DPP v Nardone & Ors [2025] VCC 1925

1. Mr Nardone, the case against you is that between 19 March 2024 and 17 May 2024, you participated in the conspiracy to defraud by sending Ms Garth traffic infringement notices issued to your associates and paying Ms Garth to falsely nominate a non-existent person and an overseas address as having been driving at the time of the relevant infringement. In doing so, you assisted your associates to avoid paying fines and incurring demerit points. This involved 11 penalty notices falsely nominated to non-existent drivers. Approximately $4,233 in government revenue was lost and infringement points were not issued to the driver.
2. Police investigators examined Ms Garth's bank accounts but did not locate any transactions from you to Ms Garth during the period of the conspiracy.
3. On 21 February 2025, you were arrested by appointment at a police station. You participated in a formal record of interview and made admissions to the offending. You said that you went to school with Ms Garth, however, you never spoke to her or had an interaction with her. You were with a friend when you ran into Ms Garth, but you didn't speak with Ms Garth during this interaction. After Ms Garth left, your friend told you that Ms Garth "gets rid" of fines. You contacted Ms Garth through "Facebook Messenger" and asked her about the fines. You then proceeded to send fines through to Ms Garth for her to falsely redirect the fines and demerit points to the fictitious drivers.
4. Once that occurred you transferred Ms Garth money as payment for the false nomination, usually the price of the fine. You never advertised the fact that you could "get rid of fines". You never intended to make money from the agreement, and it was at the discretion of your associates if you were given "extra" money, which you estimated totalled around $200.
5. You expressed remorse for your offending and admitted that it was a "stupid" thing to do.

1. Ms Stephens-Owens, the case against you is that between 20 October 2021 and 6 May 2024, you participated in the conspiracy with similar conduct, arranging with Ms Garth for 17 penalty notices to be falsely nominated to non-existent drivers. Approximately $5,096 in government revenue was lost because of these false nominations. As well as this, infringement points were not issued to the correct driver.
2. Police investigators examined Ms Garth's bank accounts and located numerous transactions from you to Ms Garth during the period of the conspiracy. Of those transactions, the transactions are alleged to pertain to the conspiracy are on 21 October 2021 for a total of $363 and 26 December 2021 for $227, for a total of $590.
3. You were arrested on 20 February 2025 and made a no-comment interview.

1. Mr Evyapan, you participated in the conspiracy to defraud in the same way with Ms Garth between 13 September 2023 and 25 June 2024. You arranged with Ms Garth for 18 penalty notices to be falsely nominated to non-existent drivers. Approximately $12,972 in government revenue was lost because of these false nominations. As well as this, infringement points were not issued to the correct driver.
2. Police investigators did not locate any transactions from you to Ms Garth during the period covered by the conspiracy when examining Ms Garth's bank accounts.
3. On 24 February 2025, you were arrested by appointment at a police station. You made a "no comment" record of interview.

1. Ms Israili, between 11 October 2023 and 26 June 2024, you similarly participated in the conspiracy with Ms Garth by arranging 39 penalty notices to be falsely nominated to non-existent drivers. Approximately $13,063 in revenue was lost because of these false nominations and infringement points were not issued to the correct driver.
2. Police examined Ms Garth's bank accounts and found three transactions from you to Ms Garth, between 27 October and 2 December 2023, totalling $1,150.
3. On 21 February 2025, you were arrested by appointment and made a 'no comment' interview.

1. The offence of conspiracy is proven once the agreement to engage in unlawful acts is formed. The overt acts performed pursuant to the agreement and the period over which the agreement subsists inform the extent of an offender's participation.
2. Ms Garth's scheme to defraud the state of Victoria could not have succeeded without people such as yourselves agreeing to participate in it and provide to her the opportunities to defraud the system.
3. You each entered into an agreement with her to subvert the road traffic enforcement system, which involves fines and demerit points imposed to deter drivers from breaking the road laws, the aim of which is make the roads safer.
4. In this case, the traffic infringements avoided included speeding using mobile phones while driving and disobeying red lights. The road traffic enforcement system exists for the benefit of the community at large; therefore, offending calculated to corrupt the system general deterrence is important. I accept the prosecution submission that this offending shows the ease with the infringement notice nomination system can be abused, because it relies on the honesty of drivers responsible for the infringements. I accept the prosecution submission that this type of offending is difficult to detect. It was only once Garth's phone was seized that the scale of the offending came to light.
5. The offending in this case was detected in June 2024, so the time that has passed since then is not an unusual period to finalise offences in this court. However, I accept that it has been a stressful period for all of you waiting for these matters to be determined and in that time none of you have been in any further trouble which supports the submissions made that you all have very good prospects of rehabilitation.
6. As submitted by the prosecution in addition to general deterrence; just punishment, denunciation and specific deterrence must be given some weight in deciding the sentence balanced against the need to facilitate your rehabilitation.
7. In this case, the offending is not so serious as to warrant sentences of imprisonment. That is common ground. The real issue is whether I should impose a non-conviction sentence, either a fine or an undertaking, or whether Community Correction Orders with conviction are appropriate.
8. All of you plead guilty at the first reasonable opportunity; saving the court, the police and the prosecution the use of the resources required for contested proceedings. I accept you pleas of guilty are indicative of remorse and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.

1. Mr Nardone, in your case the conspiracy was relatively short lived, lasting just two months. The number of infringement notices avoided was relatively small, just 11 and the total of fines avoided was just $4,233. You were cooperative with police giving an account of your involvement with Ms Garth. I accept your account and that you never advertised that you could get rid of fines for people. I accept you never intended to make any money from the agreement, although you did receive approximately $200. I also accept that you are remorseful for the offending and did not fully understand its seriousness, the flipside of which is that you lack full insight into the gravity of what you did.
2. That said, several of your associates benefited from your involvement in the conspiracy and avoided paying fines and incurring demerit points. Some of your associates benefited on multiple occasions. Your role allowed Ms Garth to pursue her fraudulent conduct. These comments apply to each of you.

1. In your case, Ms Stephens-Owens, the period of the conspiracy in your case is more than two years involving 17 infringement notices for a total of $5,096 lost revenue. On two, you avoided infringement notices that related to your own driving. Your participation, therefore, is more significant than that of Mr Nardone, in that you were involved in the agreement for longer and your offending involved more nominations and on occasions involved your own traffic infringements.

1. Mr Evyapan, your participation in the conspiracy was over approximately nine months involving 18 penalty notices for a total of $12,972 in lost revenue. Although you were not involved for as long as Ms Stephens-Owens, your overall participation was similar to hers, but the revenue lost was greater in your case.

1. Ms Israili, your involvement in the conspiracy was for approximately eight months but involved 39 penalty notices and $13,063 in lost revenue. There were transactions between you and Ms Garth during the period of the conspiracy.

1. Mr Nardone, you are now 23 years old. You were 22 years old at the time of the offending in this case.
2. You are a qualified carpenter. You work in the family business with your father and your brother. You have done so since you left school at the age of 17. The business involves building and restoring houses. You would like to become a registered builder. You have always lived at home with your family. Your family is very close. You are in a long-term relationship with your partner, Sacha. She has supported you at all hearings.
3. You pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity.
4. You have no prior convictions. I accept that you are a person of good character other than your involvement in this offending. I accept that you are unlikely to offend again.
5. It was submitted that as you plan to become a registered builder, it is likely you would have to undergo a criminal history check when taking on contracts and a conviction for an offence of conspiracy to defraud would impact your ability to obtain contracts, particularly if government was involved.
6. The prosecution submitted that I must take care to avoid speculating about the potential effects of a conviction on future employment given the uncertainties surrounding such a submission.
7. Your counsel submitted that having regard to your age, previous good character, cooperation, remorse, and because you did not fully understand the gravity of the offending, I should impose an undertaking without conviction. The prosecution's submission is that the gravity of the offending and the need for general deterrence requires a Community Correction Order with conviction.

1. You are now 29 years old. You were 25 to 27 years old when the offending occurred
2. Your parents separated when you were two years old. Your mother was an alcoholic. There was a consequent lack of supervision in your childhood. Your father died of cancer when you were young. Your childhood was affected by these matters. A psychological report was provided from Ms Pamela Matthews who described you as having an anxious ambivalent attachment style and that you crave closeness and have a fear of rejection. Ms Matthews described you as having a borderline personality disorder related to your adverse childhood attachment. She postulated that your offending was in part related to your need to be liked by others and fear of rejection from Ms Garth, and, your propensity for risk taking behaviour and impulsivity.
3. You knew Ms Garth through what has been described as a "toxic friendship". That friendship is now over.
4. Based on the opinions of Ms Matthews, it was submitted that the principles in Bugmy[1] apply in this case.
5. You went to secondary school at Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School but most of your friends from your primary school had gone to Buckley Park High School and you joined them there in Year 8. You described yourself as an average student who was good at mathematics and English. You describe some behavioural problems at high school.
6. After school you completed an Advanced Diploma of Justice. You then dropped out of university. You worked at a gift card company. You received an inheritance from your father and lived on that money for a few years.
7. You have worked for a bank in recent years as a team leader in a call centre.
8. Your personal circumstances are of course relevant in assessing applicable sentencing principles. I accept what Ms Matthews says about your personality characteristics and accept they have played some role in your friendship with Ms Garth and decision to become involved with Ms Garth's scheme. Nonetheless, you are an intelligent person and your offending occurred when you were between the ages of 25 and 27 and the significance of your upbringing and person play a relatively minor part in the assessment of your moral culpability.
9. I accept that you pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity. I accept that you have remorse for your behaviour and that your prospects of rehabilitation are very good. You are unlikely to reoffend. It was submitted that I should not impose a conviction in your case and that a conviction would likely be the end of your career in finance.
10. The prosecution submitted that the gravity of the offending and considerations of general deterrence require a Community Correction Order with conviction and that, similarly to Mr Nardone, I should guard against speculating as to the impact of the conviction on your employment.

1. Mr Evyapan, you are now 31 years old. You live with your partner in Mickleham, who recently gave birth to a boy. You have a 4-year-old son with a previous partner. You have worked as a carpenter and builder since you were 18 years old.
2. Your father died when you were 12 years old, and your mother moved the family back to Turkey, but returned to Australia after just 9 months. When you were 16 years old, you were hit by a car and sustained significant injuries. You still suffer from the impact of those injuries.
3. After you left school, you started work with your brother in construction and you have remained in that industry since. In 2017, you started your own company. You work as a sub-contractor.
4. You pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity.
5. Character references were tendered on your behalf from various members in the community. They speak to your professionalism at work and your respect in the Islamic Community. A reference was also provided from Hasene Australia, stating that you regularly volunteer at their mobile kitchens across Melbourne.

1. You are 27 years old; you were 25 years old at the time of the offending.
2. Your early years were difficult. You spent your first 6 years living with grandparents due to issues your parents had at that time. You went to school at Mowbray College, which closed, and you moved to Taylors Lakes Secondary College where you were bullied. You obtained a year 9 excellence award, after which you attended Wesley college where you did well. After school, you studied a Bachelor of Communication at RMIT, graduating at the end of 2019. You now work as a full-time marketing and media strategist at Zenith Media. You have been there for 7 months. You have not told your employer about this offending as you are very concerned about the impact of these proceedings on your career.
3. All the fines you provided to Ms Gath were from family and friends. Your counsel, Ms Conwell, submitted that you did not have any financial incentive, you were simply acting as a 'middleman', as Ms Garth was already known to your associates. You met Ms Garth when you were 16 years old and considered her a friend.
4. Numerous character references were tendered to the court on your behalf from close friends, family and previous employers. They speak of your hard-working nature and kindness towards others, your remorse for the offending and the anxiety and distress you have been through as a result of this prosecution.
5. It was also submitted that I should take into account publicity surrounding this matter as extra curial punishment, but I am not satisfied that that is a factor in this case. I understand there has been some publicity in respect of Ms Garth. As with all of you, I am satisfied that you, Ms Israili, have excellent prospects of rehabilitation.

1. In deciding whether I should impose convictions I must have regard to s8 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) which provided as follows:

'In exercising its discretion whether or not to record a conviction_, a court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case including - _

(b) the character and past history of the offender; and

(c) the impact of the recording of a conviction on the offender's economic or social well‑being or on his or her employment prospects.'

1. In that context, the spent conviction legislation in Victoria provides that if no conviction is imposed the conviction becomes spent once any conditions attached to the penalty imposed by the court have concluded.
2. Whilst I cannot speculate as to the specific impact on your future employment in any of your cases, but I accept as a broad proposition that your future economic and employment prospects will be better if I do not impose a conviction than if I do.
3. Against that, the prosecution submits that the offending for each of you did not involve an isolated act; rather you were all involved in this agreement to corrupt the traffic enforcement system over a not insignificant period and in each case, there were multiple infringement notices avoided. Furthermore, the prosecution submits that the overall nature and gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence and denunciation are such that convictions are necessary.
4. This offending was an attack on the road traffic enforcement system which exists for the benefit of the community overall.
5. Balancing all the competing considerations as best I can, I have decided to impose community correction orders in respect of each of you with not insignificant work hours. In my opinion, such a disposition best allows for general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation.
6. I must also have regard to your rehabilitation, and you will all be best placed if your prospects are maximised. You are still young people and having regard to your previous good character, I am satisfied that the overall effect of conviction for this offence will have a deleterious impact broadly on your future; and I have ultimately decided in each of your cases, having regard to all of the material, not to impose a conviction in this case.
7. The orders that I impose are as follows:
8. Mr Nardone, you are to complete a community correction order with 100 hours community work over a period of 18 months. The order is without conviction.
9. Ms Stephens-Owens, you are to complete a community correction order with 150 hours community work over 18 months. The order is without conviction.
10. Mr Evyapan, similarly, without conviction, you are to complete a community correction order with 150 hours community work over 18 months.
11. Ms Israili, you are to complete a community correction order with 160 hours community work over 18 months without conviction.
12. In coming to these decisions, I have had to balance the need to facilitate the rehabilitation of each of you. You are still young people with your futures in front of you against considerations of general deterrence, denunciation, specific deterrence and just punishment. Doing the best I can, it seems to me correction orders are necessary in this case, but I have not convicted you because in my view that would have an impact on your future rehabilitation, and that is the decision I have come to. Do you all agree to perform community correction orders? We will print those out and they can be signed.
13. We have been told that Melbourne Correctional Services will administer this. We made some enquiries about that and Corrections said to make it Melbourne, so that is what we have done. You all have to report to 50 Franklin Street, Melbourne, Correctional office, within two working days from this order. You have got to go there. There are mandatory terms that apply to all correction orders.
14. Those include, most importantly, that if you commit an offence punishable by imprisonment during the period of the correction order, you have breached the order. If you do not do the work, you breach the order. You must comply with any obligations or lawful directions from Corrections, you have to let them know if you are changing your address or your job. You have to let them know that. You cannot leave Victoria without getting their permission to do so first. All of those things are mandatory terms of the correction order.
15. You also must perform the community work that I have ordered. If you do not do any of those things you can be in breach of the order and the consequence of that is that you are charged with breach, and you would be brought back before me, for a contravention. One of the options is to resentence you. If you were in a resentencing situation, you would not get the opportunity of a non-conviction order again.

[1] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571