4. On 6 October 2017, the applicant was convicted in the Leicester Crown Court on a charge of theft from person and sentenced to a period of 12 months' imprisonment (G4).

5. On 19 November 2021, the applicant applied for the visa, sponsored by his Australian citizen wife, Narinder Kaur, the review applicant (G54).

6. On 16 June 2025, the department issued a Notice of intention to consider refusal of the visa under s 501(1) of the Act (NOICR). The applicant was invited to comment on information about his criminal history which indicated that he did not pass the character test and provide reasons as to why the visa should not be refused (G56).

7. On 12 July 2025, the applicant provided a response to the NOICR and attached various documents in support (G20-G35).

8. On 21 August 2025, a delegate of the Minister decided to exercise their discretion under s 501(1) to refuse to grant the applicant the visa (G2).

9. On 15 September 2025, the review applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision (G1).

1. The Tribunal has considered the documentary material before the Tribunal together with the testimony of the Applicant and the Visa Applicant and the submissions of the parties. The Applicant's testimony was candid and compelling, and whilst the Visa Applicant had some difficulties in providing focussed answers the Tribunal is satisfied that overall his testimony was essentially candid, and the Tribunal was assisted by the firm but fair cross examination conducted by the Respondent's advocate. Importantly the Visa Applicant acknowledged that his index offending as discussed below was wrong and that he was seduced by greed during the period of that offending.
2. The Visa Applicant accepts that he does not pass the character test under s501(6) of the Act, having been sentenced to a 12 month term of imprisonment in 2017, and the Tribunal so finds.

1. The remaining issue for determination is whether the discretion in s 501(1) of the Act should be exercised to refuse to grant the Visa Applicant the visa, applying the principles and considerations prescribed by Direction No 110 - Visa Refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction 110).

1. The Respondent has fairly summarised the approach the Tribunal is to take in applying Direction 110 as follows:[2]

13. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 sets out that the Principles stated in the Direction provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach the task of deciding whether to refuse a non-citizen's visa under s 501 of the Act. A key part of those Principles is that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government (paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110).

14. Informed by the Principles, the decision-maker must take into account the primary considerations in Part 2 of Direction 110 in deciding whether to refuse the grant of the visa. The primary considerations are:

(a) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct of non-citizens;

(b) family violence;

(c) the strength, nature and duration of the non-citizen's ties to Australia;

(d) the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and

(e) the expectations of the Australian community.

15. The decision-maker must also take into account other considerations insofar as they are relevant pursuant to paragraph 9 of Direction 110. These include but are not limited to:

(a) the legal consequences of decision under s 501 or s 501CA;

(b) the extent of impediments if removed; and

(c) impact on Australian business interests

18. Paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110 exhorts decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government and the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entertaining or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to the Australian community. This factor involves a consideration of the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date, and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

19. Paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 provides that this primary consideration is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.

Nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date

1. It is necessary to consider the nature and seriousness of the Visa Applicant's criminal conduct. On the material before the Tribunal, it is satisfied that the summary facts of the circumstances of the Offence provided by the Applicant as set out below, are made out:[3]

49. In 2014 the Visa Applicant was running his business in Northampton under the trading name "Jazz Booze 4 Less." On 10 September 2014 he was in contact with an employee of DC Payments UK Limited ( DC Payments ) - Mr Ankur JAJOO ( Mr Jajoo ) - about installing an ATM at his business premises. The Visa Applicant had previously dealt Mr Jajoo in relation to an ATM installed at another business he had owned. > > 50. The Visa Applicant provided a copy of his driver's licence, an invoice and his Lloyds bank statement for his bank account ending 860 34 and a contract was signed for installation of the ATM. However, this ultimately did not proceed and the contract with DC Payments was cancelled on 15 January 2015. > > 51. On 2 October 2014 the Visa Applicant began receiving payments into his bank account from DC Payments. > > 52. This was due to another employee of DC Payments erroneously inputting the Visa Applicant's bank account details against the account of another DC Payments customer, namely Casino 36 Limited. This resulted in money owed to Casino 36 Limited by DC Payments being paid to the Visa Applicant instead. > > 53. As a result, between 2 October 2014 and 10 October 2016 the Visa Applicant received a total of GBP 766,177.50 from DC Payments that should have been paid to Casino 36 Limited. > > 54. The director of Casino 36 Limited contacted DC Payments in August or September 2016 regarding missing payments for their ATM and were advised that payments were being made into the Visa Applicant's account. However, no one with the Visa Applicant's name was employed by Casino 36 Limited. > > 55. The Visa Applicant spoke with Mr Tim WILDER of DC Payments on 12 October 2016. Mr Wilder had made a report to police earlier that day. 40 DC Payments ceased sending money to the Visa Applicant's account , with the last payment having been made on 10 October 2016. > > 56. The Visa Applicant was interviewed by police on 14 October 2016 and 22 December 2016. He was released and was not subject to charges, bail or any other conditions following these interviews. > > 57. On 28 October 2016 a restraint order was granted against the Visa Applicant's bank accounts, property and car. At this time, the Visa Applicant's combined accounts contained GBP 679,490.53. He also held property worth GBP 60,000 and a BMW worth 6,000. > > 58. The Visa Applicant was arrested and charged by police on 30 March 2017. He pleaded guilty to one count of Theft from a person and was incarcerated between 6 October 2017 and 24 January 2018. > > 59. On 11 July 2018 the Restraint Order was discharged, as the total amount stolen had been paid back by the Visa Applicant.

2. Further details are provided by the Respondent and made out on the evidence:[4]

22. Between 2 October 2014 and 10 October 2016, a total of GBP 766,177.50 was paid into the applicant's account by DCP. An examination of the applicant's account revealed that by the time he cancelled the contract with DCP on 15 January 2015, he had already received around GBP 63,044. Soon after the applicant began receiving money from DCP, he transferred it into other accounts. For example, in the period from 4 December 2014 to 31 December 2014, the applicant transferred GBP 30,500 into another of his accounts. Ultimately, between 2 October 2014 and 10 October 2016, the applicant transferred a total of GBP 160,510 into other accounts. The applicant transferred GBP 68,929.40 from this ICICI account to other accounts in India. Further, the applicant withdrew GBP 53,550 in cash, made a purchase with V12 Sports & Classic of GBP 6,900, and spent GBP 62,017 toward the purchase of a house (G6/43-44).

23. Between 7 November 2014 and 2 February 2015, the applicant had contact with DCP employees, Ankur Jajoo and Nancy Padbury. However, he never advised them that money was being paid into his account (G7/62-65). The applicant did not attempt to call DCP using the telephone numbers listed on the company's website and did not attempt to contact DCP at all after 2 February 2015 (G6/43).

24. The error was only discovered after Casino 36 Limited made contact with DCP and, on 12 October 2016, the Managing Director of DCP made a complaint to police (G6/43).

25. The applicant was first interviewed by police on 14 October 2016. He claimed that after the deposits in his account reached around GBP 2,000, he visited the bank on two occasions to enquire about the deposits. He claimed that on the second visit, a cashier told him to google the company and contact them directly. He acknowledged he knew the deposits originate from DCP. He claimed to have contacted the company on two occasions and told a person in the accounts department about the deposits but said that they were not bothered. The applicant was reluctant to divulge the existence of his ICICI accounts held in India (G12/93 [21]). He claimed that he told his accountant about the money and was advised not to touch it. Otherwise, he said people encouraged him to "just use it" (G4/46).

26. On 28 October 2016, the Leicester Crown Court granted a restraining order over the applicant's assets at the request of the Crown Prosecution service (CPS) (G12). The CPS sought the restraining order on the basis that there was a "real risk that the assets will be dissipated. This is because Singh has already been spending the money and layering the money into other accounts" (G12/95).

27. The applicant was interviewed by police on a second occasion on 22 December 2016. At the second interview the applicant maintained that he contacted DCP twice to tell them about the money but couldn't remember the number he called or when the calls were placed. The applicant was unable to explain why he transferred money into his business and ICICI accounts (G6/47-48).

28. Media articles around this time reference the legal submissions and sentencing remarks of Judge Dean. The articles suggest that at the time of sentencing, much of the money received by the applicant remained unaccounted for. For example, one article records the applicant's lawyer's submission that he had not moved the majority of the money and that "in all, a good GBP 600,00 will be recoverable" (G18/108). Another article records the following sentencing remarks of Judge Dean (G19):

Its clear to me you've been a hardworking man and done the best by your family.

Money began to be transferred from DC Payments to your personal bank account in circumstances that bear no blame on you. It was a genuine mistake.

You must have realised quite quickly payments were being made that ought not to have been.

The efforts you made to contact them were desultory; it would be very simple to inform a company of this type of error.

You succumbed to temptation, with you saying as little as possible about what was going on and nothing about the money that kept going into your account.

You knew it would continue to be paid until the company realised the error and there didn't seem to be much chance of that happening quickly.

Over about two years £766,000 was transferred into your account.

A proportion was spent or dissipated including some that went to India and the prospects of repatriating that may not be great.

I accept $483,000 is still in a bank account and will be recovered as will other sums.

You had an obligation to notify them and return the money to them.

However, this is different from a planned premeditated theft.

Its to be distinguished between most thefts that come before the court.

Its difficult to judge the harm caused; it doesn't appear the money was missed at the time or that it would have had a great effect upon the company.

It's a case of acts of omission by you rather than acts committed by you.

Its not a case where its appropriate to suspend the sentence.

1. The Tribunal notes, as submitted by the Respondent, that the Visa Applicant's offending was prolonged over about a 2 year period between October 2014 and October 2016 which involved a serious breach of trust and in the end the theft of a very significant sum of money. Far from remaining an 'innocent' recipient of money he was not entitled to, the Visa Applicant pro-actively transferred amounts to India and other accounts, hence layering sums into other accounts and used it to obtain various assets. The Tribunal finds the offending to be serious.
2. It is clear from the Applicant's testimony that he was conflicted with sums flowing into his bank account that he was not entitled to. He accepts and the Tribunal finds that he only made a couple of 'less than half hearted' efforts to stop the flow of illegitimate cash into his account and in particular failed to mention such cash flow to Mr Jaroo, of DC Payments UK Ltd, the source of the illegitimate sums, during the initial months of the offending. The Visa Applicant admits and the Tribunal finds that he moved such cash around into different accounts, including in India, in a rather naive attempt to try to 'hide' such cash and that he mixed it with funds from his business. Although seduced by greed the Tribunal notes that in the end, importantly, all the illegitimate cash only remained 'semi hidden' with the Applicant retaining control of it rather than spending it. This conflicted approach to the cash pouring into his account over a two year period ending in 2016 enabled the Applicant to repay all the sums he wrongfully received. In that sense the consequence of the offending was tempered overall.
3. Consistent with the Visa Applicant's mindset which developed during the period of offending the Tribunal finds that he probably did make initial attempts to minimize the nature of his offending when he was initially interviewed by the police in late 2016. However, the Tribunal gives significantly greater weight to the fact that after that early period, the Visa Applicant pleaded guilty to all charges, was imprisoned which had a profound impact upon him and most importantly was able to repay all amounts owing and then some, in respect of rent earned and capital gains on a house he had purchased during the period. This is not offending of the type where all or even some of the funds were dealt with in such a way that repayment was not possible. The Tribunal finds that not only was the way in which the offending came about unique but the Visa Applicant's offending was in a sense unique as he always knew he should retain all the funds as they would eventually have to be repaid.
4. Obviously, significant risk to the Australian community would result from this type of offending for it is particularly difficult to discover and possibly can result in significant financial losses. Further, although unusual, it is possible that the same rare circumstances could confront the Visa Applicant again in his dealing with banks. However, even though the Visa Applicant took the wrong approach to the receipt of the illegitimate payments during the period of his offending which ended over 9 years ago, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Visa Applicant has 'learnt his lesson' and now is extremely unlikely to reoffend. The Visa Applicant is now a very different and more informed individual that who he was during the 2014 to 2016 period. The Tribunal's finding in this regard is supported by the fact that the Visa Applicant has not reoffending in any sense, since his release from prison in January 2018. For completeness, the Tribunal rejects the Respondent's submission that the Applicant poses an unacceptable harm to the Australian community for the reasons set out above.
5. The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs slightly in favour of visa refusal.

1. There is no evidence of family violence hence this Primary Consideration weighs neutrally.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. The Visa Applicant married the Australian citizen Applicant in India in January 2020. The Visa Applicant is a UK citizen. The Applicant has worked as a registered nurse (now top Grade 5) in aged care in Melbourne for many years. She works very hard in a demanding profession and one which is in high demand in Australia. She fairly testified that, at 38 years old, it would be difficult in the extreme for her to start her career, essentially from scratch if she attempted to move to the UK with her 2 year old daughter. On the evidence before the Tribunal that is a less than viable option.
2. Hence, although the Visa Applicant has never been to Australia, he remains committed to his Australian citizen wife, who is paying off her home here, and their Australian citizen 2 year old daughter. The Respondent properly acknowledges and the Tribunal finds that any visa refusal will have a significant and lasting negative financial, practical and emotional impact upon the Applicant and their daughter. Having considered the Applicant's testimony, in particular, the Tribunal finds that it would not be a practical alternative for the Visa Applicant, the Applicant and their daughter to move to India and, further, the lives of at least the Visa Applicant and daughter would be severely disadvantaged if that were to occur.
3. In circumstances where the Tribunal finds a genuine commitment between the Visa Applicant and the Applicant, and their daughter, the Tribunal is satisfied that this Primary Consideration weighs heavily against visa refusal.

Best Interests of minor children in Australia

1. For similar yet distinct reasons it is in the best interests of their 2 year old daughter that she be permitted to remain and grow up in Australia, her country of birth. The Applicant has worked hard at forging a clear and determined path to bring up her daughter in Australia, to her credit. Such should not be undermined where possible, as that would be clearly against the interests of the child.
2. Whilst it seems possible that the Visa Applicant could continue to raise their daughter on her own, with intermittent assistance from her parents, such is not ideal. The child will benefit more from having both her mother and father here in Australia to be involved in her upbringing. The bond between a daughter and father is an important one and should not be disrupted where possible, in the best interests of the child. Accepting that to date the Visa Applicant and his daughter have communicated only through phone and video calls, such is not a substitute for the Visa Applicant living with his wife and their daughter in Australia and being on hand, day to day, to bring up their daughter.
3. The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs heavily against visa refusal.

1. The Respondent has summarised the approach to be taken by the Tribunal in respect of this primary consideration:[5]

47. Paragraph 8.51 of Direction 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a noncitizen has engaged in serious conduct and breached this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach it, the Australian community expects as a norm that the Government will not allow such non-citizens to enter Australia.

48. Paragraph 8.5(2) further provides that it may be appropriate to refuse to grant a visa simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted a visa.

49. In having regard to this consideration, paragraph 8.5(4) provides that the decision-maker should proceed on the basis of the Government's views about the community's expectations articulated above and must not independently assess the community's expectations as they may pertain in a particular case.

50. Observing the norm stipulated in paragraph 8.5(1), and in accordance with the principles at paragraph 5.2, the Australian community would expect that the applicant should not be granted a visa on account of his serious offending.

1. In light of the matters considered above and findings made the Tribunal is satisfied that this Primary Consideration weighs in favour of visa refusal.

1. The parties accepted and the Tribunal finds that the other considerations of legal consequences of the decision, extent of impediments if removed and the impact on Australian business interests do not arise.
2. The parties further accept that the Other Considerations are not limited to the three identified above. The Applicant submitted that the significant contribution she has made as a hard working nurse in aged care, in the years she has been in Australia (as discussed earlier in these Reasons) together with the consequential loss of such contributions, should she have to leave Australia, should be considered. The Tribunal accepts the merit of this submission and finds that such other consideration weighs heavily against Visa refusal. In one sense this finding may be seen as novel within the context of applying Direction 110. With that in mind the Tribunal, in completing the weighing up process, has reached the conclusion below, in any event, prior to considering the weight of this other consideration.

1. The Tribunal has conducted the evaluative exercise of weighing up the considerations to determine whether it is satisfied the available discretion under Direction 110 should be exercised.
2. On balance, having applied the findings above as to the weight respectively to be applied to each of the considerations, the Tribunal is satisfied that those weighing against the visa refusal outweigh the considerations in favour of visa refusal. Hence, the visa refusal should be revoked
3. The decision under review is set aside and substituted with a decision to revoke the visa refusal.

....................[SGD]..........................

[1] The Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 21 November 2025 ('RSFIC'), [3]-[9].

[4] RSFIC [22]-[28] (as amended by the Respondent in closing).