R v Mehieddine

On 9 December 2024, Mr Trevallion SC appeared on behalf of the offender. Substantive submissions were made with respect to a defence application to withdraw the previously signed and tendered Agreed Facts (see Environment Protection Authority v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 152).

After considerable discussion regarding an expressed intention by the Defence to obtain a forensic accounting report, the matter was adjourned for further mention to 13 December 2024. It should be noted that in addition to the withdrawal of a number of counsel, there had also been a change of solicitor in November 2024. The matter was listed for further mention on 13 February 2025.

On 13 February 2025 the Court was advised that negotiations were ongoing between the defence and the Crown with respect to the disputed facts. Mr Trevallion SC was now no longer appearing.

The Court was advised that junior counsel briefed, Ms Amarande Chauvet, was no longer comfortable in appearing. The new solicitor, Mr Sakr, advised the Court that he was also having difficulties continuing to appear but would keep the Court updated.

Dates for a disputed facts hearing on 15 and 16 April 2025 were confirmed. The matter was adjourned for mention via AVL on 13 March 2025 when the Court was sitting on circuit in Queanbeyan.

On 13 March 2025, the matter was mentioned in Queanbeyan District Court with all parties appearing via AVL. The Court was advised that there would now not be any forensic accountant’s report obtained for the Defence, but it was anticipated that there would be some amendment to the previously agreed facts specifically with respect to quantum. In those circumstances it was anticipated that the sentence hearing would proceed on 15 April 2025.

On 15 April 2025 Mr Trevallion SC again appeared in the matter. Amended Agreed Facts were tendered which reduced the total amount obtained by the fraudulent conduct from $2,427,325.10 down to $2,215,351 and the total number of services fraudulently claimed to have been performed was reduced from 44,523 down to 40,043.

HICAPS terminals would be available at different medical or physiotherapy practices and an employed physiotherapist, for example, could process claims utilising the electronic terminals which, pursuant to the rebate system, would cause payment of the Medicare rebate or “the scheduled fee” into the bank account of the patient or client making the claim.

In due course, in November 2019, the offender set up his own physiotherapy practice and actually obtained his own HICAPS terminal machine, with the merchant contract pursuant to which it was supplied listing him as the physiotherapist provider.

The first group of offences with respect to the present sentence proceedings occurred in November 2019.

Before turning to those particular offences, it is appropriate to place them in the context of surrounding circumstances leading up to the repetitive fraudulent conduct committed against the Commonwealth during the subsequent period of almost 3 years.

While I will deal with the detail of the subjective circumstances of the offender in due course, he has described both in an affidavit tendered on his behalf and in evidence given by him in the sentence proceedings that he became addicted to cocaine.

Just precisely when he commenced using cocaine is not completely clear.

He had attained his Higher School Certificate with an ATAR of 95.9, although I note that his affidavit states an ATAR of 99. I would presume, given his birth date in January 1997, that he sat the HSC most likely when he was 17 years of age in 2014.

His affidavit states that he completed a 4-year university course and obtained a Bachelor of Applied Science in Physiotherapy. As indicated earlier, he was admitted as a registered physiotherapist at the end of 2018. He was 21 years of age, and about to turn 22.

His affidavit implies commencing a party lifestyle and using cocaine after he had started work and was becoming independent of his parents. It is somewhat unclear as to when exactly that use of cocaine began. It is also unclear as to when his use increased to an asserted 2 to 3 grams per week.

In addition to an asserted expensive addiction to cocaine, the offender also said that he became increasingly addicted to gambling.

Other CCTV footage revealed the offender stealing a wallet from within the bag and leaving the Casino with the victim’s Drivers Licence, Medicare card, and Credit cards. The credit cards taken from the wallet were fraudulently used a short time later.

The offender was ultimately charged with stealing in December 2019.

In circumstances which are not fully disclosed in the evidence, it would appear that the offender’s employment as a physiotherapist with Rehab Solutions Australia, who he had been working for since January 2019, was terminated on 2 August 2019. In his affidavit the offender described that he was “let go”**. The offender apparently reacted angrily to his termination and deliberately broke in half the laptop computer belonging to his employer and which he had used during the course of his employment.

Police were called and attended the premises. The offender was spoken to by police and recorded by means of body worn video. He was subsequently charged on 30 August 2019. That matter was not dealt with at court until August 2020 when he was fined and ordered to pay compensation.

On 5 August 2019 the Physiotherapy Council of New South Wales received an anonymous complaint raising concerns about the offender’s behaviour and conduct. The complaint made claims regarding alleged fraudulent and dishonest behaviour in the course of the offender’s employment with Rehab Solutions Australia including the alleged use of a patient’s credit card details to pay Ladbrokes utilising PayPal. The complaint also described the circumstances regarding the broken computer and his termination. Despite being described as “anonymous” it would appear highly likely that the complaint had been made by his former employer.

The Physiotherapy Council convened an urgent hearing on 3 September 2019 with respect to a consideration as to whether the offender’s registration as a physiotherapist should be suspended, or whether conditions on his licence to practice should be imposed. He was still in his first year of practice.

It suffices to observe that the offender gave explanations for all of the complaints made against him including an account that the laptop computer had been broken in the course of a struggle to take possession of it. The offender stated that he wanted to retain it in order to comply with a legal obligation to complete his case notes from that day.

It would appear that CCTV footage recorded at his place of employment which had filmed the breaking of the computer was not provided to that hearing. It is unclear whether the fact that the offender had been served with a Court Attendance Notice charging him with destroying or damaging property was disclosed at the hearing.

Allegations that the offender had stolen a patient’s credit card and used it to pay Ladbrokes were apparently explained away by the offender to the satisfaction of the hearing.

In the event, the Physiotherapy Council took no action in relation to the complaints which had been received. The Physiotherapy Council delegates found that the explanations and responses provided by the offender were plausible and there did not appear to be any evidence of deception or any other indication that the offender posed a risk to the public.

Subsequent to the dismissal of those complaints, the offender himself made a complaint about his ex-employer, the Director and owner of the company Rehab Solutions, a Mr Wong. In the course of the Physiotherapy Council dealing with that complaint, Mr Wong provided additional evidence including the video footage recording the offender damaging the laptop. This video footage conclusively contradicted the account given by the offender at the earlier hearing.

On 2 December 2019, the Physiotherapy Council received further information alleging that a patient had been falsely claimed to have received treatment from the offender on 5 occasions at his new place of employment, Healthcare Greenacre Physiotherapy. The patient had been a patient at Rehab Solutions and when he attended to receive a second treatment under the Medicare Enhanced Primary Care (EPC) plan, he discovered that he could not claim the rebate because all the EPC treatments to which he was entitled had already been used. They had in fact been paid in favour of the offender. The patient claimed that he had never seen the offender at his new practice at Healthcare Greenacre.

An urgent hearing was reconvened by the Physiotherapy Council in light of these complaints. At a hearing on 3 December 2019, with respect to the complaint regarding the transactions utilising PayPal and the payments to Ladbrokes, the offender denied that he had a gambling problem. He denied receiving the money or the benefit of the money and gave an explanation regarding how PayPal accounts could be set up. He maintained that he did not receive the funds but could not explain how the transactions went into his account. The hearing noted that the offender’s version was contradicted by the police report.

The hearing then played the video footage with respect to the destruction of the laptop computer. As already noted, it contradicted the account which he had given at the first hearing. At that point in the hearing the offender became distressed and advised that he had seen a psychologist following the termination of his employment.

With respect to the allegation that he had received payments relating to clients that he had not seen, he advised that he worked on contract with his own ABN. He said that all billing was done by the clinic manager and he was unaware of having received the identified payments. He could provide no explanation for the payments being made to him.

The hearing concluded that the offender’s version about the laptop computer was unreliable. With respect to the credit card transactions and payments from PayPal to Ladbrokes, the hearing concluded that the offender had been unable to provide a credible explanation for the receipt of the funds. The hearing further noted that he was unable to explain why he had received payments for five episodes of care when he had not seen the client at all.

The Council determined that the offender would have conditions placed on his registration to practice as a physiotherapist. He was placed under a level of supervision with respect to all financial transactions involving patients, including Medicare billing. These restrictions and his continued ability to practice being subject to supervision came into effect from 5 December 2019.

Prior to the hearing before the Physiotherapy Council on 3 December 2019, the offender had been allocated provider numbers with respect to three additional physiotherapy practices. These were Healthcare Greenacre Physiotherapy at Greenacre from 2 September 2019; Neeta City Medical Dental and Specialists Centre at Fairfield from 12 September 2019; and Diamond Standard Physio at Noble Avenue Greenacre from 6 November 2019.

The practice utilising the name Diamond Standard Physio was a physiotherapy practice of the offender himself. The practice was set up in the name of Almajd Constructions Pty Ltd which was the construction company of the offender’s father, Mr Ali Mehieddine. The address of the practice in Noble Avenue, Greenacre was the address of the Mehieddine family home. A HICAPS terminal provided to the practice was registered in the name of Almajd Construction Pty Ltd and the merchant contract named the offender as the physiotherapist provider. A provider location number was allocated to the offender for use on that machine.

His first dishonest obtaining of funds forming part of the fraudulent transactions before this Court commenced by utilising claims for services allegedly provided through Diamond Standard Physio. Over a period of approximately 12 months between November 2019 and November 2020, some 18,791 fraudulent claims for services which had not been provided were made through the terminal associated with that practice. The fraudulent payments pursuant to these claims amounted to $1,010,855. I note in passing that this would equate to treating in excess of 360 patients or clients per week, on average.

This offending, in due course, became Sequence 4 and is the first chronological substantive matter for sentence.

At the time of the Physiotherapy Council meeting on 3 December 2019, following which the restrictions on dealing with financial transactions and being subject to supervision were imposed, the fraudulent claims being made through the offender’s own registered physiotherapy practice, Diamond Standard Physio, were, of course, undiscovered and not the subject of any hearing by the Physiotherapy Council. However, in addition to imposing the conditions and supervision on his continued right to practice, the Physiotherapy Council referred the complaints regarding the offender to the Healthcare Complains Commission (HCCC) for investigation.

On 29 January 2020 the Physiotherapy Council received information and a complaint that Mr Mehieddine had been admitted to St George Hospital for drug intoxication. On 30 January 2020 St George Hospital provided a copy of the inpatient laboratory tests relating to the offender with respect to samples taken on 29 January 2020. The toxicology results recorded a positive urine cocaine screen result and a positive benzodiazepine screen result. The offender was advised of the complaint and invited to provide a response.

An urgent hearing before the delegates of the Physiotherapy Council was held on 3 March 2020. The central issue for determination was whether the offender posed a risk to the safety or health of the public that warranted action to be taken, specifically with relation to his illicit drug use and intoxication.

The offender gave evidence at that hearing and agreed that he had taken cocaine. He suggested that the positive benzodiazepine screen result was related to treatment received by him from paramedics who had treated him at a car park in Dolls Point on the evening of 28 January 2020. The offender told the Council meeting that he had used cocaine on the evening of Sunday 26 January 2020 at a private function. He said he had never used cocaine previously or illicit drugs, and that this was a one-off event. With respect to the attendance of the paramedics on the evening of Tuesday 28 January 2020, he told the Council that he had had a disagreement with his girlfriend while they were at a car park in Doll’s Point and he walked into the bush. His girlfriend had called his father who told her to call an ambulance. Police and ambulance officers then attended the location. The offender maintained that he had no background of substance abuse. He said he was not distressed or disturbed but hadn’t expected to be “put down” by three police officers.

It is unnecessary to set out any further detail with respect to the hearing before the Council. In short, the Council did not accept that the offender had not received notifications which had been sent to him regarding the hearing, and that the previous requirement for supervision, in respect of which he was required to notify his employer, had not been complied with. In all of the circumstances, the additional matters were referred for investigation by the HCCC and the delegates suspended the offender’s registration as a physiotherapist with immediate effect.

Before leaving the circumstances of the Physiotherapy Council meeting on 3 March 2020, I should observe that the offender told that meeting that he had not worked as a physiotherapist since 19 December 2019. He had then travelled overseas to Dubai on 12 February 2020 following an attempt to serve documents on him from the Physiotherapy Council on 11 February 2020. He claimed that his travel was unrelated to the attempted service of the documents.

It is noteworthy that during the period between November 2019 and the end of January 2020 in excess of 900 false claims were made with respect to services purportedly provided by the offender to nominated patients. The offender falsely claimed to have had patients referred by nominated doctors at a variety of practices in Fairfield and Greenacre. The false claims resulted in payments to the offender during the period up until 31 January 2020 in a total of $49,765. During the same period, expenditure from his own bank accounts showed 57 transfers were made approaching approximately $60,000.

Following his entitlement to practice having been suspended from 3 March 2020 the offender continued to make claims for rebates with respect to services purportedly supplied by him pursuant to the Medicare Benefit Schedule through Diamond Standard Physio. Between 4 March 2020 and 27 November 2020 claims for rebates were made with respect to an additional 17,876 services purportedly provided by him to approximately 1,099 separate patients. These claims resulted in payments totalling $961,090 being paid to the offender. As previously stated, the total amount fraudulently obtained referable to Diamond Standard Physio came to a total of $1,010,866.

As noted earlier, one of the physiotherapy practices where the offender was employed for a period in 2019 was Neeta City Medical Dental and Specialist Centre at Fairfield. A provider location number had been allocated to the offender for use at that location only. As previously noted, different provider numbers were allocated for use at different medical practices. The offender’s modus operandi with respect to a substantial number of claims made for services purportedly provided at the Neeta City Medical Centre involved what the Agreed Facts describe as “cloning” the relevant HICAPS terminal identification. The method of “cloning” was by means of the utilisation of what is described as a “rolling password” which enables a practitioner to reset a different HICAPS machine or terminal in his possession so that electronically, the different machine appears in the EasyClaim system to be the “clone**d” terminal or machine.

Having worked as a physiotherapist at the Neeta City Medical Centre, the offender had taken photographs of eftpos purchase receipts which provided him with the relevant HICAPS terminal i/d and the merchant number of the HICAPS machine.

The offender apparently had a contact or “source” who provided to him the relevant “rolling password” with respect to claims made using a variety of “cloned” HICAPS terminals.

The Agreed Facts have a deafening silence with respect to the identity of this contact or “source”. Whether such person has been identified or charged is not revealed in the material before these sentence proceedings. In due course the investigation revealed communications by the offender with a person identified as “Hicaps Guy Cheso”. Some of the retained messages on the offender’s mobile phone reveal “Hicaps Guy Cheso” sending a “rolling password” to the offender on a number of occasions.

In addition to effectively “cloning” the HICAPS machine from Neeta City Medical Centre, the offender utilised a provider number for a Dr Jae-Man Chung who worked at that medical centre. Dr Chung was a chiropractor. The item number in the claims related to the alleged provision of chiropractic services by Dr Chung.

Between 30 December 2020 and 28 February 2021, a total of 2,392 fraudulent claims were made with respect to services which had never been provided by Dr Chung. The total amount paid by the Commonwealth with respect to these claims was $129,943.85. This group of fraudulent claims gives rise to Sequence 5 which is the second substantive offence before me.

Between late February 2021 and November 2021, the offender was out of Australia. Following his return, he continued making false claims purporting to come from a HICAPS terminal at Neeta City Medical Centre with respect to services purportedly performed or provided by Dr Chung.

Between November 2021, following his return to Australia, and May 2022 the offender made a total of 12,395 further claims for rebates with respect to services which had not been provided by Dr Chung. The services had purportedly been performed between November 2019 and May 2022. The offender received $667,135.05 pursuant to these fraudulent claims. This group of claims gives rise to Sequence 6 which is the third substantive offence for sentence.

Another chiropractor employed by Neeta City Medical Centre, Dr Simon Yang, was also utilised by the offender as the purported supplier of services which had never been provided. Using the same methodology, the offender made a total of 934 false claims with respect to services allegedly provided by Dr Yang. Similarly to the claims made using Dr Chung’s provider number, the claims with respect to Dr Yang fell into two periods on either side of the offender’s overseas travel.

492 claims for rebate were submitted and payment received between 29 January 2021 and 2 February 2021. The services the subject of those claims were alleged to have been provided by Dr Yang between 10 November 2019 and 2 February 2021. The total amount fraudulently obtained was $26,697.60. This sequence of offending was charged as Sequence 7 which is the fourth matter for sentence.

The second group of claims were made during the period 14 March 2022 and 27 May 2022, and related to 442 services alleged to have been provided by Dr Yang between 2 September 2020 and 27 May 2022. The total amount fraudulently obtained was $24,249.70. This group of claims gave rise to Sequence 8 which is the fifth substantive charge before me.

The next group of claims which have been separately charged as Sequence 9 related to another physiotherapist, Mr Ali Jadid. The HICAPS terminal associated with Mr Jadid and a practice at Greenacre called Primary Physio Care Pty Ltd, was similarly “cloned” by the use of a “rolling password”**. Mr Jadid’s provider number was utilised in making the claims.

In circumstances where the Agreed Facts do not indicate that the offender ever worked at the particular physiotherapy practice, it is unclear how he obtained the details of the HICAPS terminal or Mr Jadid’s provider number.

In the period between 16 June 2022 and 12 July 2022 the offender made claims for rebates in respect of 2,017 physiotherapy services said to have been provided by Mr Jadid to some 94 different patients/clients between September 2020 and May 2022. The total amount obtained by the fraudulent claims relating to Mr Jadid was $110,482.70. As I have indicated, this gave rise to Sequence 9, which is the sixth substantive offence.

The final two substantive offences similarly relate to a physiotherapy practice in respect of which the Agreed Facts do not reveal a direct connection with the offender. The Agreed Facts do say that digital evidence seized from the offender’s premises at the time of his arrest contained photographs of eftpos receipts from the respective practice locations of the various affected practitioners. Such receipts included the details of the relevant HICAPS terminal i/d and the merchant number of the HICAPS machine used at each of the respective practices. Just how such photographs of the eftpos receipts came to be in the possession of the offender is unknown.

Sequence 10 is the substantive offence charged with respect to claims made for non-existent services claimed to have been provided by a physiotherapist at Bankstown Physio, Ms Eduarda Bota. The claims for rebate were all lodged in the week between 22 August and 28 August 2022. A total of 549 services were claimed to have been provided by Ms Bota to some 27 patients during a period extending back to 1 October 2020 up until 28 August 2022. The methodology used to perpetrate the fraud included using the “cloned” details of the HICAPS terminal at the Bankstown Physio practice and the provider number of Ms Bota.

Sequence 11 is the eighth and final substantive count in the sentence proceedings. It relates to false claims for the provision of 3,965 services purportedly provided by another physiotherapist at the Bankstown Physio practice, Ms Kit Man Luc. The claims related to 164 patients and were all lodged in a period of just over two weeks between 24 August 2022 and 9 September 2022. The services claimed were said to have been provided from 1 October 2020 until 9 September 2022. The total amount fraudulently received was $215,882.70.

The methodology was identical to that utilised in the other “cloned” circumstances.

It is appropriate to note that in ordinary circumstances patients entitled to claim referred physiotherapy or chiropractic services have a limited number of consultations in respect of which they are entitled to a rebate from the Commonwealth. However, a specific code is able to be used by a healthcare provider indicating that the patient or client is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, thereby entitling that patient or client to make claims for a higher number of services. These particular codes were used by the offender in respect of a large number of the fraudulent claims.

In making the fraudulent claims for rebates on behalf of the numerous patients whose names and Medicare numbers were utilised, the offending prior to approximately June 2022 would appear to have related to patients or clients whose details had likely been acquired from the practices at which the offender had himself been employed. In addition to Medicare details obtained in those circumstances, the offender also had the names and details of members of his own family. At the time of his arrest in October 2022 his mobile phone was found to contain 134 photographic images of Medicare cards, many of which bore the names of more than one person.

His mobile phone also included a WhatsApp message conversation with a Chinese website understood to be on the Dark Web selling counterfeit Australian Medicare cards and Australian driver’s licences. Extracts from the written message conversation are included in the Agreed Facts. In the course of that conversation, which commenced on 21 June 2022, the offender negotiated to purchase additional images and details of 500 Medicare cards. According to that conversation the offender said that he would pay for 20 cards but that he would ultimately need 500. The conversation revealed a complaint by the offender that not all of the card numbers sent to him worked. He subsequently paid $1,000 AUD by means of a blockchain bitcoin transaction for a further 15 card details.

Also included in the offender’s mobile phone were memos or notes listing large volumes of Medicare card numbers. These were accompanied by notations regarding the validity of the card numbers, the number of patients attached to a card and the type or number of claims able to be processed using those numbers. They also included notations with respect to numbers which had not successfully worked, presumably in the attempted lodging of false claims using those numbers.

The mobile phone also included detailed notes with the names of patients, the number of Medicare Benefits Scheme items billed for services purportedly supplied to those patients, and the provider names of the physiotherapist or chiropractor that had been used for the purpose of billing Medicare for the rebates.

The phone containing the recorded details to which I have referred was seized together with another mobile phone during the execution of a search warrant at the offender’s home in Noble Avenue, Greenacre on 26 October 2022. The address was the residence of the offender and his immediate family and had been the address at which the physiotherapy business he had registered himself, Diamond Standard Physio, was located. The HICAPS terminal which had been allocated to his business was recovered in the course of the search together with two large garbage bags full of HICAPS machine receipts.

The search was executed by officers from the Department of Health and Aged Care, as well as Digital Forensics Officers from Services Australia. Approximately five bank debit cards in the name of the offender were located, a number of which transpired to have been linked to the accounts into which some of the fraudulently obtained payments of rebates had been deposited.

At the conclusion of the execution of the search warrant, the offender was arrested and offered the opportunity of participating in a voluntary interview with respect to the lodging of the false Medicare claims. The offender exercised his rights and declined the offer of the interview.

Detailed analysis of the money received into the various bank accounts of the offender and of his spending was subsequently undertaken. Whilst he had consistently claimed fraudulent Medicare rebates during the period from November 2019 up until September 2022, shortly before his arrest, no claims were submitted during the period between March 2021 and November 2021 when the offender had been overseas. They resumed again on his return.

During a subsequent overseas trip between 7 July 2022 and 19 August 2022, the offender had taken the HICAPS terminal with him so as to enable the continuing lodgement of claims, notwithstanding that he was overseas.

A forensic financial analysis of the offender’s numerous bank accounts into which the Medicare rebates had been variously deposited disclosed substantial involvement in gambling and other personal expenditure.

Transactions with gambling organisations situated in Australia and overseas included Ladbrokes, Mountberg Ltd, the TAB, Paytriot London, Grant Fortune London, and Merus Ltd. While approximately $118,300 had been received as income from gambling, the outlay exceeded $766,000 spent on gambling.

Cash withdrawals during the period of the fraudulent conduct exceeded $760,000. Approximately $13,000 in cash was deposited during that time.

An amount of approximately $637,000 was transferred to what is described as a digital wallet, eZee**Wallet, which facilitates the deposit, expenditure, and transfer of money.

A further amount of approximately $565,000 was transferred to cryptocurrency accounts with approximately $41,000 received as income from cryptocurrency accounts located both in Australia and overseas.

An additional amount of approximately $497,000 was identified in other transfers with approximately $47,000 received and deposited.

Further substantial payments by way of Eftpos, BPAY, or Direct Debit were identified to a total of approximately $411,000. Approximately $18,000 was received by such means.

An Annexure to the Agreed Facts sets out in excess of 700 individual transactions from the three main bank accounts operated by the offender, each of which was a transaction of at least $1,000. The transactions cover the entire period of the offending and reveal transactions effected in Dubai, including for Luxury SuperCar rentals in an amount in excess of $14,000 AUD during visits in March 2021 and July 2022. The Table in the Annexure also discloses expenditure in Dubai at various restaurants and hotels in February 2020. The transactions set out in the Table demonstrate the frequency and consistency of the offender’s spending, ultimately leading to the increased volume of transfers of substantial funds to the digital application eZeeWallet from approximately August 2022. The expenditure table setting out the details of the transactions to which I have made reference will be an annexure to this judgment.

The offender also outlined the commencement of his involvement in gambling. I have, much earlier in these Remarks at [37], referred to the first offence of dishonesty in his criminal history, the obtaining of a financial advantage by deception from the TAB at Club Central Menai (formerly the Menai RSL).

In his affidavit at [17] the offender deposes that he had started gambling at pubs “with TAB and racing.” He describes the offence in March 2019 as follows:

In December 2020 he was charged with breaking, entering, and stealing. He stole cash from a till in a business premises. In December 2020 he was placed on a Community Correction Order for 2 years.

In addition to his continued criminal offending, notwithstanding his conditional liberty, resulting in his being arrested and charged on the various summary offences, his continuing conduct in defrauding the Commonwealth continued, unabated except for a period when he was first overseas.

In the offender’s affidavit he describes alleged extortion and threats from persons who were seeking money from him. He described an assault in October 2020 which had been accompanied by threats demanding money. Annexed to his affidavit is a photograph which is described as depicting facial injuries sustained by him as a consequence of that assault. The photographs are black and white photocopies and of reasonably poor quality with no accompanying metadata.

The offender also describes an assault by several men, said to be connected to the crime family he had described, who chased him down the street from his home in Noble Avenue, Greenacre, and assaulted him. A USB with a copy of footage obtained from house nearby has been annexed to the affidavit and viewed by the Court. It corroborates these circumstances of the assault. A further photograph said to depict a scar suffered as a consequence of a split chin on that day is again black and white and difficult to view with any clarity.

Other than the clear inference that these assaults were likely connected with extortion attempts as a consequence of a perception that the offender had substantial funds, or alternatively in relation to drug debts, there does not appear to be any particular explanation for such assaults. However, in April 2021 the offender was charged with supply of a prohibited drug in a quantity greater than an indictable quantity, such offence having taken place on 23 January 2021. The facts of that matter are not included in the material which has been tendered. The matter was ultimately dealt with at Bankstown Local Court in February 2022 on which occasion the offender was placed on a Community Correction Order for a period of 2 years. He was subsequently charged again in November 2021 with possession of a prohibited drug. Again, no facts have been tendered with respect to that offending.

In his affidavit the offender, after describing some of the offences with which he was charged in late 2020, claimed that he had attended a psychologist and also seen a psychiatrist on several occasions. He also states that he did some sessions with the SMART Recovery program which he said assisted him to stay away from cocaine “for a short time.” He described the SMART Recovery sessions as being conducted via video and ultimately not being very helpful.

As I have indicated earlier in these Remarks, the offender travelled overseas to Dubai from 25 February 2021 to 1 November 2021, and again from 7 July 2022 to 19 August 2022. The first trip marked a gap in his offending. On the second trip, as already noted, the offender took a HICAPS machine with him and continued offending while travelling.

The offender described in considerable detail circumstances of his initial period in custody following his arrest. He described some of the harsh brutality that he witnessed.

He was granted bail on 1 November 2022 to go into full-time residential rehabilitation at Connect Global. Following difficulties at that centre in its management, the offender left the rehabilitation program and handed himself in to police. He went back into custody on 18 November 2022 and was again released on bail on 29 November 2022 to go into a different residential rehabilitation centre, The Sydney Retreat, at Stanmore.

Whilst recognising that entry into the rehabilitation program was a condition of the bail which had been granted, I am constrained to observe that the Intensive Correction Order which had been imposed on 27 September 2022 had similarly required entry into a residential drug rehabilitation program. There is no material before the Court as to compliance with the terms of the ICO during the period of approximately 4 weeks between its imposition and his arrest with respect to the Commonwealth offending.

The offender described his completion of the rehabilitation program and his gratitude at now being completely sober. Following completion of the rehabilitation program, he has returned to live with his parents at home and has enrolled and completed the first 6 months of an 18-month course at the University of Sydney as a Master of Business and Administration. A copy of his academic transcript is annexed to the affidavit.

The offender also deposed to having commenced working with his father’s company and he is involved in managing projects. He said he has stopped all associations with his former antisocial connections. His affidavit concluded with his articulate impression of the person who he had been in committing the crimes, and his desire to move forward with an intention of spending the rest of his life working to pay back what he has taken, including working to earn back trust.

In addition to the offender’s affidavit sworn on 2 December 2024, a letter of apology from the offender was tendered. It is unnecessary to replicate the detail of that written apology. The offender acknowledged in it what he called “the gravity of my mistake” and he accepted full responsibility for his actions. He described the breach of the position of trust with clinicians and the harm done to the victims of his actions through the deprivation of treatment sessions to which they would have been entitled. He appropriately expressed his remorse and steps that he has taken and proposes to take in order to ensure appropriate rehabilitation.

In his sworn testimony the offender attested to the truthfulness of and sincerity of his expressions of remorse and contrition. He was extensively cross-examined and I do not propose to summarise that cross-examination in these Remarks.

An affidavit was also tendered from the offender’s father, Mr Ali Mehieddine. His father’s affidavit substantially corroborates much of the offender’s own affidavit. It clearly establishes that his parents tried to persuade him out of the fast-paced life that he had descended into and that he was confronted by his father about his drug use on numerous occasions.

Mr Ali Mehieddine described trying to assist the offender to break from his addiction at the end of 2020 and having organised a psychologist and a psychiatrist in Beirut and in Sydney.

It is apparent that the offender continues to have the support of his father who now employs him as a project manager in Mr Ali Mehieddine’s construction company. Annexed to Mr Ali Mehieddine’s affidavit is a character reference which had separately been prepared in October 2024. In the character reference, the offender’s father asked the Court to “see the man that Majd has grown into, and not the weak, child-like person he used to be.”

A report was tendered on behalf of the offender from Dr Sathish Dayalan, forensic psychiatrist. Dr Dayalan sets out the sources of information which were provided to him. These included NSW Police Facts with respect to 7 summary offences and accompanying Court Attendance Notices, the offender’s criminal history, a psychology report by Mr Sam Albassit dated 6 January 2020, and what was described as collateral information from the offender’s father.

The psychosocial history obtained by the psychiatrist described the very strict and conservative family environment in which the offender had grown up. He had had very limited autonomy as a child and as a teenager. After graduating and commencing work as a physiotherapist, he had become financially independent and had started challenging some of the restrictions imposed upon him by his parents. He said that he believed his parents had struggled to regard him as an adult.

His use of alcohol had upset his father and the relationship was further strained when the offender started returning home late after spending time with friends. He described his father taking his car keys as a form of retribution. The offender had been very fond of his car and said that it was part of his identity. He moved out of the parental home but returned after a few weeks. He also had a partner who he described as being quite volatile and very demanding. She got upset with him and was suspicious of his activities, and often checked on his whereabouts. She would become highly distressed and verbally abusive if he did not answer her phone calls. He described the stressors in his personal life having impacted on his work as a physiotherapist and that he had struggled to cope with his busy workload.

The offender made reference to the incident at his workplace in August 2019 which had led to the charge of damaging or destroying the work laptop.

He described having started to use cocaine as an escape from his stressors in the latter part of 2019. He described the incurring of additional criminal charges. He told the psychiatrist about his practicing licence as a physiotherapist having been suspended in March 2020 due to his cocaine use. He described his relationship with his partner having ended around June 2020.

The offender further described the assault in October 2020. In recounting this to the psychiatrist he identified the individuals who assaulted him as having been persons he had used cocaine with, and the assault having occurred due to a misunderstanding. The offender said that he had stopped using cocaine or alcohol since that incident.

The offender described having started to consult a psychiatrist in mid-2020 for his anxiety and depressive symptoms. He had continued consultations for three months. The identity of that psychiatrist is not disclosed. The consultations for the purpose of the report by Dr Dayalan had occurred on 4 November 2020 and 27 November 2020. Dr Dayalan had been requested to prepare a report with a view to determining the eligibility of the offender for a diversionary order for treatment pursuant to s 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. The offender told Dr Dayalan that he had not discerned any improvement in his emotional distress notwithstanding the three months consultation and so he had discontinued. He said he had also had four consultations with a psychiatrist.

The psychiatrist’s report notes that the alleged offences, for which the report was being prepared, were said to have occurred between early 2019 and October 2020. It should be noted in passing that it is not clear just what offences Dr Dayalan had been requested to provide the report for. The first dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception from the TAB at Menai had been disposed of in July 2020. The stealing of the handbag and credit cards in the casino was still pending. The destroying or damaging property being the laptop had been disposed of in August 2020. Offences relating to negligently handling explosives, the details of which remain unknown, had been disposed of at Bankstown Local Court in September 2020. A more recent offence had been charged in November 2020 of driving with an illicit drug present in his blood. That matter was still pending as was the dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception relating to the use of the physiotherapy patient’s credit card details for gambling with Ladbrokes.

At all events the psychiatric report described the offender’s mental state as having been likely to have fluctuated between the period from early 2019 and October 2020. With respect to his cocaine use, it was again stated as having commenced from the middle of 2019 and to have increased up to “10 lines” of cocaine, 1-3 times per week. The offender reported having stopped using cocaine and alcohol completely after the assault in October 2020. He said that he had enrolled in a rehabilitation program offered by Odyssey House. The offender admitted to the psychiatrist that he had engaged in what was described as “sporadic gambling” from the middle of 2019. He denied periods of gambling on a daily basis or having got into financial debt from gambling.

Dr Dayalan’s report made reference to the psychologist’s report from Mr Albassit who had reported a diagnosis of depression with features of generalised anxiety. Mr Albassit had expressed an opinion that the offender’s judgement had been compromised around the time of his offending due to his psychiatric condition. Based on the history provided and the presentation of the offender during the assessment, Dr Dayalan diagnosed him as suffering from a generalised anxiety disorder consistent with the criteria in DSM-5. The psychiatrist also noted that the history was suggestive of Stimulant Use Disorder which had been reported to be in early stages of remission.

The report concluded with an explanation that Generalised Anxiety Disorder is a mental health condition for which treatment is available in a mental health facility. The offender would, accordingly, be eligible for diversionary treatment under s 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990*.* A number of conditions with respect to an order under s 32 were recommended including compliance with psychiatric medication. Dr Dayalan prescribed an anti-depressant medication, escitalopram, from 27 November 2020. It is unclear whether an application for diversion under s 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 was subsequently made with respect to any of the outstanding summary offences.

I do, however, note that a little more than 2 weeks after his consultations with Dr Dayalan and the prescription of the anti-depressant medication, the offender was arrested at 5am after breaking into the I-Care Medical Centre and Sports Clinic at Bankstown Central shopping complex. The Police Facts with respect to this offending indicate that he had arrived near the premises as the passenger in a vehicle and had then forced apart the glass sliding doors leading into a foyer area of the shopping complex. He had then forced open the doors to the medical centre where CCTV revealed him subsequently having walked around the medical centre for a short period of time. After leaving the medical centre he was seen loitering in the car park leading security to approach him and call police. The offender told police there had been nothing to steal in the medical centre before being searched by police who found $520 on his person, of which $420 in notes had been hidden in his underwear.

As will be self-evident from the chronology of the offending which I have set out earlier, the offender continued to submit vast numbers of fraudulent claims throughout the immediately following period. By way of example, between 30 December 2020 and 28 February 2021 he submitted 2,392 claims for services which had not been provided. These claims relate to Sequence 5 and resulted in payments of approximately $130,000.

As observed earlier, the offender departed Australia on 25 February 2021 and did not return to Australia until 1 November 2021. It would appear that this extended period was in part due to Covid-19 restrictions. It is unclear from the Table of Expenditure annexed to this Judgment just how the offender supported himself for that period overseas. Aside from $1,000 which was withdrawn at Sydney Airport on 25 February 2021, the day of his departure, approximately $3,000 withdrawn from an ATM in Dubai on 1 March, almost $3,000 spent on Luxury Supercar Rental in Dubai on 3 March, and approximately $1,700 spent in a restaurant in Dubai on 5 March, the table of transactions does not include any other expenditure of $1,000 or more from the three main accounts during the following period of approximately 8 months before his return to Australia in November. There is no evidence of his continued involvement in either gambling or cocaine use during this extended period overseas, and as indicated earlier in these Remarks, no rebate claims were submitted to the Commonwealth during this period.

However, following his return to Australia on 1 November 2021, the submission of fraudulent claims recommenced in considerable volume from 8 November 2021. In the following period of approximately 5 months, the offender made claims with respect to 12,395 purported services yielding a total amount paid to his accounts of $667,135.05.

On 12 November 2021, less than 2 weeks after his return to Australia, he was arrested and charged with possession of a prohibited drug. The facts and nature of the drug are not disclosed in the material which has been tendered. On 2 February 2022 he was placed on a 12-month Community Correction Order at Parramatta Local Court with respect to that possession.

The day before, 1 February 2022, he had been placed on a 2-year Community Correction Order at Bankstown Local Court with respect to the offence which had been outstanding since January 2021 concerning the supply of more than an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug. Again, the facts relating to that matter have not been tendered.

As indicated earlier when dealing with the detail of the offences with which these proceedings are concerned, the submission of fraudulent claims continued in episodic bursts during 2022. The claims in relation to Sequence 9 were made during the period of approximately one month between 16 June 2022 and 12 July 2022. The offender travelled overseas to Dubai between 7 July 2022 and 19 August 2022. Additional claims were made between 22 August and 9 September (Sequences 10 and 11).

On 27 September 2022 he appeared at Bankstown Local Court with respect to the dishonest obtaining of a financial advantage by deception relating to the acquisition of the credit card number of the client of the physiotherapy practice at which he had been employed and its use in July and August 2019 and payment of $13,750 to the gambling company, Ladbrokes. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months which was to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order.

As previously indicated, he was then arrested on 26 October 2022 with respect to the present matters. At his first appearance later that day at Bankstown Local Court, bail was not applied for and was refused.

It is apparent that urgent inquiries must have then been undertaken, presumably by his family, with a view to securing a bed in a rehabilitation centre, such availability being a potentially important consideration on the question of bail.

On 28 October 2022 a release application, based on the availability of a bed at the full-time rehabilitation centre, Global Connect, was successful. Bail was granted on condition that the offender be conveyed directly to Global Connect and the offender’s release was to be delayed until 3 November 2022 when the bed would become available.

A variation of bail with respect to the date for release was brought on 31 October 2022, the availability of the bed having been brought forward. The variation was granted and the offender was released the following day, 1 November 2022, and conveyed by his father direct to the Global Connect premises on the Central Coast.

Whilst no report or document has been produced or tendered from Global Connect it would appear that as a result of some problem the offender himself left the rehabilitation program. There is no evidence as to the date on which he departed. A voluntary departure, for whatever reason, was technically a breach of the conditions of his bail.

In the course of giving evidence in the sentence proceedings, the offender said that he had voluntarily turned himself in to police after leaving Global Connect and the police did not consider that he had breached his bail. However, he then went back into custody from 18 November 2022 until again granted bail in the Local Court on 28 November 2022, this time on condition that he reside at the Sydney Retreat, 223 Trafalgar Street, Stanmore.

He entered the program at Sydney Retreat on 29 November 2022. A letter from the Retreat Residential Rehabilitation program dated 11 June 2024 in the Defence Tender Bundle records that he was discharged from that program, having successfully completed it, on 28 December 2022. Clearly, the program was for a period of 4 weeks as a residential program. It included daily meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, and daily lectures and talks from people in recovery. It also included workshops focused on the 12 steps set out by Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.

Following that initial completion of the program, the offender subsequently entered what is described as the Sober House program which operates, in effect, as a share house. He did not enter that program until July 2023. There were regular drug and alcohol tests and during the course of the following months, restrictions which were in place during the first month of the residential program appear to have been gradually relaxed. As the program continued, residents were permitted to pursue study at outside institutions, and in due course, to pursue full-time employment outside the residential requirements. A letter of confirmation from the Retreat indicates that the offender requested to reside at the Sydney Retreat Sober House and that he chose to live at those premises during the 12-month period between 24 July 2023 and 9 July 2024. That of course was about 7 months after he completed the initial four-week program. During that time he was required to attend at least 4 meetings with Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous held outside the premises, and perform at least 1 related service commitment. A letter tendered from the program manager Ms Jodie Whyte dated 9 July 2024 indicates that during that 12-month period the offender was drug and alcohol free while in residence, to the best of the program managers’ knowledge. It is clear that while it is a residential program, it is not full-time residential in the form of a program such as that conducted at Odyssey House. There is substantial freedom of movement permitted outside the requirements of the Sober House facility itself.

The offender, as I have already noted, has most recently been employed by his father’s company as a project manager.

The offending conduct had taken place during the 5 years between approximately June 2002 and February 2007. None of the funds were repaid. She was sentenced in December 2009 to terms of imprisonment of 3 years with respect to each of the offences. The sentencing judge, Solomon DCJ, partially accumulated groups of the sentences leading to a total aggregate sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years.

The sentencing judge found that the offender had abused the trust which had been reposed in her by her employer. He found that each of the offences were objectively extremely serious having regard to the fact that they were premeditated and deliberate. He regarded each offence as being “well above the mid-range of objective seriousness.” His Honour noted that none of the money had been repaid and the only view that one could come to regarding motive was that the money had been taken for her own purposes. The family was reasonably well off. The family owned their home and also had an investment property. The offender was not involved in gambling and had no issues involving alcohol or other drugs.

In rejecting the appeal against severity of sentence, Price J (with whom McClellan CJ at CL and Latham J agreed) said (at [36]):

The offender appealed against the severity of the individual sentences and against the total effective sentence.

In due course, the Western Australian Supreme Court reduced the aggregate sentence to one of 3 years and ordered the release of the appellant on a recognisance release order after serving 20 months imprisonment

In determining that the appeal against the overall sentence should be allowed, Hall J of the Western Australian Court of Appeal undertook a detailed review of some 13 cases which had involved false claims committed on Medicare. Those cases involved fraudulent claims by medical practitioners as well as internal frauds committed by Medicare employees. The related to different maximum penalties in some instances and to a wide range of different amounts which had been defrauded. They ranged from a total fraud of just over $1000 (Canning v Northcott [1988] WASC 200) up to an amount in excess of $560,000 (Corbett v R (1991) 52 A Crim R 112).

In Canning v Northcott, a medical practitioner had made 39 false claims for services to Medicare. Some related to services which had not been rendered whilst others claimed longer consultations than had actually occurred. A pecuniary penalty of $10,000 was imposed.

Corbett on the other hand related to 439 false claims for services which had not been provided. The offender was 34 years of age and was a medical practitioner running a practice which employed a number of other doctors. Psychiatric evidence indicated the offender suffering from serious depression following the breakdown of his marriage. He pleaded guilty to 92 charges broadly described as “M**edifraud”. The charges, described as representative, were brought with respect to various provisions of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth). The offences carried a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years. The sentencing judge, Judge Cooper of the NSW District Court, had imposed head sentences which ultimately involved an overall term of imprisonment for 8 years. His Honour fixed an aggregate minimum term of 6 years.

In Corbett the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Gleeson CJ, Priestley JA and Matthews J, upheld the appeal against severity and varied the effective orders to result in total head sentences of 7 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years.

It is important to note that the fact of different sentencing regimes, including in Corbett the need to take into account pursuant to s 16G of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) the absence of remissions in NSW at that time, leads to particular difficulty in utilising any numerical equivalents by way of comparison. However, whilst noting difficulties involved in relying too heavily upon previous sentencing patterns, the Court made the following observation with respect to dealing with white-collar crime as at 1991:

Taking into account the inordinate delay, and despite not intervening in the sentence passed on Cox, the Court reduced the sentences for Cuffe and Morrison from 6 years with 3 years non-parole to 5 years imprisonment with non-parole periods of 2 and a half years.

In DPP v Golic [2014] VSCA 355, the offender pleaded guilty to a number of offences which had arisen as a consequence of her having made false claims to Medicare and also to her private health insurer with respect to obtaining reimbursement for medical expenses which she had not incurred. The background to the offending indicated that the offender had begun to suffer from a depressive illness when she was in Year 11 at school. She had been prescribed antidepressants since that time.

In 2006, when she was 23, she was diagnosed as having an inoperable brain tumour. She was advised that she might only live for a month, or for a year, or for 10 years. She was working as a bookkeeper at an accountancy firm and was introduced to gambling by her colleagues. She went on to develop a serious gambling addiction. By May 2007, she entered bankruptcy having declared significant debts.

In 2010, she was advised of the possibility of undertaking neurosurgery for her brain tumour notwithstanding that the surgery involved considerable risk. In 2011, she undertook the neurosurgery and made a complete recovery. However, following the operation, her gambling intensified and between March 2012 and May 2013, she committed the offences.

Although systematic and planned, the offending was relatively unsophisticated. The offender simply copied a genuine invoice relating to her earlier neurosurgery and used it as a template to create false invoices which she used to make her claims on Medicare and her private health insurer.

Ultimately, 34 false invoices were lodged with Medicare, at different Medicare offices, resulting in the fraudulent obtaining of rebates in an amount of approximately $200,000. This offending was charged as obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).

Two further false invoices were lodged in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain further rebates for approximately $17,000. This was separately charged as an attempt to obtain a financial advantage by deception contrary to the same provision of the Criminal Code (Cth). The obtaining of almost $43,000 from the offender’s private health insurer, Bupa Australia, resulted in a Victorian State Crimes Act offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to s 82(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Each of the three charges carried a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

The offender had begun receiving treatment for her depression from a psychiatrist following her neurosurgery in 2011 and prior to the commencement of the commission of the offences. She was also on the maximum dose of an antidepressant drug prior to her offending. A psychiatric report described the sense of hopelessness which the offender had felt following her original diagnosis which had fuelled impulsive and risk-taking behaviour. Despite the success of her neurosurgery, she remained uncertain and overwhelmed by the notion of surviving into her adult years. The psychiatrist expressed the opinion that her thoughts had operated in a manner “which can only be described as diminished responsibility.**” She had subsequently attended Gamblers Anonymous and had returned to university classes.

A separate consulting psychiatrist expressed the opinion that there was a strong association between the commencement of her gambling and the diagnosis of the brain tumour. He diagnosed pathological gambling and recurrent depressive disorder as set out in the International Classification of Diseases (10th revision) (ICD-10).

The sentencing judge in the County Court of Victoria had concluded that the circumstances gave rise to “an exceptional case” which did not require the offender to serve any time in custody. Following her pleas of guilty to each of the offences, notwithstanding a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment for each, she was sentenced to an immediate recognisance release order to be of good behaviour for 2 years for each of the Commonwealth offences and a 2 year Community Correction order with 80 hours of community work with respect to the state offence. The statement required under the relevant Victorian sentencing provisions, namely stating the sentence which would have been imposed if she had not pleaded guilty, was 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months. A Crown appeal against inadequacy was dismissed.

In R v Buckman [2016] QCA 176, the offender worked in an administrative position in a number of medical practices. She used the Medicare numbers of more than 500 patients of the medical practices at which she worked and fraudulently obtained approximately $189,000 in relation to false claims. The offending occurred over 16 months between May 2011 and November 2012.

She pleaded guilty to three counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The offender was 36 years of age and the offending arose out of difficulties in her life associated with drug use and the development of a significant gambling addiction which remained hidden from her family. She had sought and received counselling and made significant attempts at rehabilitation before being sentenced and subsequently. There had been a delay of between approximately 3 and 5 years between the offending and being sentenced.

At the time of sentence for these matters in January 2016, the offender was already serving a sentence of 2 and a half years imprisonment with a parole release date of 8 months which had been imposed in June 2015. That sentence related to State charges of dishonesty (stealing as a servant) where she had stolen some $35,000 whilst employed as a receptionist in a medical practice. That offending had occurred in 2013.

The offender also had a previous conviction from 2006 where she had been placed on a recognisance to be of good behaviour and make reparation of $4000 with respect to false claims made on Medicare with a previous medical practice.

With respect to the Criminal Code offences, an effective head sentence of 3 years was imposed. The sentencing judge considered that 3 years was “a little light” but was prepared to impose that sentence because of the offender’s good conduct in prison and an intention that her release date should be set at about 21 months after the commencement of the pre-existing sentence and close to the mid-point of the total period of incarceration, including the sentence already being served, of 3 years 7 months. Accordingly, the sentencing judge fixed a non-parole period of 14 months and ordered reparation to the Commonwealth in the sum of $189,316 whilst noting that there was no current prospect of that amount being recovered.

The Queensland Court of Appeal (per Fraser JA; Gotterson and Philip McMurdo JJA agreeing) contrasted the situation with that in El Rakhawy v R and expressed the view that the guidance supplied by that case indicated that a more severe sentence than 3 years imprisonment could have been imposed for the Commonwealth offences. This was particularly so given the greater maximum penalty which was applicable and the circumstance that the offending by Ms Buckman was significantly more serious, particularly because the amount defrauded was much larger, she was not in a position to make any restitution, and she had a relevant criminal history.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

In DPP (Cth) v Phan [2016] VSCA 170, a medical practitioner dishonestly obtained $854,188.20 from Medicare over a period of almost 7 years. The fraudulent claims related to the provision of medical service which, in fact, had not been provided. Two rolled-up charges under s 134.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) related to separate groups of claims. The maximum penalty was 10 years imprisonment (and/or a monetary penalty). The first group of claims related to 3,357 false claims for services not rendered between December 2006 and May 2012. The fraudulently obtained sum with respect to that period was in excess of $211,000. A second period of less than 12 months related to a very substantial increase in the number of fraudulent claims made. 11,208 false claims were submitted between October 2012 and September 2013 resulting in a fraudulent payment of $642,763.10.

The claims were not lodged individually but in batches whereby electronic bulk bill claims were made by means of computer transmissions. The offender obtained details of additional family members of an actual patient from the Medicare card which they would submit and would select a name at random from the other members of the family in respect of whom he would claim a fee for a service which had not been rendered in respect of that person.

A search warrant had been executed by Medicare investigators at the home of the offender in September 2013. He subsequently made full admissions in the course of a recorded interview in November 2013. He was subsequently charged in October 2014 and pleaded guilty at a committal hearing in November 2014. The plea hearing took place in the County Court of Victoria in October 2015 and he was sentenced by the County Court judge, Judge Cotterell, in November 2015.

The offender was 41 years of age at the time of sentence having come to Australia from Vietnam as a refugee in 1978. He had graduated in Medicine in 1998 and had subsequently been married twice. The divorce from his first wife had left him under considerable financial pressure.

He subsequently had a failed importing business which had also left him with substantial debt.

In the County Court, the offender was sentenced to an aggregate term of 3 years imprisonment with respect to both charges. A recognisance release order was made for the offender to be released after 16 months.

A Crown appeal against the inadequacy of sentence succeeded. Ashley JA, with whom Tate and Santamaria JJA agreed, imposed an aggregate sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with a 2 year non-parole period. The court also made a declaration under s 6AAA of the Victorian Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) that, had the respondent not pleaded guilty, a sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a 3 years 9 months non-parole period would have been imposed.

Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 and Issakidis v R [2019] NSWCCA 302 were both appeals in relation to the conviction and sentences imposed on co-conspirators with respect to a substantial defrauding of the Commonwealth arising from a complicated tax scheme. In particularly abbreviated summary, the agreement between the co-conspirators was that a company of which they were the Directors would falsely claim that it had incurred financial payments for the acquisition of particular medical technologies where no such obligations or expenditures had in fact been incurred. The consequence of this agreement was that the claimed expenditure was offset against taxable income, hence substantially reducing or completely offsetting the tax which would otherwise have been payable.

Each of the co-conspirators was ultimately convicted, following separate trials, of one count of conspiracy to dishonestly cause a loss to the Commonwealth contrary to s 135.4(5) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (Count 1) and one count of conspiring to deal with property of a value of more than $1 million, believing it to be the proceeds of crime (Count 2).

Count 1 was described as involving a complex ’tax fraud’ with net losses to the Commonwealth in excess of $100 million, whilst count 2 related to a money-laundering offence wherein large sums of money were sent across the globe disguised as financial transactions, with funds later returned to Australia.

The various proceedings against each of the co-conspirators had a somewhat tortuous history. They had been arrested and charged in early 2012. A joint trial commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales before Beech-Jones J and a jury in early August 2014. After approximately four and half months an application was made and granted that the jury be discharged with respect to the trial against Issakidis. However, Dickson did not join in the application for a discharge and his trial continued. On 22 December 2014 the jury returned a verdict of guilty with respect to the two counts which I have described earlier.

Dickson was an accountant and a former principal at Ernst & Young. The sentencing judge at first instance described the loss to the Commonwealth pursuant to the conspiracy as a “temporary” net loss of $100 million. Beech- Jones J described the conspiracy in the following terms: “Having regard to its size, scale, timespan and tactics his offending falls into the worst category of cases under s 135.4(5).” (See R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268 at [135].)

Against a maximum penalty of 10 years Dickson was sentenced to 7 years and six months with respect to the conspiracy to defraud under s 135.4(5). With respect to the money-laundering offence which carried a maximum penalty of 25 years, his Honour found that it represented “a very serious example of this offence” and passed a sentence of nine years imprisonment.

Partial accumulation resulted in an overall term of 11 years with a non-parole period of seven years.

An appeal by Dickson against his conviction was rejected. However, a Crown appeal against the manifest inadequacy of the sentences imposed was upheld.

The conspiracy had been continuing at the time of the appellant’s arrest and hence had not been fully implemented. The sentencing judge’s finding that there had been a temporary delay in obtaining a tax debt in excess of $100 million and that the intended extent of the loss or risk of loss was up to $135 million, was found to contain no error.

The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed with Beech-Jones J’s unchallenged conclusion that the offence fell within the worst category of cases under s 135.4(5) at [167]:

The Court also found that the sentence of nine years imprisonment with respect to the money-laundering offence was similarly manifestly inadequate. Dickson was resentenced to a term of 12 years with respect to this offence.

The overall sentence was accordingly increased from 11 years with a seven year non-parole period, to 14 years with 9 years and 3 months non-parole. That sentence was passed in the Court of Criminal Appeal in June 2016.

Following the discharge of the jury with respect to Dickson’s then co-accused Issakidis at the joint trial in 2014, Issakidis eventually stood trial to completion in 2017. Issakidis gave evidence that the fraud, which had undoubtedly been committed, had been carried out exclusively by his co-director Mr Dickson. Issakidis, who was a former solicitor, claimed to have had no knowledge of Dickson’s fraudulent activities. His counsel had addressed the jury in the following terms:

In sentencing Mr Ensor, Hunt DCJ remarked that his conduct represented a serious and planned systematic fraud upon the Commonwealth, above the mid-range but below the high range of objective seriousness. Significant pre-planning and dishonesty had been involved.

Mr Ensor had no criminal history and at the time of sentencing suffered from a range of serious health difficulties. Mr Ensor received a 10% discount for his pleas of Guilty. Ultimately Mr Ensor was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years.

The Court of Criminal Appeal refused leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence. Wilson J, with whom Meagher JA and Button J agreed, said at [57]: “…for a sustained period of planned and systematic fraud involving the loss of a substantial sum to the Commonwealth, the sentence imposed was modest.”

In R v Emile George El Soury [2018] NSWDC 450 the offender also submitted false Business Activity Statements to fraudulently obtain GST refunds. Mr El Soury filed 77 false Business Activity Statements over a 4-and-a-half-year period. The total amount fraudulently obtained was $127,366, with a further $79,732 claimed but unpaid after intervention by the ATO. The funds were used to support the offender’s drug habit.

In sentencing Mr El Soury, Montgomery DCJ noted that: