old daughter.
13. On 1 February 2015 Mr Elshafie's younger brother, Ibrahim Elshafie moved into your family home. He resided with you until approximately July 2015.
14. In approximately May 2015 you had a conversation with Ibrahim suggesting that he start work as an 'educator' with Smart Kids. You suggested he could earn between $3,000 and $4,000 a fortnight as part of the Grandparent Child Care Benefit if he looked after your children by dropping them to school in the mornings, collecting them in the afternoons and spending some time doing some activities with them. You suggested the money would be split between you, himself, and Ms Chol and that you would handle all the necessary paperwork, including with Centrelink, obtaining a police check, first aid certificate and enrolling him in a course of study.
15. On approximately 29 June 2015 Ibrahim began working as a Smart Kids 'educator'.

First Grandparent Child Care Benefit claim period

1. With this background, between 30 March 2015 and 17 May 2015, the first time period of false claims relates to 726 individual care sessions reported, when the four eldest children were purportedly in Ms Chol's full time care, when Smart Kids submitted Ibrahim was caring for your children. The Australian Government made payments to Smart Kids arising from Ms Chol's Grandparent Child Care Benefit. These claims were false by virtue of the children not being in Ms Chol's care, and because 726 reported care sessions never took place and Ibrahim not being a carer with Smart Kids until 29 June 2015.
2. In total $56,151.58 was falsely claimed in this period.
3. Ibrahim stated he did not provide any paid child care to your four eldest children during March to May 2015. He occasionally helped you and Mr Elshafie out by dropping the children at school and picking them up which he did on a voluntary basis as the children's uncle and received no remuneration.
4. On 19 May 2015, Smart Kids registration with ASIC lapsed and approval for Family Assistance Law payments was temporarily suspended. Coinciding, on 19 May 2015 the Department of Human Services refused Ms Chol's application for parental payment support due to her bank records indicating substantial earnings as an 'educator'. This also impacted her eligibility for Grandparent Child Care Benefit.
5. Between 20 May 2015 and 18 June 2015, you and Ms Chol contacted the Department of Human Services on several occasions seeking these decisions be overturned. During this time department employees noted inconsistences in records Ms Chol had submitted in relation to her reported income, employment status and the reported care arrangements of your children.
6. On 19 June 2015, Smart Kids ASIC registration was reinstated, and Smart Kids Family Assistance Law approval was reinstated.
7. On 29 June 2015 Ms Kolang approved Ms Chol's application for parental support payments and backdated the approval to 7 April 2015. This enlivened her eligibility for the Grandparent Child Care Benefit.
8. From early July 2015 Smart Kids began submitting attendance data in relation to the care of your children. This commenced the second time period of false claims, which occurred up until 10 March 2016 when a search warrant was executed at your premises.
9. On 24 August 2015 Ms Kolang expedited the addition of your youngest child, then aged 14 months, directly into Ms Chol's full time care. This enabled Smart Kids to begin claiming Grandparent Child Care Benefit payments on Ms Chol's behalf for all five of your children.

Second Grandparent Child Care Benefit claim period

1. During this second period, 4 July 2015 to 10 March 2016, you submitted 3,390 individual care sessions provided by Smart Kids to your children. As a result of these submissions, the Australian Government made Grandparent Child Care Benefit payments to Smart Kids totalling $329,990.
2. At least some of these reported care sessions never took place for several reasons. Firstly, 314 individual sessions had Ibrahim as the registered 'educator' through Smart Kids when, Ibrahim did not undertake these sessions.
3. Secondly, the claim remained based on the false premise that your five children had entered into the full time care of Ms Chol.
4. In total, as a result of the dishonest conduct subject to Charge 6 Government Child Care Benefit payments were made on Ms Chol's behalf totalling $386,150.58 to Smart Kids for which you were not eligible.

Commonwealth Indictment CR-24-02179.2 (the bribery charge)

1. On 29 April 2015, Ms Kolang approved Ms Chol's application for the Grandparent Child Care Benefit.
2. On 29 June 2015 Ms Kolang approved Ms Chol's application for a Parenting Payment Single and backdated the approval to 7 April 2015.
3. On 24 August 2015 Ms Kolang expedited the addition of your youngest child into Ms Chol's full time care, with the result being that Ms Chol was eligible for the Grandparent Child Care Benefit in relation to another child.
4. Prior to taking these actions, you offered to pay money to Ms Kolang to take these actions. It was dishonest to make those offers, not only because you were offering to pay a private benefit to a public official in order that the public official would exercise her duties as a public officer in a particular way, but also because you knew Ms Chol was not the full time carer of any of your children and was not eligible for these payments.
5. On 2 September 2015 you made a payment of $13,000 from the Smart Kids bank account to Ms Kolang, with the transaction description 'bills'. This was the payment you had promised to Ms Kolang for the actions taken by her.

1. You are 37 years old and were born and raised in Sudan as one of five siblings.
2. Your father, who was violent, and an alcoholic, was in the army, and your mother worked in sales. As a result of the civil war and seasonal flooding you relocated frequently.
3. You were harshly punished as a child and witnessed your father assault your mother. You witnessed atrocities as a result of the civil war. You were sexually assaulted as a child.
4. Your family moved to Egypt and you worked as a live-in nanny for an Egyptian family. You lived for a month at a time and then returned home for two days. Your mother took your earnings.
5. You became pregnant at 15 and the child born from that pregnancy was listed as your younger sister when your family immigrated to Australia as refugees when you were 17.
6. You were educated to Grade 4 and never attended secondary school.
7. You met your husband Mr Elshafie in Sydney and you were in a relationship with him since 2003: you married in 2015 and divorced in 2022. The relationship was marked by his unfaithfulness and physical violence, controlling behaviour and emotional abuse. You have five children ranging in ages from seven to 19 years. Your youngest child has been diagnosed with Autism and is receiving support from the NDIS. You are estranged from your parents and your relationship with your eldest daughter (whom you had when you were 15) is fractured.
8. You are currently in a relationship with a person who lives in Egypt.
9. You are engaged with your local church community and attend church each weekend.

Seriousness of offending and your moral culpability

1. Your offending is objectively serious for the following reasons.
2. The seriousness of your offences is reflected in the maximum penalties, being five years' imprisonment for Charges 1 to 6 and 10 years' imprisonment for the bribery charge. Whilst the maximum penalties for Charges 1 to 6 are relatively low, your offending is a serious example of the offences, using five different methods of fraud and your moral culpability is high.
3. The fraud required a detailed knowledge of the tax system family assistance law, careful planning by registering a company, setting up a bank account and applying to be an approved child care service.
4. The fraud occurred on multiple occasions over a period over years between 2013 and 2016, making your offending sustained and deliberate. Your offending only ceased after detection. The prosecution referred to your fraud as ongoing and routinised, and you made thousands of separate data entries relating to individual child care sessions. Your conduct was brazen and protracted.
5. As mentioned, you engaged in five different types of fraudulent conduct. The complexity of the offending had multiple layers of dishonesty, for example the false documents created to support the claim under the JETCFFA eligibility, the creation of false documents required to register Ibrahim as an 'educator', and the false stories told to Department officers that your mother was the full time carer of your children.
6. The quantum of over $1.8 million is very significant, the prosecution described it as 'an extremely large sum which has been lost by the public revenue'.
7. Your conduct of bribing a public official erodes the community's trust in the integrity of the public service administration.
8. You involved others in your offending namely your family members such as your mother and brother-in-law, as well as the innocent families and children's names you used to make fraudulent claims.
9. With respect to Charge 6, you perpetuated the fraud by phone calls to Centrelink seeking a reconsideration of the decision to stop the Grandparent Child payment benefit as well as by the bribery payment to Ms Kolang.
10. You were motivated by financial gain. The psychological report by Ms Bovenkerk states that during the period of offending (2013 -2016) was a phase of relative emotional stability and reduced family conflict: '[you] attributed this improvement to [your] ability to provide increased financial support and assistance to immediate and extended family members, which appeared to ease tensions with [your] mother and husband.'[1]

1. In terms of current sentencing practice, the prosecution provided a table of cases regarding current sentencing practices. These were: Saoud v R and Fernandez v R, Robers (a pseudonym) v R, Cth v Cornish, Merhi v R, CDPP v Afiouny, and R v Tae.[2]
2. I have had regard to these decisions. Every case is different and current sentencing practice is one factor relevant in the instinctive synthesis involved in sentencing.
3. I have taken particular notice of Saoud v R and Fernandez v R[3] as well as the Cth v Cornish[4] and the CDPP v Afiouny[5] which involves a bribery case.
4. The appellant authorities confirm that general deterrence is a very significant consideration in these types of offences. Sentences will ordinarily involve a term of imprisonment and the amount involved is a relevant factor in assessing the seriousness of the offending.

1. The prosecution submits a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period is required and that general deterrence is a paramount sentencing consideration for offences against the public revenue, as well as adequate punishment. The applicable principles for fraud against the Commonwealth are that general deterrence is to be given preeminent weight in the sentencing exercise and personal mitigating factors such as prior good character, age and prospects for rehabilitation are given less consideration.
2. The prosecution notes mitigating factors are your plea of guilty, although relatively late, your lack of prior criminal history, the probable effect of any custodial sentence on your dependents and delay. With respect to delay, search warrants were executed in March 2016 and charges were laid in February 2022. The reason for the delay was the complexity of the investigation involving multiple suspects and agencies.
3. The prosecution submits the objective seriousness of your offending is very high. Your moral culpability is high as you used your access and knowledge as a registered participant in the child care sector to deliberately, persistently and dishonestly exploit the system for your own personal gain. The offences were committed over years and caused a loss of over $1.8 million. The seriousness of your conduct is demonstrated by the quantum, the duration, the sophistication, the variety of your criminality, the bribery and involvement of others and your motivation for profit.

1. The defence submissions noted your plea of guilty. You entered a plea of guilty on 20 November 2024 to the fraud charges and a plea of guilty to the bribery charge on 29 May 2025. Counsel described these as 'as early as practicable'.
2. You have no prior convictions.
3. You have been exposed to personal trauma including exposure to war, displacement, bereavement, sexual assault and domestic violence.
4. You have rehabilitated by rebuilding your life as a disability support worker contributing to the community and caring for five children including one who has autism. You have a high motivation to maintain lawful behaviour and Ms Bovenkerk assessed your risk of general reoffending as moderate-low.
5. You are the sole caregiver to your children. Your imprisonment would impose exceptional hardship on your children and one has significant developmental needs and receives NDIS support. In Borg[6] the court recognised exceptional family hardship may justify the moderation of an otherwise custodial sentence particularly where dependents have special needs.
6. Your counsel submits that if the exceptional threshold of family hardship is not met, then family hardship should still be taken into account as part of the sentencing instinctive synthesis.
7. Your counsel also submitted the principle of parity applies in respect of the sentence your husband, Mr Elshafie received for one count of dishonestly causing a loss to the Commonwealth of $148,577.28. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment released on a Recognisance Release Order for four years and ordered to make reparation.
8. It was submitted by your counsel your conduct 'occurred within a domestic and business situation where Mr Elshafie exerted substantial influence and control. The opening confirms they [you and he] shared finances and decision making and that he directly benefitted from Smart Kids income streams'. Your counsel submitted you were experiencing depression, trauma related symptoms and coercive control within a violent relationship, which, it is submitted diminished [your] capacity for judgement.'
9. Your counsel noted there has been delay of nine years between your offending being detected and your plea hearing. The delay reduces the need for specific deterrence, and you have endured anxiety and uncertainty about the delay and contributed to the administration of justice by your plea of guilty.
10. Your counsel submits a term of imprisonment wholly or partially suspended is in 'range' as is a community corrections order with conditions of psychological treatment, community work and reparation.

1. You relied on a forensic psychological report by Marlese Bovenkerk, a forensic psychologist, dated 4 August 2025.
2. She diagnosed you with an adjustment disorder and that your symptoms are consistent with Major Depressive Disorder. She stated you have a probable complex post-traumatic stress disorder features. She noted you had exposure to traumatic stressors during childhood and alleged repeated traumatisation through experiences of family violence within your marriage. You have a longstanding pattern of trauma related psychological disturbance. Using the MCMI-IV[7] she stated your profile reflects a 'complex interplay of anxiety, depressive symptoms, trauma related distress, and maladaptive personality patterns, which appear rooted in [your] experience of childhood abuse and the resulting disruptions in your interpersonal and emotional development.'
3. Ms Bovenkerk noted trauma such as you report experiencing during your childhood likely adversely affected your overall development, identity formation, self-esteem, personality development, general functioning and capacity for healthy interpersonal relationships. She also noted trauma experienced during childhood can have long lasting negative effects, such as on an individual's 'psychological, behavioural and social functioning well into adulthood.'[8]
4. Ms Bovenkerk's report noted imprisonment is likely to weight more heavily on you taking into consideration your current psychological functioning. 'The volatile and unpredictable nature of the prison environment could lead to an exacerbation of your mental health symptoms including depression, anxiety and trauma.'[9]
5. Ms Bovenkerk commented that 'imprisonment is likely to have a negative impact on your caregiving relationship with your children and separation through incarceration has implications for a child's emotional, behavioural and psychological development.'[10]

1. Your counsel made a submission in accordance with the case of Verdins and submitted that although general deterrence remains paramount in large scale welfare fraud, your psychological impairment significantly reduces your moral culpability and the need for general deterrence and justifies a reduced sentence.
2. On the basis of the existence of your significant mental health vulnerabilities your counsel relied on the principles in Verdins (limbs 1 and 5) to mitigate your moral culpability and as the burden that any term of imprisonment would impose. Your counsel submitted these findings are consistent with Verdins 'where the court held that psychological (sic) that has a causative nexus with the offending may reduce culpability, reduce the weight of general deterrence, and make imprisonment more burdensome.'[11]
3. The prosecution accepted that limbs 5 and 6 are enlivened to some degree, but rejected there was sufficient evidential basis to engage limbs 1 to 4 or establish duress to reduce your moral culpability.

1. Section 16A(1) of the Crimes Act (Cth) requires the court must impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence. Section 16A(2) of the Crimes Act (Cth) details a range of matters the court must take into account which are relevant and known to the court. Section 17A of the Crimes Act (Cth) is a restriction on imposing sentences that requires the court to consider when imposing imprisonment that no other sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence.
2. I turn to consider the factors in s16A(2).
3. The nature and circumstances of the offences are such that your offending is very serious. This assessment is based on the high quantum involved, the complexity of the types of fraud, the consistent and protracted nature of your acts required to perpetrate the fraud which involved data entry involving the submission of data to the Child Care Management System (CCMS) which is the Australian Government national online care reporting system, as well as the length of time it occurred over and the number of people you involved.
4. I consider the submission that your mental impairment reduces your moral culpability. Whist there is support in Ms Bovenkerk's report for the proposition that your trauma experienced in childhood can have long lasting negative impacts on psychological, behavioural and social functioning well into adulthood, this is put in broad terms. This has led to the number of diagnosis such as severe depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. She does not however identify a direct connection between your impairment and your offending. Your offending was complex, premeditated and methodical and took place over a number of years and took different forms. Despite the traumas of your childhood, your offending reflects ingenuity and persistence and I give marginal weight to your mental impairment reducing the extent of your moral culpability.
5. In terms of your degree of involvement I reject the submission your autonomy was significantly impaired by trauma and depression. There were so many positive steps required to perpetrate your fraud, from setting up the company, the bank account, making an application to be a service provider, attending information sessions, aside from the thousands of entries made by you through the claims. I give marginal weight to the submission your autonomy was impaired.
6. I accept given your complex psychological impairments that imprisonment will weigh more heavily on you and potentially exacerbate your symptoms.
7. I accept your plea of guilty and although not an early plea, I give significant weight to it as the costs of a trial saved to the community and witnesses is substantial in a complex matter such as this.
8. It has been submitted you express remorse through your plea of guilty.
9. Your plea of guilty is of objective benefit to the community. It also reflects your subjective circumstances, namely the motive for your plea of guilty is contrition whereby you accept responsibility for your offending.
10. However, I note you have made no repayments. Ms Bovenkerk's report noted that whilst you took some responsibility for your offending she stated, 'her account of the offending was at times markedly discrepant with the official summary and she minimised and denied aspects of her conduct, while also placing blame on others'.[12]
11. Ms Bovenkerk states you showed partial acceptance of responsibility for your offending however that you continued to deny and minimise key aspects of your conduct suggesting limited insight into the full extent and seriousness of your offending behaviour.
12. There has been a significant delay of nine years between the execution of the search warrants and your sentencing. This delay has been explained by the prosecution due to the complexity of the investigation. This means you have had the worry of this hanging over your head during this time. The delay is significant and I give it mitigatory effect.
13. I turn to the relevant factors in section 16A(2)(m) of the Crimes Act (Cth).
14. You have no prior convictions. Your prospects for re-offending have been rated by Ms Bovenkerk in her report as 'moderate low' risk, and I note since ceasing offending and the period of delay you have not committed further offences. You have used the time constructively and have begun a new career as a support worker in the disability sector.
15. I turn to consider section 16A(2)(p) and the effect of any sentence or order under consideration would have on your family or dependents. You have five children. You have been having counselling from Zen Tebeje. In his report he states that following your divorce the children live with you and that their father contributes minimal child support and has refused any physical or emotional contact stating he wants nothing to do with his former wife or the children.[13] The children's ages range from 19 to your youngest son, now aged seven, who has autism.
16. The defence submission states:

Ms Deng is the sole caregiver for her children. One child has significant developmental needs and receives NDIS support. It is submitted that imprisonment would impose exceptional hardship on the children and disrupt their care.

...if the family hardship that would flow to Ms Deng being imprisoned is not considered by the court to be 'exceptional', then the court could still take family hardship into account as part of the instinctive synthesis.

1. For the purposes of Charge 6 your mother Ms Chol claimed to have fulltime custody of your four children. The report from Ms Bovenkerk states your mother manipulated your eldest daughter into making a false report of abuse which triggered a child protection investigation and the children were removed from your care but later returned.[14] Ms Bovenkerk reports:

Regarding dishonestly obtaining Grandparent Child Care payments, Ms Deng maintained her children were in the fulltime care of her mother in 2015. In support of this, she stated her children's school fees were addressed and sent to her mother. Ms Deng reported she would often be travelling to Sydney for work, noting she operated another FDC[15] in Sydney at the time. Ms Deng reported that she would typically see her children on the weekends and reiterated they lived with her mother.[16]

1. The following material has been filed regarding your seven-year-old youngest son's autism:

Functional Capacity Assessment dated 3 September 2025 by Belong HealthCare;

Speech pathology communication/Progress Report dated 28 August 2025 by Belong Healthcare;

Interim Behaviour Support Plan dated 23 August 2025 by Ability Action;

1. The Functional Capacity Assessment by Belong Health Care dated 3 September 2025, diagnoses your youngest son with Autism level 3. He has a secondary diagnosis of hyperactivity, global development delay and an intellectual disability assessed as moderate to severe. The report indicates he engages in absconding. On one occasion, 28 May 2025 the report indicates you were in the shower and your youngest son was being supervised by an older brother who was playing video games in the garage. He left the house unnoticed and was found 10 kilometres away barefoot, near a lake close to a main road. A construction worker found him and called the police. The report also notes he absconded from home on 5 August 2025 and was found by a neighbour several houses away.
2. The Functional Capacity Assessment notes risks to your youngest son associated with not receiving recommended supports as 'Breakdown of informal supports, particularly the primary carer, due to the cumulative stress of managing complex needs.'[17]
3. The speech pathology report by Belong Care described your son as non-speaking. He attends Year 1 at a specialist school where he requires 1:1 support. He is not toilet trained and wears nappies. In terms of the impact on his daily life, summarised, he requires 1:1 adult assistance for toileting, dressing, grooming and all community access, he has high supervision needs at home and school, he has limited independence in expressing needs and wants, he has restricted school participation with peers and emotional dysregulation.
4. In your case, some evidence is equivocal, such as the contents of Ms Bovenkerk's report. The extent of your son's disability and his care requirements are clearly outlined in the supporting documentation and the absence of his main adult carer is identified as a risk for him.
5. On the other hand, whilst I have been told that you are the sole caregiver, other options, such as other family members for example, your mother, have not been explained. There is no information about the other children, although I note your eldest is 19 years old. It has not been put your imprisonment will leave young children without parental care.
6. I take into account family hardship and consider this as part of the general sentencing synthesis.
7. I turn to the issue of parity. Your ex-husband was a co offender for Charge 2. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, released immediately on a recognizance order for four years and ordered to pay restitution to the Commonwealth.
8. Objectively the quantum, time frame and number of charges of your offending is far more serious. I accept the submission that parity arises with respect of Charge 2. However, taking into account the quantum and length of your fraudulent conduct, this subsumes the consideration specifically with regard to parity for Charge 2.
9. It has also been submitted you were the victim of family violence and your now

ex-husband exerted substantial influence and control over you which diminished your capacity for judgement. 10. Ms Bovenkerk's report refers to a number of examples of family violence suffered by you when the relationship with Mr Elshafie began to deteriorate in 2012. You described 'physical assaults, threats, controlling behaviour, and emotional abuse'. The physical abuse you described to Ms Bovenkerk included a broken finger and an episode of strangulation. You told Ms Bovenkerk your parents encouraged you to minimise the seriousness of family violence to remain in the relationship and to prevent perceived embarrassment to the broader Sudanese community.[18] Ms Bovenkerk noted your exposure to family violence during your marriage suggests the presence of a complex post-traumatic stress disorder.[19] She also noted you reported deteriorating mental health following the death of your brother and continued relationship conflict with your husband and your mother, including family violence.[20] 11. The report refers to your husband being controlling, but does not detail an example of how your ex-husband either manipulated or controlled you into your offending. There is no evidence or opinion by Ms Bovenkerk in her report to support the submission that your ex-husband influenced or coerced you into this conduct. You appear to have been particularly able in your computer skills and your knowledge of the claimable benefits to conduct the offending and were able to make thousands of CCMS computer entries. In the absence of specific supporting evidence, I do not give weight to this submission. 12. Under Commonwealth law I am required to impose a sentence of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances. My sentence must adequately punish you, and deter others from committing similar offences, and deter you from offending again and promote your rehabilitation. I must not impose a more severe sentence than is necessary to achieve the sentencing purposes and imprisonment is a last resort.[21] 13. When there are multiple charges, as is here, the total effective sentence must not offend the principle of totality, meaning you must be punished enough but no more than is proportionate and appropriate to your overall criminality. 14. Your offending involved a fraud on the government payment system that relies on the trust and honesty of users and because of the trust and honesty required, it is an easy target. 15. As a fraud on government funds, your dishonesty broadly impacts taxpayers and the funds available for the provision of government services. 16. The requirement that I impose a sentence of severity in all the circumstances of course means that I must also take into account the various mitigating factors I have already outlined in some detail, such as your plea of guilty, your lack of prior convictions, your deprived childhood and upbringing, family hardship, namely the impact imprisonment will have on your children, as well as the delay you have suffered, and your positive prospects for rehabilitation. I have slightly moderated the weight I give to moral culpability in accordance with Verdins limb 1. I take into account your mental health and note imprisonment will be more burdensome for you and your mental health could deteriorate for you in accordance with Verdins limbs 5 and 6. 17. I am satisfied no sentence other than a term of imprisonment is appropriate given the seriousness of your offending. 18. Given the multiple nature of the frauds in my view some cumulation is required to reflect the fact you engaged in multiple separate fraudulent schemes. 19. Some cumulation is necessary to reflect the different nature of the offending of each of the charges and your overall criminality. Ms Deng, could I ask you to stand up please. 20. In respect of Indictment #CR-23-00927 21. Charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. 22. Charge 2 you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. 23. Charge 3 you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. 24. On Charge 4 you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. 25. Charge 5 you are convicted and sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment. That is the base sentence. 26. Charge 6 you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. 27. On each of Charges 3 and 6, six months on each charge is cumulative on the base sentence. 28. In respect of Charges 1, 2 and 4 those charges are concurrent with the base sentence. 29. This is a total of three years' imprisonment and I order a non-parole period of one year and six months. 30. It is my intention that six months on Charge 3 and six months on Charge 6 will be cumulative on the base sentence of 24 months of Charge 5 and on each other, making a total sentence of three years' imprisonment. 31. In order to give effect to my intention, I direct the sentence on Charges 1, 2, 4 and 5 commence today. The sentence on Charge 3 commences six months prior to the expiration of the sentence for Charge 5. The sentence on Charge 6 commences six months prior to the expiration of the sentence on Charge 3. 32. On the separate indictment #CR-24-02179.2, the bribery charge, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. I direct that that sentence commences today. 33. The sentence of 12 months for indictment #CR-24-02179.2 on bribery is to be served concurrently with the sentence for indictment #CR-23-00927. 34. In respect of Indictment #CR-23-00927, Charges 1 to 6 and Indictment #CR-24-02179.2, charge 1, in accordance with s20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, you are convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment, and you are to serve 18 months following which I direct you be released on a recognisance release order with a recognisance fixed at $1,000, with a condition you be of good behaviour for 18 months. The $1,000 is not a sum to be paid immediately, but which could be forfeited if you do not comply with the undertaking. 35. Further, if you breach the condition of the order to be of good behaviour, you can be brought back before the court for that breach which could include being ordered to serve the remaining period of imprisonment. If you are of good behaviour for the 18 months and do not commit any further offences punishable by imprisonment, that will be the end of the matter. 36. Under s6AAA but for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentenced of five years with a non-parole period of three years. 37. A reparation is sought in the order of $1,702,189.69. That order is not opposed and I make that reparation order. Unless there are any other orders. 38. COUNSEL: No, Your Honour. 39. HER HONOUR: I will adjourn the court, thank you.

[1] Psychological Report by Ms Marlese Bovenkerk, [164].

[2] Saoud v R; Fernandez v R [2019] VSCA 208; Robers (a pseudonym) v R [2019] VSCA 230; Cth v Brian

Robert Cornish [2012] VSCA 45; Merhi v R [2019] NSWCCA 322; CDPP v Afiouny [2014] NSWCCA

176; R v Tae [2005] NSWCCA 29.

[3] [2019] VSCA 208.

[4] [2012] VSCA 45.

[5] [2019] NSWCCA 322.

[6] Borg v The Queen [2020] VSCA 191.

[7] Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-IV.

[8] Psychological Report by Ms Marlese Bovenkerk, [160].

[9] Psychological Report by Ms Marlese Bovenkerk, [170].

[10] Psychological Report by Ms Marlese Bovenkerk, [171].

[11] Defence submissions dated 31 October 2025, p 3.

[12] Psychological Report by Ms Marlese Bovenkerk, [85].

[13] Report by Zen Tebeje dated 24 October 2025, p 1.

[14] Psychological Report by Ms Marlese Bovenkerk, [41].

[16] Psychological Report by Ms Marlese Bovenkerk, [79].

[17] Functional Capacity Assessment dated 3 September 2025, p 40.

[18] Psychological Report by Ms Marlese Bovenkerk, [44].

[19] Psychological Report by Ms Marlese Bovenkerk, [161].

[20] Psychological Report by Ms Marlese Bovenkerk, [166].

[21] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 17B(2).