Sentence: 12 years imprisonment / 9 years non-parole
[2]
William Jordanou, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of a conspiracy to defraud. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is imprisonment for 15 years.
You committed these crimes with Robert Zaia and Scott Arthur. Zaia has also pleaded guilty to similar charges but there are factual differences from the case against you relating to the length of the conspiracies, the number of transactions constituting the overt acts and the amount of money derived by each conspiracy. He will be sentenced separately.
Scott Arthur pleaded guilty to similar charges on 15th March 2017 at a much earlier time in the criminal process than have you. I sentenced him and he appealed. The Court of Appeal re-sentenced him to a total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. As is the case with Zaia, so too with Arthur, there are factual differences relating to the length of the conspiracies, the number of transactions constituting the overt acts and the amount of money derived by each conspiracy. Scott Arthur was dealt with on the basis that he gave an undertaking before me to give evidence against both you and Zaia. He honoured that undertaking.
The circumstances of your offending are contained in a prosecution opening tendered in evidence and marked as exhibit A on the plea. The summary was summarised in open court by Mr Nibbs who appeared with Ms Foot to prosecute.
Your counsel, Mr Tehan QC who appeared with Mr Connors, agreed that the prosecution summary was accurate and forms a proper basis of fact upon which I can proceed to pass sentence upon you for these crimes.
The prosecution summary against you is a lengthy document of some 78 pages. It is not necessary that I here again set out in detail what is there set out except in an abbreviated way. In order to see the full level of your criminality these sentencing remarks must be read in conjunction with what is contained in the prosecution summary.
In charge 1, you conspired with Robert Zaia and Scott Arthur to defraud the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ("the CBA"). I shall refer to this charge as ("the CBA conspiracy"). Your offending in this charge lasted about six and a half years between 28th September 2004 and 5th April 2011. During that period you and your co-offenders falsified documents and information given to the CBA for the purpose of obtaining 23 separate loans on behalf of clients. In so doing you gave the CBA a false picture of the actual financial standing of the named borrower so that the risk in the CBA lending to the named borrower was reduced in a fraudulent way. This affected the assessment of the loan applications by the CBA in a way favourable to the borrower.
The money borrowed was to be used by the clients for property development. The various loans, and the property developments, and the clients involved with each of them, are described in full in the summary. In a number of developments, the arrangements were that you, or your co-offenders, would share in the profits (if any) of the developments. The summary is really a detailed description of the transactions which constitute the overt acts of the conspiracies, and the summary sets out in detail the level of your involvement in each fraudulent transaction.
During the period of the CBA conspiracy, by falsifying documents and information given to the CBA you and your co-offenders were successful in obtaining 22 out of the 23 loans applied for. By this means you fraudulently obtained nearly $58 million from the CBA making this one of the largest frauds to come before a Court in this State. The actual loss to the CBA is said to be approximately $21,800.00 million. A more precise calculation cannot be made, and there are difficulties tracing exactly where all the borrowed money actually went. The prosecution has been unable to calculate the amount of gain that you received from this offending.
In the case against Zaia the amount of money fraudulently obtained from false loan applications was more than $46.5 million, and the actual loss of the CBA was estimated to be nearly $19.7 million, about $2 million less than the amount alleged against you. In the case of Arthur the amount of money fraudulently obtained from false loan applications was agreed to be approximately $45 million and $15 million was estimated as a loss from his crimes.
At the relevant times you, and your co-offenders, were partners in an accounting firm Zaia Arthur & Associates. The firm was set up via a corporate structure. Zaia's then wife was a director, as was Arthur. Zaia was an undischarged bankrupt. You and your co-offenders were the principals in the accounting firm. Arthur and Zaia are qualified accountants. You joined the firm around 2003 and worked as a financial advisor and finance broker. Other than having worked in the finance industry, you had no formal qualifications or training in this field.
After you joined the firm, both you and Zaia expanded the business of the firm beyond that of accounting. You and Zaia got involved in property development by sourcing and managing finance on behalf of clients and the both of you became involved in property development as developers.
Each of the loan applications, together with the supporting false documents were lodged with the CBA through the accounting firm Zaia Arthur & Associates. That was deliberately done in order to give the applications legitimacy, that is they were forwarded by a practising firm of accountants. That raises a level of trust which was breached with the falsification and lodging of each false document to the bank by a firm of practising accountants. The loan applications had financial documentation, including copy tax returns and proof of earnings and value of assets said to be held by borrowers that purported to be legitimate but were in fact false. Most of this false documentation was prepared by Arthur. You and Zaia dealt directly with the clients of the firm on whose behalf the loans were applied for. You and Zaia instructed Arthur what false documents to prepare and what information to include in them. The clients were unaware of the false documents being used on their behalf in this manner.
When the loans were approved by the CBA, you and Zaia managed the various loan accounts into which the loan funds were deposited. False builder invoices were manufactured by you, or Zaia, or Arthur, and forwarded to the CBA for the purpose of obtaining drawdowns on construction loans. You and Zaia also falsified letters that purported to be from the borrowers or account holders requesting the CBA to direct money borrowed by way of transfer to various people and entities. The borrowers were unaware of such requests and did not authorise them.
By these actions the CBA was defrauded of the many millions of dollars that I have described above, and you and Zaia controlled the use of the money obtained, much of which is still unaccounted for.
The CBA conspiracy was a prolonged fraud of breathtaking proportions. It raised nearly $58 million. The level of the falsifications in some of the documentation supplied to the CBA was high and the action of giving it to the bank audacious. Your offending was planned, and sophisticated, and it seems, took advantage of the fact that the level of due diligence practiced by the CBA was negligible, if not non-existent. A simple phone call from the CBA to verify the authenticity of the information supplied, for example to the ATO, could have exposed the fraud but that was never done. The CBA seems to have placed an extraordinary level of trust in a so-called mobile lender named Epps, through whom many of the loan applications were placed. That was a weakness of which you and your co-offenders took full advantage and exploited to full measure. Mr Epps is now deceased. You were a principal participant in this offending and your level of moral culpability and responsibility for it is high.
The offending in charge 2 occurred over more than a four year period between March 2010 and June 2014. In one sense it seems the conspiracy in charge 2 took over almost where the CBA conspiracy left off. In this conspiracy the same modus operandi was employed. False documentation and information was lodged variously with Westpac Bank, Bank Of Queensland, LaTrobe Financial Services, Rhino Money and Mercedes Benz Financial Services in support of 12 loan applications purporting to borrow money for business loans, or car loans or the purchase of real estate. Of these 12 loan applications, two were rejected. That occurred when the lender did in fact check the veracity of the information supplied only to find that the documents supplied were false. The total value of the loans raised by this means the subject of charge two alleged on the facts against you was $18,703,403.00. It goes without saying that this offending in the second charge is also very serious and what I have said above in describing the CBA conspiracy also applies to the second charge.
As against Zaia, the total value of the fraudulently obtained loans is $10.5 million. In the case against Arthur it was $2 million. It follows that the amount of money involved in your criminality is considerably higher.
On the plea Mr Tehan conceded that these were large frauds committed over a long period of time. He submitted, and it is not disputed, that your role was to get the clients who would be the borrowers. Arthur did the hands on work of falsifying the documents. He conceded that the evidence shows that the ideas for the various fraudulent transactions came from you, and Zaia, and were put to the CBA and other financial institutions through the accounting firm.
Mr Tehan sought to distinguish your role from that of Zaia who he submitted was the professional and he had the professional infrastructure and contacts at the CBA to enable the CBA conspiracy to occur. He submitted Zaia had greater ownership of the fraud than you did. I reject that submission. Save for some obvious distinguishing factors on the facts alleged against you and your
[3]
co-offenders, it is difficult to distinguish your level of moral culpability for this offending from that of Zaia. You were both in it together, you both needed each other. You had no qualifications and you needed a respectable professional firm to be the front and provide the infrastructure for dealing with the CBA and other financial bodies. Zaia on the other hand was equally involved with you in telling Arthur what documents to prepare and he was quite prepared to have his firm used for the purposes of a front for the fraud. He was quite prepared to have you use his name and qualifications. It was a true conspiracy. A meeting of minds.
[4]
That said, in charge 1 the period of the conspiracy that you have pleaded guilty to extends over a longer period of time than that to which Zaia has pleaded guilty to and the amount involved as having been defrauded in charge 1 is about $10million more than is alleged against Zaia. The same might be said of charge 2 where the period of offending in the conspiracy that you have pleaded guilty to is slightly longer and the amount involved as having been defrauded by you in charge 2 is about $8 million more than against Zaia.
In March 2012 the police executed a search warrant at the premises of Zaia Arthur & Associates. At that point the police were beginning to investigate the CBA fraud. At least from that point on you were on notice that you were the subject of investigation. That did not stop you. After the search warrant was executed a further 8 false loan applications were completed and lodged with the various financial institutions defrauded and included in the second charge. That is an aggravating factor in the offending to be taken into account in relation to the second charge.
You and Arthur and Zaia were charged and arrested in May 2014 and bailed at that time. You pleaded guilty to the two charges of conspiracy to defraud nearly four years later on the 28th February 2018 when what was to be the first trial was listed to proceed. Before the plea I asked the prosecution to prepare a detailed chronology of what has transpired since you were charged and that has been done and provided to the parties. I draw from that document and the transcripts of the many mentions and directions in this court.
After you were charged there followed a number of committal mentions. For various reasons there were a number of adjournments. Some of these were at your request whilst your funding for representation was arranged. On the
[5]
26th February 2015 upon application by the police your bail, and that of Zaia was revoked. You were again admitted to bail by the Supreme Court on
[6]
30th March 2015. A contested committal was listed for you, Arthur and Zaia on the 20th April 2015. That committal was adjourned because you and Zaia were unrepresented.
[7]
On the 22nd May 2015 Arthur's legal representatives told the Magistrates' Court that Arthur would plead guilty to "an appropriately worded indictment". In fact Arthur did not agree to plead guilty to the charges that he ultimately did plead guilty to until 14th March 2017. There were various contested committal mentions of the charges against you and those against your co-offenders in the Magistrates' Court between the 22nd May 2015 and the 7th December 2015 when you were committed for trial on the basis of the hand-up brief which consisted of approximately 16,000 pages of statements and documents.
After your uncontested committal there were various mentions in this court of the matter as a trial that related to the funding of the defence costs. At this stage the prosecution had circulated a draft indictment that contained in excess of 150 charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception. It was accompanied by a Draft Summary of Prosecution Opening dated
[8]
10th November 2016 that approached 200 pages in length. I made it clear that I would not permit the prosecution to proceed to trial on an indictment containing so many charges. The prosecution agreed to formulate a number of smaller indictments which would necessitate having five trials to dispose of all of the charges alleged against both you and Zaia.
[9]
On the 24th November 2016 Ms Turnbull solicitor appeared on your behalf at a funding mention in this court and told the court that Victoria Legal Aid funding had been put in place and that her firm would be representing you at trial.
On the 14th March 2017 the prosecution filed indictment C1409654.1 which charged both you and Zaia with 45 charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception from the CBA and one charge of obtaining property by deception from the CBA. That became the first trial indictment on the understanding that if necessary there would be another four separate indictments filed should further trials be necessary. I heard argument to sever charges from the first trial indictment which I refused.
Also on the 14th March 2017 on a separate indictment Arthur pleaded guilty before me to two separate charges of conspiracy to defraud. He was sentenced by me on the 20th March 2017.
On the 11th April 2017 the trial on the first indictment could not proceed. The court was told that you had dispensed with the services of Ms Turnbull and you would no longer be funded by Victoria Legal Aid. The trial was adjourned to enable new solicitors to prepare your defence. The trial was adjourned to commence on 26th April 2017. Between that time and the 19th June 2017 the trial was listed on not less than 13 occasions but could not proceed for various reasons related to your representation, or the fact you wanted to see more documentation from the Commonwealth Bank.
Further, during this period your co-accused Zaia was providing a lengthy "can say" statement to the police. Ultimately that lengthy statement was provided to the prosecution which, for reasons best known to the prosecution, was made available to your legal advisers. This later meant that I would rule that your trial on the first indictment and any subsequent indictments must proceed separately from that of Zaia. I made this ruling on the application of Zaia. My reason for granting a separate trial from you for Zaia was that I took the view that having made Zaia's unsigned statement available to your legal advisers in a trial where you each blamed the other for the crimes, Zaia's right to silence had been compromised in a way that would render his trial with you unfair.
The unsigned statement of Zaia was regarded by the prosecution as being of nil value by way of assistance to the prosecution case. On the plea I was told that in that statement Zaia continued to deny all criminal liability for the offending. He blamed you for what had occurred. You would blamed him and Arthur, and I infer the CBA.
Between June 2017 and the 24th November 2017 there were a number of further directions hearings to prepare the first trial to proceed. A number were taken up with issues of subpoenas that had been issued by your legal advisers to the CBA, the ANZ and others seeking further documentation. The trial was listed to proceed on the 26th February 2018. It could not be listed earlier because of its projected length of 5 to 6 weeks and because of my circuit commitments. There were further mentions.
On the 26th February the trial was finally listed but did not proceed. Mr Dane QC appeared before the court and announced that he had not been briefed to appear in the trial but to act on your behalf to negotiate a settlement of it.
[10]
Mr Nibbs asked me to stand the trial over until the following day to enable discussions to proceed with Mr Dane with a view to resolving the matter. The transcript of that day at page 1 records the following exchange:
[11]
"MR DANE: Your Honour, I do not appear in the court matter Your Honour. I have been engaged in order to endeavour to settle the matter on behalf of the accused with the Crown. I didn't - as Your Honour can see I didn't seek to appear in the matter before Your Honour.
[12]
MR DANE: And so I'm watching the case to see how it proceeds Your Honour so I can, in the meantime, endeavour to negotiate with the Crown on behalf of the accused."
[13]
In fact the first trial, and all of the other charges pending against you, did resolve so far as you are concerned into a plea of guilty to the two conspiracy charges by you on the 28th February this year after Mr Dane was briefed on your behalf. I was told and accept that part of the settlement of the trial reached by Mr Dane was that criminal charges also laid against your wife were withdrawn by the prosecution. Having taken the pleas of guilty I released you on bail which at that time was not opposed by the prosecution.
On the 8th March 2018 I revoked your bail after application from the prosecution. After some further adjournments I heard your plea on the 25th June this year.
Mr Zaia continued with his plea of not guilty. On the 23rd March 2018 the court heard evidence from two witnesses (Arthur and Walker) on a basha at the request of Zaia. I had earlier adjourned his trial until 14th May 2018 and on that day Zaia also pleaded guilty to two charges of conspiracy to defraud similar to the charges that you have pleaded guilty to. As I have said there are differences in the facts alleged against Zaia as to the length of the conspiracies and the amounts involved.
You have pleaded guilty to the charges and that is to your credit. By your pleas of guilty you have saved the time and cost of what might have been five lengthy and complex trials and by your pleas of guilty you have accepted responsibility for your offending and you have facilitated the course of justice. For that you are entitled to a reduction in the sentence that will be imposed and this will be reflected in the sentence that I will shortly pass. I also treat your guilty pleas as evidence of remorse on your part for this offending. I was told and accept that when you agreed to plead guilty you offered to give evidence in the trial against Zaia. That offer was declined by the prosecution but I accept that your offer to give evidence is further indication of your remorse.
I have set out in some detail above the chronology that led to your eventual pleas of guilty. Mr Tehan submitted that you should be treated as having pleaded guilty to the charges at the earliest opportunity, namely as soon as the prosecution filed the indictment containing the two charges of conspiracy to defraud. I do not accept that argument. You pleaded guilty on the eve of the first trial having in my view run a considerable number of needless arguments which served no useful purpose other than to prolong the matter. This is an extremely strong prosecution case and you refused to face the reality that you would eventually go to jail until confronted with the fact of the trial proceeding. The two conspiracy charges that I now sentence you for were a negotiated settlement of the whole trial process so far as you and your wife are concerned.
I accept that it is always your right to maintain your innocence and you cannot be punished for it. But having pleaded guilty late in the trial process you cannot expect to receive the kind of reduction in sentence that you would normally receive had you pleaded guilty at an earlier time. You could have pleaded guilty prior to committal. You could also have pleaded guilty at the time that Arthur pleaded guilty or at any other time. Unlike Arthur, at no time did you say that you would plead guilty to "an appropriately worded indictment" or anything like that. Until you pleaded guilty you gave no indication at all that you would do so. This was a factor commented upon by the Court of Appeal in its judgment in Arthur v R[2018] VSCA 58 in the last sentence of paragraph 33 of its judgement.
The many charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception and obtaining property by deception were charges that arose from what appear in the summary which is, as I said earlier, is really a summary of the overt acts. The same offending to be dealt with at the proposed trials has really been wrapped up into the two charges of conspiracy. True it is that there is a difference in the elements of the offences of conspiracy to defraud and obtaining financial advantage by deception but the factual evidence relied upon is the same. More importantly your criminality is the same and has not been reduced by the filing over of the two charges of conspiracy. In these circumstances you cannot expect the kind of reduction in sentence that would normally follow had you in fact pleaded guilty at an early time. Mr Tehan relied upon the principle expressed by the Western Australian Court of Criminal Appeal in R v David James Atholwood and cited with approval by the High Court in Cameron v R (2002) 209 CLR 339. In my view looking at the circumstances of this case from an overall point of view, and having regard to what the court was told on directions hearings and what occurred when witnesses were examined at basha hearings, your case is clearly distinguishable and the principles expressed in Atholwood have no application here.
Mr Tehan and Mr Connors filed with the court a helpful written outline of submissions and other materials in a folder which I marked as an exhibit on the plea. Mr Tehan submitted that delay in this case must be taken into account as a mitigating factor. Because of the size of these frauds there was some delay between 2012 when search warrants were executed, and when you were charged in May 2014. But you continued to offend during part of this time. In my view, on a fair reading of the transcript of the many mentions and directions hearings that followed your charging and post committal to this court, much of the delay, can be attributed to you. Whilst you had the right to plead not guilty as you did to the first trial indictment, and to seek further documentation, and to seek to cross examine witnesses on a basha, and to fully explore the prosecution case against you, in my opinion, none of the steps taken on your behalf in this case advanced your defence one bit. Indeed it might best be described as having been a complete waste of the Court's time and someone's money. The level of cross examination, and what was achieved by it, by counsel presumably on instructions, was frankly embarrassing with witnesses frankly disagreeing with propositions put by your counsel. In my view no forensic purpose was achieved from any cross examination of witnesses by any of your counsel. Further, not one document was produced as a result of further discovery being given by the CBA which could be said to have advanced your prospects of an acquittal in the face of an overwhelming prosecution case. Obfuscation is an apt description of your approach to defending these proceedings until you pleaded guilty.
I am familiar with the principles applicable to delay as a factor in mitigation of sentencing, especially having been reminded of them by the Court of Appeal on the hearing of Mr Arthur's successful appeal. In my opinion your case is clearly distinguishable and there is little if any reason to apply those principles here.
You are aged 60 years. At the time of offending you were aged between 46 and 56. You are married with two children, a son aged 30 and a daughter aged 28. You were supported by your family in court although I was told and accept that this offending has caused a strain in your relationship with your son. I accept this is a form of extra curial punishment for you.
You were born in Australia and grew up in Mulgrave. You attended a State High School near your home and completed year 12. You did not engage in tertiary studies.
You had your spleen removed aged 14 as a result of an accident. Because of this you are more vulnerable than others to contracting infection, and you are constantly required to take penicillin three times per day. I received into evidence a medical report from your general practitioner Dr Sevdalis, and from doctors Joel and Spanos detailing the problems for you from the removal of your spleen and I have taken this evidence into account. Dr Sevdalis has also provided evidence that you suffer from headaches, knee pain and depression all of which conditions according to Dr Sevdalis require further investigation. The fact you have no spleen is an unfortunate problem for you to have been afflicted with but you appear to have lived satisfactorily with this condition for 46 years including as a young man having a successful sporting career at an elite level. There was no evidence that your time on remand has been more burdensome because you do not have a spleen.
You commenced work after finishing school as a carpet salesman. From there you moved on finding work in the financial services sector. For some time you worked as a loan/branch manager for a company AVCO Finance. It appears you worked hard to raise and support your family. You built a home large enough to accommodate not only your family but also your parents. You and your wife cared for your father who passed away I was told three years ago. Until you were remanded you and your wife have been the primary carers for your mother aged 84 who suffers from liver cancer. At the plea I was told she was receiving palliative care and it is almost certain she will pass away whilst you remain in prison. I accept your absence from her in these circumstances is a form of extra curial punishment for you. Your family home has had to be sold because your present situation has meant that a mortgage over the property cannot be serviced through lack of income. I was told and accept that you have a strong commitment to your family and you are a dedicated father and husband. This comes through in the two character references relating to you from James Wilson and Kerry Alison that were tendered, and which I have taken into account.
In your younger years you were recognised as somewhat of an elite soccer player. You played for and captained South Melbourne and you were the recipient of awards including best and fairest player at both club and state level. You later coached junior soccer at state level. I accept that in these ways you have made a useful contribution to society.
You have no relevant prior convictions. This offending aside you have led an unblemished life. Mr Tehan submitted that your risk of re-offending in this way is minimal and your prospects for rehabilitation are good. I think they are reasonably good. I accept that having regard to your age and health issues and your work history of involvement in the finance industry you will have difficulty finding employment when you are eventually released. I accept that you have experienced somewhat of a fall from grace.
Mr Tehan submitted that there should be a significant degree of concurrency in the sentences imposed on the two charges. He submitted the offences are similar in nature, which is correct, and that they were committed over a similar period. The offences in the charges overlapped only slightly, and the offending in the second charge continued for more than two years after the execution of a search warrant related to the CBA conspiracy. I will impose such concurrency and accumulation between the two charges as I think appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
After you were charged and bailed there was a condition of bail that you were not to work in the finance industry. I accept this has prevented you from earning income in this area. The making of such a condition is understandable because there is a need to protect the public. I have no doubt that because of this offending and your inability to work life has been difficult for you and your family and this is also a form of extra curial punishment for you. In passing sentence I have also taken this into account.
I was told and accept that you have been subjected to death threats and that a burglary at your house has been attributed by police to have been connected to those threats. I was also told that in consequence of death threats associated with this offending, you have been in protective custody and you are likely to serve some time in protective custody. I accept that this may make any term of imprisonment more burdensome for you and I have taken this into account.
The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are punishment, deterrence (both specific and general), rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In sentencing, I must have regard to a range of matters such as the seriousness of the offence, your culpability for it, your personal circumstances and those of the victim if any. I am required to balance the interest of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interest of the community in seeking to ensure that as far as possible offenders are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
Offending involving white collar crime on this scale calls for a stern sentence. That is because of the need to apply general deterrence and to adequately reflect denunciation of your offending. This kind of offending strikes at the heart of this area of commerce which concerns commercial business borrowing from financial institutions. It almost always involves a breach of trust, as here, by offenders who are qualified professionals who have never previously been found to have breached the law, as here. That is why stern sentences are called for as a general deterrent to others who may be tempted to offend as you have. This kind of fraud is difficult to detect and investigate and such investigations are costly and time consuming. They take up a lot of resources in investigation and prosecution, as had been the case here. I accept you were not a member of the accounting profession but you hid behind the banner of an accounting firm in carrying out this crime and Zaia was prepared to make the banner available for your use.
At the centre of these crimes rests the fact that the information upon which the loan applications were based was false. It was falsified by you, and Zaia and Arthur. This affected the commercial risk to the lender and the lenders assessment of the risk, and you knew that to be the case. The offending here extended over several years involving very large sums of money. Such is often the case with this kind of white collar crime. For these reasons a lengthy term of imprisonment must be imposed. Your offending, and that of Zaia, and the sentencing of each of you can be distinguished from the basis of sentencing Arthur. The charges that Arthur pleaded guilty to differ both as to time and amount involved. Arthur was very much a subordinate to you and Zaia. He did what he was told to do by the both of you. In my assessment, Arthur's moral culpability for these crimes was at a much lower level than that of you and Zaia. Importantly, Arthur pleaded guilty to both charges and indicated that he would do so at an early time. He had the full benefit of delay because he indicated at an early time that he would plead guilty and he gave an undertaking to give evidence against both you and Zaia. In Zaia's trial he did that and was cross examined on a basha. Again, that cross examination achieved nothing of forensic advantage to Zaia. For these reasons neither you nor Zaia can expect to receive the kind of reduction in sentence that Arthur received. Could you please stand, Mr Jordanou?
On charge 1 conspiracy to defraud you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years.
On charge 2 conspiracy to defraud you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
I direct that two years of the sentence imposed on charge 2 cumulate upon the sentence imposed on charge 1 making a total effective sentence of 12 years imprisonment. I direct that you serve a minimum term of 9 years before being eligible for release on parole.
But for your pleas of guilty to the charges I would have imposed a total effective sentence of fifteen (15) years and I would have fixed a non-parole period of twelve (12) years.
I declare that 198 days presentence detention be reckoned as having been already served under the sentences passed this day, be entered into the records of the court and be deducted administratively.
I have been asked to sign forfeiture and disposal orders which were not opposed and I have signed them. I have also been asked to make a forensic sample order which for the reasons stated and the order I have signed.
Are there any questions arising out of that Mr Tehan?
MR TEHAN: No, Your Honour.
MR NIBBS: No, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Very well, would you remove Mr Jordanou please? Adjourn the court till 3 o'clock.