DPP v Schubert [2026] VCC 333

(a) you would provide names of participants of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) to Mr Strepelias;

(b) Mr Strepelias would then use that information to raise an invoice against the NDIS participants, and make claims to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) through his business for payment for services that were never provided to the NDIS participants; and

(c) once Mr Strepelias received the money from the NDIA, he would transfer 50% to an account nominated by you.

1. In accordance with that agreement, you supplied the names of 49 NDIS participants to Mr Strepelias. You also nominated an account to which Mr Strepelias could transfer the dishonestly obtained funds.
2. Mr Strepelias then made 78 false claims to the NDIA for services provided to those NDIS participants, when no services were, in fact, provided. The claims were made between 28 June 2018 and 24 July 2018.
3. Between 3 July 2018 and 24 July 2018, Mr Strepelias transferred a proportion of the money received to the bank account nominated by you. The account was held in the name of your former partner Nada Berjaoui.
4. As a result of the false claims, you and Mr Strepelias dishonestly caused a loss to the Commonwealth in the total sum of $160,368.55.

1. The NDIA is an independent statutory authority and its roles include the implementation and administration of the NDIS.
2. The NDIS provides funding for 'participants' to access services and supports needed as a result of their disabilities. Participants have individualised 'plans' with a particular amount of funding approved, to help them obtain support services and assistance which is determined by consideration of each individual participant's needs. Participants can choose various services and supports from the marketplace of providers.
3. Participants have control over their plan budget and can choose to have their funds:

(a) self-managed;

(b) managed by a plan manager;

(c) managed by the NDIA; or

(d) managed using a combination of the above.

1. Each plan has an end date within the NDIA systems and, prior to the end date of the plan, it is reviewed and a new plan is put in place that includes the funding deemed reasonable and necessary to meet the support needs and goals of the new plan.
2. An individual or organisation that delivers a support or product to a NDIS participant is a NDIS 'provider'. Providers can be registered or unregistered with the NDIA, but only registered providers can provide supports to NDIA managed participants and access the Provider Portal (myplace) to make payment requests.
3. To register as a provider, the individual or organisation needs to create a Provider Digital Access (PRODA) account. When registering a PRODA account, providers are required to create a username and password. They are then issued with a unique PRODA identification number. Providers are also required to register their contact mobile telephone phone number. To complete the registration process, the NDIA issues a unique NDIS Provider number. The authentication process through PRODA provides secure access to the myplace portal.
4. Myplace is a secure website portal where providers register their Australian Business Number (ABN) and business operating name and apply for registration groups. A registration group is linked to the types of specific services the provider offers to participants which are included in the NDIS price guide.
5. Providers are required to read and sign a Declaration of Suitability confirming that they have read, understood, and agree to abide by the NDIA's guidelines and the NDIS Terms of Business for Registered Providers.
6. Providers use their myplace portal to manage their transactions with the NDIA and to view and manage their services with participants.
7. To receive payment from the NDIA for services provided to a participant, the registered provider must:

(a) create a service booking in myplace. When completing a service booking the registered provider makes a declaration that the service booking has been discussed and agreed to by the participant; AND

(b) once the service is delivered, the registered provider can make a payment request via myplace. These requests are validated by the NDIA before being approved and paid. The validation process involves confirming that there is sufficient budget within the participant's plan and service booking, and that the provider is registered to provide the services claimed.

1. When registered providers seek payment for services provided to participants, they access the myplace provider portal and submit data to make a payment request. The payment request data is captured and sent to internal NDIA systems for validations and approval. Payment requests are either approved or rejected based on the outcome of the validation checks.
2. All claims for payment for services or supports provided to participants by the provider are processed by the NDIS. Upon approval, payments are directly made into the Provider's nominated bank account(s).

1. On or about 17 March 2017, Mr Strepelias registered the company Quality Home Improvements (QHM) Pty Ltd (ACN 618 031 413) (QHM) as an incorporated company of which he was the sole Director and Shareholder.
2. On 29 November 2017, Mr Strepelias created a PRODA account with the username of 'astrepelias' and received the unique identifier of '4648595552'.
3. On the same day, 29 November 2017, Mr Strepelias submitted an application through the myplace portal, with QHM as the provider, for the registration group 'household tasks' in Victoria.
4. On 30 November 2017, Mr Strepelias signed and uploaded to the myplace portal a Declaration of Suitability in his capacity as Director of QHM.
5. On 13 December 2017, the NDIA approved QHM as a registered provider for the registration group 'household tasks' in Victoria and issued it with a Certificate of Registration.
6. Subsequently, on 23 May 2018, Mr Strepelias used the myplace portal to submit an application using the QHM as a provider for registration group 'Assist travel/Transport' in Victoria.
7. Six days later, on 29 May 2018, Mr Strepelias used the myplace portal to submit an application using the name QHM as a provider for registration groups 'Plan Management' in NSW and 'Home Modification' in the ACT, Queensland, NSW, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria.
8. On 31 May 2018, the NDIA approved QHM as a registered provider for these subsequent registration groups and issued it with a Certificate of Registration.
9. Payments for alleged services rendered by QHM were to be deposited into a Westpac Banking Corporation account held by Mr Strepelias (the Westpac Account).
10. On 30 June 2018 the nominated bank account for QHM changed to a Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) account (CBA Account 1).
11. Mr Strepelias was the sole account holder of both bank accounts.

1. Your partner at the time, Ms Berjaoui, held an account in her name with the Bank of Melbourne, BSB 193879 Account 440232622 (the Berjaoui Account).
2. At the time of the offending, Mr Strepelias held three relevant bank accounts in his own name:

(a) Westpac bank account BSB: 732109, Account Number 550173 (the Westpac account registered with the NDIS);

(b) CBA account BSB: 063097, Account Number 12068527 (the CBA Account 1 registered with the NDIS); and

(c) a second CBA account, BSB: 063097, Account number 13269654 (CBA Account 2).

1. In December 2012, you and Mr Strepelias met while working together at Aegis Services Pty Ltd (Aegis), a private education provider in Melbourne.
2. In December 2013, Aegis closed down and thereafter, Mr Strepelias only saw you by chance a few times within the industry.

1. In 2018, you were employed at JobCo, a not-for-profit association that provides employment assistance and support for people with mental health issues. Your role was an 'Employment Consultant' within the 'Disability Employment Services' division of JobCo.
2. In or around May 2018, you and Mr Strepelias ran into each other in Prahran. You spoke briefly. Mr Strepelias said he was an approved NDIS provider, and you said you might have clients for him. Mr Strepelias and you agreed to catch up again.
3. You and Mr Strepelias met the following week in Prahan where you verbally agreed that:

(a) you would provide Mr Strepelias a list of names of clients that had been approved for the NDIS;

(b) Mr Strepelias would then use that information to raise an invoice against the NDIS participants, and make claims to the NDIA through his business, QHM, for payment for services that were never provided to the NDIS participants; and

(c) once Mr Strepelias received the money from the NDIA, he would transfer 50% to an account nominated by you .

1. This is the agreement by which the you and Mr Strepelias committed the offence subject of this prosecution.
2. On 6 June 2018 between 1.00pm and 1.41pm, you, via your work email address, and Mr Strepelias, via his email address exchanged emails referring to this agreement which are outlined in detail in the prosecution opening and which the prosecution rely on as proof of the agreement between you and Mr Strepelias.
3. Mr Strepelias' laptop held a folder entitled 'NDIS' which contained 61 excel spreadsheets. He says these are the type of spreadsheets he received from your email in order to make a claim.
4. Between 28 June 2018 and 24 July 2018, Mr Strepelias made claims through QHM to the NDIA for services purportedly provided to 49 NDIS participants. None of the services that Mr Strepelias claimed were provided to those NDIS participants were in fact provided. The particulars of those individual false claims are set out in detail in table form in the prosecution opening.
5. As a result of those claims, between 29 June 2018 and 26 July 2018 Mr Strepelias received $166,166.05 into the Westpac Account and CBA Account 1, following which he transferred the amounts into CBA Account 2.
6. However, on 20 July 2018, the payment of $2,612.50 charged against NDIS participant TS' plan was returned by Mr Strepelias. The payment of $3,135.00 charged against NDIS participant AC's plan on 8 July 2018 was also returned by Mr Strepelias.
7. The total amount actually obtained by Mr Strepelias from the NDIS payments, and the total loss to the Commonwealth, was therefore $160,368.55.
8. The deposits from the NDIA into Mr Strepelias' Westpac Account and CBA Account 1, between 28 June 2018 and 24 July 2018, contained both charged and uncharged claims.
9. Further to and in accordance with the agreement:

(a) you provided Mr Strepelias with account details to transfer funds to him, namely, the Bank of Melbourne Berjaoui Account;

(b) between 3 July 2017 and 24 July 2017, after receiving payments from the NDIS and transferring them to CBA Account 2, Mr Strepelias transferred a total sum of $91,928.73 from CBA Account 2 to the Berjaoui Account; and

(c) almost each transfer to the Berjaoui account was identified by the reference 'Doll House Consult', and on each occasion was exactly, or almost exactly 50 per cent of the NDIS payments Mr Strepelias had received that day.

1. Your involvement was detected as a result of the prosecution of Mr Strepelias for the above offending.

1. The charge to which you have pleaded guilty related to you supplying the names of 49 NDIS participants to your co-offender, Mr Strepelias who then made 78 false claims to the NDIS over a four week period using those names for services not provided. Mr Strepelias then transferred to your nominated account a portion of the money.
2. While the offending period is relatively short, it translated into a significant fraud committed by you causing a loss to the Commonwealth in the total sum of $160,368.
3. While the fraud committed by you involved payments from a government organisation, in this instance it had a direct impact on victims as is reflected in the victim impact statements. In other types of fraud on government entities, although there is an impact on the entity, individual victims are generally not directly affected. In this instance however the victims believed that they were receiving services while observing that their funding was reducing without any services being provided. As this occurred without explanation, it caused significant anxiety and stress to those impacted. As such, your offending affected vulnerable members of the community and in my view, in all the circumstances, represents serious offending.

1. Three victim impact statements were tendered on the plea, two from NDIS participants, and one from the sibling of a NDIS participant. All three NDIS participants were impacted by your fraud, which reduced the amount of funds they were able to utilise for vital support services. One victim describes how this situation caused her stress and anxiety which exacerbated her multiple sclerosis symptoms and resulted in relapses. Another victim, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder, Bipolar Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, also experienced a worsening of her symptoms as a result of your offending. A third victim, who suffered from schizophrenia, was unable to attend a YMCA camp due to insufficient funds in his NDIS budget, which caused his mother, his primary carer, psychological distress.
2. It is clear that your fraud had a material impact on the health and wellbeing of these already vulnerable NDIS participants, and I take the content of their victim impact statements into account.

1. You were born in what was then Rhodesia now Zimbabwe in 1976 during a period of civil unrest.
2. Your biological father was a British national soldier and your mother was born and raised in Zimbabwe. You never met your biological father and your mother was incapable of looking after you. You were orphaned at a very young age and raised by Nuns in a Children's Home in Rhodesia until the age of 10.
3. In 1985 your biological mother moved to Australia with her then new partner Alan Schubert who was also a soldier. You were flown to Australia the following year to reside with your mother and stepfather moving into a home in West Heidelberg in Melbourne.
4. You experienced and report a turbulent early childhood marred by quite significant separation, alienation, family violence, alcohol abuse and sexual abuse. Both your mother and stepfather were badly affected by the conflict in Zimbabwe, especially your stepfather who was an alcoholic and violent man.
5. You attended numerous schools in Melbourne however your education was profoundly upset by the difficulties you faced at home. You completed high school at Swinburne TAFE in your early twenties whilst commencing part time work with Aegis Australia, in its call centres. You then moved into a management roll with Aegis and ultimately began working on their training and business development programs.
6. Since the completion of your schooling your work history has been extremely consistent and predominately focused around working with the community. You started your own company called Yarra Advantage, a registered training organisation assisting unemployed people with gaining employment and have also worked for Kids Off the Kerb, a charity concerned with supporting disadvantaged young people.
7. You commenced drinking alcohol at around the age of 14 and acknowledge that alcohol has been an ongoing problem for you. You will often consume a bottle of red wine and one beer per night.
8. A bundle of character references were tendered on the sentence indication and further were tendered on the plea which I have read and taken into account.
9. Nathan Stirling, chairman of Kids Off The Kerb describes that in your 12 years of working together you have shown yourself to be a person of honesty and integrity. Further he asserts that you are widely appreciated by those who interact with you and are admired for your kindness, enthusiasm, creativity, hard work, responsibility and clear commitment to the needs of others.
10. Alex Martins, CEO of Kinaway - Aboriginal Chamber of Commerce Victoria confirms your dedication to your work stating you are 'highly respected within the Aboriginal business community' and that you are someone who approaches your work with professionalism, care, and cultural respect.
11. You have been married to your wife Nade Berjaoui for many years and together you have two children. You son is 19 and currently undertaking an electrical apprenticeship and your daughter is 14 and still in high school. Your family has been supportive of you throughout your court proceedings.
12. Your wife also provided a reference to the Court in which she speaks to the significant financial and emotional impact that your offending has had on your family. Your son has made the difficult decision to leave school before completing Year 11 in an effort to reduce the financial strain on the household and your daughter has been struggling with the uncertainty of your imprisonment. It is clear that your family relies on you for stability, guidance and practical support in everyday life.

1. As the charge to which you have pleaded guilty to is a Commonwealth charge, I am required to sentence you in accordance with Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ('Crimes Act'). Pursuant to s 16A(1) of the Crimes Act, the overarching principle is that any sentence I impose must be of 'a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence'. As part of that process, I must take into account the non-exhaustive list of matters pursuant to s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act that are relevant and known to the court.
2. First is your plea of guilty, which was entered following a sentencing indication before me on 12 February 2026. Your plea therefore has utilitarian benefit saving the court the time and expense of a trial. However, I note that the plea is not an early plea and the sentence indication was sought close to the trial date. I note also that you cross-examined witnesses at a committal hearing.
3. At the sentence indication hearing you indicated through your counsel that upon entering a plea of guilty, you offered to provide approximately $40,000 in restitution. I accept this offer as further demonstration of your acceptance of responsibility. At the formal plea hearing evidence was presented that you have indeed now paid $40,000 to the NDIS.
4. It was submitted on your behalf at the sentence indication hearing that as a result of dysfunctional aspects of your upbringing, Bugmy principles have application. While I do take into account your general background and circumstances in the sentencing discretion, on the current evidence I do not accept that Bugmy principles have application in the specific or general sense.
5. As to Verdins principles 5 and 6, again while I accept that facing a term of imprisonment for a person facing custody for the first time may invoke significant stress, the material relied on does not in my view enliven Verdins principles in this instance.
6. It was submitted that the impact of the sentence on your family should be given some weight pursuant to s 16A(2)(p) of the Crimes Act. Your wife's reference was relied on in that regard. The prosecution submit that the evidence does not demonstrate any financial or emotional impact other than what can ordinarily be expected when a member of a family is incarcerated. However your wife's reference does indicate that you are relied on for financial support and that you have been a very 'hands on' father. There can be no doubt that your imprisonment will be unsettling particularly for your 14 year old daughter who relies on you for support and encouragement at an important stage in her development. I accept that the probable effect on your family as a result of the sentence I impose can be given some weight.
7. I take into account that delay has some relevance in this matter. The complaint was made in July 2018 however a fraud investigation team was not established at the NDIS until January 2019 with the criminal investigation commencing in October 2019. Your involvement was detected as a result of the investigation of Mr Strepelias. You were ultimately committed to this court in November 2024. None of that delay is attributable to you. In the circumstances you have had the burden of this matter hanging over your head for a number of years which I take into account.
8. I turn now to your prospects of rehabilitation. You have a consistent and stable work history predominantly in social service organisations. The references tendered attest to the fact that you are otherwise highly respected in the areas you have worked. Further, you continue to enjoy the support of your family. In the circumstances, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as very good.
9. General deterrence is undoubtedly the primary sentencing consideration. Offending of this type has a direct impact on the recipients of a government funded system while also putting at risk the public's confidence in such systems. A message must be conveyed that frauds of this nature will be met with stern consequences by the courts. Turning to specific deterrence, I note that you have a relevant prior matter in 2003 for dishonesty offending, for which you received a fine without conviction. As such in my view while specific deterrence still has some role to play, it is only to a limited degree.
10. Turning now to parity. Your counsel submitted that upon analysis of the circumstances of your co-offender, the principle of parity dictates that the sentence I impose on you should not largely vary from that imposed on Mr Strepelias. It was submitted on your behalf that Mr Strepelias' role and culpability may be higher than yours - although it was conceded that you benefitted equally. It was further submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation are stronger than Mr Strepelias', and that Mr Strepelias had committed similar offending to this which was the subject of a second charge on his indictment.
11. In my view when consideration is given to the role you played in the offending, your personal circumstances, and your prospects of rehabilitation, there is little to meaningfully distinguish between you and Mr Strepelias.
12. The prosecution pointed to matters that militate against parity. Mr Strepelias pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and did not run a contested committal, his plea also was entered during the COVID-19 pandemic and he received a 'Worboys' discount. Mr Strepelias offered to pay $94,000 and provided a cheques in that amount. Critically, the most powerful matter in mitigation was that Mr Strepelias provided a sworn undertaking to give evidence against you at your trial resulting in a s 16AC discount.
13. Undoubtedly, Mr Stepelias' undertaking to give evidence carried significant weight in the sentencing discretion. The prosecution case relied heavily on his evidence that established the agreement between Mr Strepelias and you to undertake the fraud. His past co-operation, early plea of guilty and the Worboys considerations also carried considerable weight in the sentencing calculus.
14. Having taken into account the relevant matters, in my view a sentence of imprisonment with a portion of that sentence to be immediately served is the only appropriate sentence that is able to meet the applicable sentencing considerations in this instance.

1. Mr Schubert, would you please stand.
2. Kim Michael Schubert, on Charge 1, dishonestly causing a loss to a Commonwealth entity, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. I direct that you be released after serving 9 months of that sentence upon entering a recognizance in the sum of $5000, to be of good behaviour for a period of three years.
3. The purpose and effect of the recognizance release order is that it requires you to be of good behaviour for a period of three years from your release. If you commit a further offence in breach of the recognizance to be of good behaviour in that three year period after your release, then unless you show a reasonable excuse for committing a further offence or offences, you will be dealt with for that breach and resentenced. You may have to pay $5000 and you may have to serve immediately the term of imprisonment I have imposed.
4. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to a period of 4 years imprisonment with a non parole period of 2 years