DPP v Purchase [2025] VCC 1894

1. The prosecution tendered a summary of the prosecution opening, which sets out the circumstances of your offending and I sentence you on the basis of the facts set out there.
2. At the time of the offending, you were the sole Director and Company Secretary of Ingrain Group Pty Ltd (Ingrain).
3. Ingrain is the trustee for the Ben Purchase Family Trust, which traded as 'Ingrain Designs' between 2 July 2018 and 16 June 2022.
4. Between 16 July 2021 and 3 January 2023, you in trade or commerce, accepted payment for goods or services and failed to supply all the goods or services, within the period specified or within a reasonable time for eight complainants.

1. On 28 September 2021, Lisa Angel ordered a Collie floating TV unit from Ingrain Designs and paid $2,167.70. The unit was never delivered, nor was a refund issued despite repeated follow-up email, Facebook and phone calls. As of July 2023, she had not received the product or refund.

1. On 7 November 2022, Laura Giarratana and her partner ordered custom furniture from Ingrain Designs and paid a $3,000 cash deposit. The order was delayed multiple times despite assurances of delivery by 14 January 2023. Ms Giarratana requested a refund on 11 February 2023, but neither the furniture or refund was provided.

1. On 31 January 2022, Laura Hateley purchased two bathroom vanity units from Ingrain Designs and paid $6,752. The items were not delivered despite an estimated lead time of eight to 10 weeks. Ms Hateley requested a refund on 24 October 2022 and was told it had been processed via PayPal. She did not receive a refund.
2. She filed a VCAT claim on 15 November 2023 and later learnt of your bankruptcy. As of August 2023, she had not received the products or a refund.

1. On 27 November 2021, Michael Ireson purchased a Collie floating TV unit from Ingrain Designs and paid $1,950.10 via PayPal. Mr Ireson requested a refund through PayPal on 16 July 2022 after delays and failed delivery and he received a refund from PayPal on 26 July 2022.

1. On 16 August 2022, Joanne Keighley ordered a Collie TV unit from Ingrain Designs and paid $1,880. The unit was not delivered despite an estimated lead of three weeks. She requested a refund on 20 November 2022, however did not receive it.
2. She filed a VCAT application 29 January 2023. As of May 2023, she had not received the product or refund.

1. On 14 July 2021, Kirstie Mananov ordered a custom dining table from Ingrain Designs and paid $2,737. The table was never delivered despite an estimated lead time of six weeks. Ms Mananov requested a refund on 30 March 2022 and escalated the matter to Consumer Affairs Victoria. As of May 2023, she had not received the table or refund.

1. On 11 January 2023, Josh Norwood purchased a Collie floating TV unit from Ingrain Designs and paid $1,759.20 via PayPal. The unit was never delivered despite an estimated lead time of eight to 10 weeks. Mr Norwood requested a refund on 26 October 2022 and was told it had been processed via PayPal, however no refund was received. As of May 2023, he had not received the product or refund.

1. On 6 January 2023, Stephen Phillips ordered custom furniture from Ingrain Designs and paid a deposit of $5,295. The furniture was not delivered despite assurances of delivery. Mr Phillips requested a refund multiple times and as of June 2023, he had not received the furniture or a refund.
2. On 18 December 2023, you attended the Consumer Affairs Victoria offices where you read out a pre-prepared statement which included the following:
   • You did not accept payment with the intent of not or never supplying the goods or accept payment in a reckless manner during the dates alleged;
   • COVID-19 restrictions impacted the business;
   • Due to delays, you were unable to refund deposits which were outlaid on materials and labour;
   • It took nearly one year to sell the business;
     • You were advised to go bankrupt to refund customers through the estate; and
   • You provided the details of your trustee in bankruptcy.

1. I turn to the nature and gravity of the offending. The purposes of the regulatory regime includes to protect consumers.[1]
2. The seriousness of the offence is reflected in the maximum penalty applicable, a fine of up to $2,5000,000 for an individual.
3. The gravity of Charge 1 is reflected by the fact it is a rolled-up charge, that there are eight victims, that the offending occurred over a 16 month period, and the value is $25,541. Charge 1 relates to the deposits paid by consumers accepted by you, for custom made furniture which you failed to supply.
4. Your counsel submitted you did not deliberately deceive and as a strict liability offence, intention is not required to prove the offence. The act is sufficient. The strict liability nature of the offence reflects the legislative intent of consumer protection and the high standard of care required by people in trade or commerce when accepting payment for goods or services.

1. Your personal background was outlined in submissions from your counsel and references from your partner, Courtney Ilfield and close friend, Gavin Colosimo.
2. You are 42 years old and were born and raised in Melbourne.
3. You grew up in a stable and hardworking family environment. Your father is a builder and your mother works for the Department of Justice and you have a close and supportive relationship with your family.
4. You are in a committed relationship with Ms Ilfield, who runs her own business and you both care for your young daughter, aged seven.
5. The breakdown of your previous long-term relationship in early 2020, during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, was a source of significant emotional strain. You were a single parent trying to run your business during the pandemic.
6. After completing school and qualifying as an A-Grade Electrician and becoming registered builder, you worked alongside your father in the building industry before branching out into self-employment. You ran small businesses for more than 15 years, including Ingrain Designs and after that business closed, you gained full-time employment as a Project Manager where you currently work.
7. In February 2022, you were diagnosed with Stage 1 Multiple Myeloma and underwent six months of treatment. You have also had counselling with Vitalise Psychology from 2022 to 2024 and your counsel submitted you described experiencing stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms from the onset of the pandemic, escalating through 2021 to 2022.
8. However 2023, your physical health has stabilised and your mental health has improved.
9. You volunteer fortnightly at the Darebin Men's Shed in Preston and you are currently studying a Bachelor of Counselling (Youth and Mental Health) with an interest in youth justice and substance abuse support. You intend to pursue further employment within the Department of Justice and work directly with young people in need of guidance and support.

1. I turn to the submissions. It was submitted by your counsel you did not deliberately deceive or set up a scheme: you did not refund these complainants because you were unable to make refunds due to a cash flow crisis.
2. You sold the business in 2023 and you have been on a payment plan since then making weekly deposits and a letter by Ian Grant from Langdon Grant dated 4 December 2025 provided, confirms your liability to contribute income contributions totalling $48,482.36 towards your bankrupt estate for the period from 7 March 2023 to 6 March 2026. You have made income contributions totalling $43,613, as of 4 December 2025.
3. You have pleaded guilty which your counsel submits is accompanied by remorse.
4. You have excellent prospects for rehabilitation and counsel submitted a fine without conviction will meet the purposes of sentencing.
5. The prosecution referred to current sentencing practices and the cases of DPP v Michael[2] and DPP v Rayes.[3]
6. In Michael the accused (who faced multiple charges) devised a scheme to place small businesses on a register which would guarantee them work. Twelve businesses paid a fee which totalled $24,420. No work was forthcoming, and neither were the fees refunded to the small businesses who signed up. The accused was convicted and fined $6,000 with conviction and placed on an adjourned undertaking.
7. In Rayes, the other case, the accused took deposits and part payments to the value of $108,568 from seven complainants over a two-year, nine-month period. There were also other offences such as entering a major domestic building contract without being a registered builder. That accused was convicted and fined $15,000.
8. The prosecution submitted that by going bankrupt you were attempting to avoid customers successfully recovering their funds and the impact on the victims is that they are each missing between $1,759.20 (the smallest amount owing) and $6,752 (the largest amount owing) and the prosecution submitted a fine with conviction is the appropriate sentence.

1. I turn to sentencing considerations. I take into account the seriousness of your offence reflected by the maximum penalty that the offending was over 16 months and involved eight complainants. Although the total amount involved is not at the highest end, it is significant.
2. I take into account your plea of guilty. It has utilitarian value of saving the administration of justice the time and cost of a trial.
3. Whilst it was submitted you did not plead guilty at the earliest opportunity, your counsel submitted you pleaded guilty on 16 May 2025, prior to committal, after you had engaged solicitors.
4. It was submitted you are remorseful and have accepted responsibility. The reference from Ms Ilfield refers to you 'living with total remorse' and that you rarely get a full night's sleep, and that you talk about what you could have done differently.
5. In terms of repaying the amounts owing, I asked your counsel what had been repaid to these eight complainants, and was told that you make weekly payments to your trustee in bankruptcy and following your plea counsel provided proof of this. Whilst this amount is being paid to your trustee in bankruptcy, it is unclear what repayments have been made to recompense the eight complainants.
6. With respect to the prosecution submission that you went bankrupt to avoid your creditors, including these eight complainants, your counsel stated that your business was taken over through the bankruptcy and, by virtue of this, you are not in a position to know whether these complainants are being repaid. However, your counsel reiterated you have made the contribution repayments to your trustee as required. I note in the statement to Consumer Affairs that you made on

18 December 2023, you stated that 'you were advised to go bankrupt to refund customers through the estate.' I am not satisfied the submission that you went bankrupt to avoid paying these eight creditors is established to the relevant standard of beyond reasonable doubt. 7. I take into account the impact on victims and their personal circumstances. Two victim impact statements were read to the court. The victim impact statement from Steve Phillips indicated that he and his wife felt you had exploited their trust and taken advantage of their goodwill. He expressed the significant effect this loss had had on him and his wife, as they had saved for years to buy furniture for the family home, the deposit they paid you was a portion of their savings and that losing it has set them back years financially. He referred to other emotional costs as well. The victim impact statement from Lisa Angel referred to her anxiety and stress and humiliation at being scammed, as well as being financially affected. 8. I note you have no prior convictions. 9. This offending appears to be out of character and occurred in the context of a confluence of circumstances: at the beginning of the pandemic your long-term relationship broke down. You were managing being a single parent and the pandemic was destabilising your business. In February 2022 you had the health issue of being diagnosed with Stage 1 Multiple Myeloma and had six months of treatment while keeping the business going. 10. Counsel submissions note your health and business pressures contributed to your reduced ability to manage large volumes of customers and operational demands and significantly impaired your judgement, resilience and organisational capacity.'[4] 11. I note your prospects of rehabilitation are positive. You have undertaken counselling with a psychologist. You have fulltime employment as a project manager. You are in a relationship with Ms Ilfield and care for your seven-year-old daughter. You volunteer and you are studying a Bachelor of Counselling (Youth and Mental Health) and hope to pursue work in that field in the future. 12. I accept that deterrence, punishment and protection of the community are the principal purposes for sentencing for this offence. and I am of the view these purposes can be achieved through imposing a fine. 13. With respect to whether to impose a conviction, I must have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the factors in s8 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). 14. As I have said, the nature of the offence is a serious one reflected by the maximum penalty, the timeframe over which it occurred and the number of victims. The amount involved is not as large as some other offending, but significant for the eight victims as emphasised through the victim impact statements. 15. Your character and past history is such that you are 42 years old and have no prior convictions. You ran businesses as a small furniture making business for about 10 years. You have provided references from your partner and your friend of three decades, Gavan Colisimo, who described you as having a good heart, being thoughtful and trustworthy, as well as well as being truly sorry to all the customers involved. 16. With respect to the impact of recording a conviction on your economic or social wellbeing or employment prospects, I note you are currently working full time despite being bankrupt and are making weekly deposits towards your bankrupt estate I have given the details of your total income contributions to date. It is doubtful a conviction would impact your ability to work in your current role as a project manager. However, in the long term it is submitted you seek to move into counselling and are currently doing a Bachelor of Counselling. In my view, the imposition of a conviction will impact adversely on the prospects of you entering that new field of employment. 17. I note in both the cases referred to, Michael and Rayes, the accused in each had relevant prior convictions. The offending was more complex. In Michael the offender pleaded guilty to five rolled up charges and in Rayes the offender pleaded guilty to one rolled up charge and four related summary offences. The value of the one rolled up charge was much higher, being over $100,000 and the four victims that had to undertake rectification works valued at over $95 000. So these two cases can be distinguished from your offending and personal circumstances. 18. I take into account the circumstances of the offence, your character and past history and the impact of recording a conviction on your future employment prospects, together with all the circumstances of this case. I also take into account your financial circumstances as well as the nature of the burden the payment of a fine will impose. 19. Could you stand up, please, Mr Purchase. In respect of this matter, I impose a fine of $5,000 without conviction. Are there any other orders? 20. MS SAVILLE: No, Your Honour. 21. MR GRANT: Nothing, Your Honour. 22. HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. In that case we will adjourn the court. Thank you.

[1] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), adopted in Victoria by the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic) section 1.

[2] [2024] VCC 2087 (Michael).

[3] [2025] VCC 226 (Rayes).