R v Muldoon

Catchwords: CRIME – fraud - sentence - recklessly deal with proceeds of crime <=$5000 (x 3) – Form 1 matters (x4) recklessly deal with proceeds of crime <=$5000 – total of $11,050 obtained over 5-month period via online scam selling pet puppies and kittens -extensive criminal history including significant amount of fraud offences –seriousness of offences - aggravating feature, on bail at time of offences - subjective matters

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999

Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571

Category: Sentence

Parties: Rex
Muldoon, Joshua

Representation: Solicitors:
Mr L Dowling ODPP
Ms S Gidlow, Legal Aid NSW

File Number(s): 2024/00264350

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: The offender, Joshua Muldoon, appears for sentence in relation to three offences, each being recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime, less than $5,000, contrary to s 193B(3) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. There is no relevant standard non-parole period in relation to any of the three offences.

2. In relation to each of those offences, he asks the court to take into account a number of matters on a Form 1. In relation to Sequence 11, he asks the Court to take into account Sequence 10; in relation to Sequence 13, he asks the Court to take into account Sequence 12; and in relation to Sequence 17, he asks the Court to take into account two further sequences, being 15 and 16.

3. He was committed for sentence on 18 June 2025 and accordingly is entitled to a discount of 25% in relation to each of the matters for sentence. Such a discount will be provided.

4. The facts are as follows and are agreed:

1. The offender was born on 10 May 1986 and was between the ages of 35 and 36 at the time of the offending, which occurred between 26 January 2021 and 9 June 2021. He was arrested on 18 July 2024.

2. The victims in this matter were five individual persons who sought to purchase puppies or kittens through the internet.

3. In August 2021, Kempsey Detectives commenced investigation into a syndicate involved in online shopping website scams. The scams involved cyber criminals purporting to be legitimate online businesses, selling products including pets, and customers were instructed to deposit funds into a specific bank account (mule account) in Australia. All communications between the syndicate and victim were then ceased and the product was never received by the victim.

The funds received in the mule accounts in Australia were then transferred to unknown overseas accounts, commonly through crypto currency remitters.

FORM 1, SEQUENCE 10, RECKLESSLY DEAL WITH PROCEEDS OF CRIME.

4. In January 2021, the victim Owen commenced communicating with the person in relation to the purchase of a puppy.

5. On 8 January 2021, the victim transferred $600 into a Westpac bank account in the name of Joshua Muldoon.

6. The victim then received an email directing her to transfer further funds, and at this point she became suspicious and reported the scam.

7. Following the deposit made by the victim, there were further deposits made into the account, and the offender made purchases and withdrawals from the account, including purchases made from “MoonPay”, a crypto currency exchange platform.

SEQUENCE 11 - RECKLESSLY DEAL WITH PROCEEDS OF CRIME

8. In January 2021, the victim Vickery commenced communicating with a person in relation to the purchase of a puppy.

9. On 26 January 2021, the victim transferred $1,100 into a Westpac bank account in the name of the offender.

10. The victim then received an email directing him to transfer further funds. At this point he became suspicious and reported the scam.

11. Following the deposit made by the victim, the offender made purchases from the account, including a purchase from “MoonPay”.

FORM 1 - SEQUENCE 12 - RECKLESSLY DEAL WITH PROCEEDS OF CRIME

12. In March 2021, the victim O’Lachlan commenced communicating with a person in relation to the purchase of a kitten.

13. On 27 March 2021, the victim transferred $1,750 into an ANZ bank account in the name of the offender.

14. The victim then received phone calls directing her to transfer further funds. At this point she became suspicious and reported the scam.

15. Following the deposit made by the victim, there were further deposits made into the account, and the offender made transfers and purchases from “MoonPay” from the account.

SEQUENCE 13 - RECKLESSLY DEAL WITH THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME

16. In April 2021, the victim Turner commenced communicating with a person in relation to the purchase of a puppy.

17. On 29 April 2021, the victim transferred $1,600 into a NAB account in the name of the offender.

18. The victim then received phone calls directing her to transfer further funds. The victim then transferred another $600 into the same account. The victim then became suspicious and reported the scam.

19. Following deposits made by the victim, there were further deposits made into the account and purchases and withdrawals made from the account, including purchases made from “MoonPay”.

FORM 1 - SEQUENCE 15 - RECKLESSLY DEAL WITH THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME

20. In May 2021, the victim Parker commenced communicating with a person in relation to the purchase of a puppy.

21. On 3 May 2021, the victim transferred $1,750 into a NAB bank account in the name of the offender.

22. The victim was contacted directing him to transfer further funds. At this point he became suspicious and reported the scam.

23. Following the deposit made by the victim, the offender made purchases from the account, including purchases made from “MoonPay”.

FORM 1 - SEQUENCE 16 - RECKLESSLY DEAL WITH THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME

24. In May 2021, the victim Annabel commenced communicating with a person in relation to the purchase of a puppy.

25. On 4 May 2021, the victim transferred $1,750 into a St George bank account in the name of the offender.

26. The victim then received an email directing her to transfer further funds. At this point she became suspicious and reported the scam.

27. Following the deposit made by the victim, the offender made purchases and withdrawals from the account, including a purchase from “Coinmama”, a crypto currency exchange platform, which was entirely refunded.

28. The victim was refunded $1,750 by the bank.

SEQUENCE 17 - RECKLESSLY DEAL WITH THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME

29. In June 2021, the victim Roseman commenced communicating with a person in relation to the purchase of a puppy.

30. On 9 June 2021, the victim transferred $2,500 into a Bankwest account in the name of the offender.

31. The victim then received an email requesting he transfer further funds. At this point he became suspicious and reported the scam.

32. Following the deposit made by the victim, the offender made a purchase, withdrawal and transfer from the account.

33. The victim was refunded money by the bank.

ARREST

5. On 18 July 2024, the offender was arrested at MRRC Silverwater. The offender refused to participate in an electronically recorded interview as was his right.

6. The three counts in respect of which he is to be sentenced total an amount of $6,050. If included with that are the amounts relevant to the Form 1 charges, the total amount is $11,050, acquired between 8 January 2021 and 9 June 2021, that is, during a period of five months.

7. The banks refunded, in respect of Sequence 16, $1,750 and, in respect of Sequence 17, $90. The total amount refunded by banks was $1,840.

8. The offender had five separate bank accounts in his name, into which the funds were deposited, at Westpac, ANZ, NAB, St George and Bankwest.

9. The charges are on the basis that he was recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime.

10. The offender did not give evidence on sentence. Before the Court is a Sentencing Assessment Report under the hand of Lisa Prince, a senior Community Corrections officer, dated 10 July 2025. The report was based on interviews with the offender, the police facts and the criminal history and Corrective Services NSW records.

11. It contains, however, after stating the sources of the information, the following in bold,

“Please note that the information provided was unable to be verified by any third party, hence is based on self-reporting and service records.”

12. It includes, under “Attitudes”, the following:

“Mr Muldoon attributed his offending to his naivety as well as being heavily medicated at that time, affecting his ability to think clearly ...”

“Mr Muldoon claimed that he believed that he was partaking in a legal activity, although he acknowledged that he perhaps intentionally did not give it much thought as he was grateful for the extra money.”

13. Under “Alcohol and other drugs”:

“Mr Muldoon reported weekly cannabis use at the time of his offending, which may have contributed to his poor decision making.”

14. And further under “Financial”:

“Mr Muldoon advised that he received 20% commission for his involvement in the offences and was motivated by the extra income.”

15. That is at least a concession that he was motivated by greed.

16. As to his assertion that he believed he was partaking in legal activity but that he perhaps intentionally did not give it much thought, I note that the offender has a very significant criminal history for fraud offences.

17. Indeed, I have been provided with, without objection, the facts in relation to past offending, which includes the following sequence numbers: H78588279, H403085093 and H93051170 and H93251106 and finally H96486285. In relation to each of those matters, he was charged with obtaining financial advantage by way of advertising Cavoodle puppies for sale, in relation to which funds were paid and no puppy was provided or refund made. Having read the facts in relation to each of those matters, it is impossible to accept his assertion to the sentencing assessment officer that he believed he was partaking in a legal activity, although acknowledging that he perhaps intentionally did not give it much thought as he was grateful for the extra money.

18. He is of course in relation to these matters only charged with being reckless, and I will sentence him on the basis of what he has been charged with, even though it appears to be entirely inconsistent with his past history. In that regard, I simply note his extensive criminal history.

19. As to the objective seriousness of each of the offences, taking into account particularly the quantum of which the victims were deprived, I accept, as submitted, that they fall at the low end of objective seriousness. They were, however, nonetheless, significant to those who no doubt worked in order to obtain an income, paid tax on it and then were defrauded by this scheme of money they thought they were utilising from their income to purchase a pet. The offending itself shows no empathy for the victims, as is unfortunately relatively typical of a number of internet scams in recent times.

20. It was noted in respect of the offender that he has had seven prior convictions for offences of dishonestly obtaining property by deception, although only two of those pre-date the current offending, and he has five prior convictions for offences of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception which post-date the current offending.

21. He is now serving a non-parole period in relation to the latter offences and, whilst the commission of the current offences is on the basis of recklessness rather than intentionality, the prior convictions, even though some post-date the commission of these offences, must result in the court placing greater emphasis on specific deterrence. Those offences which post-date the offending in this case demonstrate that the offending was not an aberration and informs the likelihood of reoffending.

22. That he was motivated by the extra income, or, as I have expressed it, by greed, indicates the Court should place greater emphasis on specific deterrence.

23. His prior criminal history demonstrates that this offending is not uncharacteristic and does demonstrate a continuing attitude to disobedience of the law, which is a disentitling factor to leniency and must result in some further weight being given to specific deterrence, even though I accept, as the Crown submits, that it does not amount to a statutory aggravating factor.

24. A statutory aggravating factor is, of course, that he was in fact on conditional liberty at the time of the offending, being a Conditional Release Order without conviction. The offender’s disregard of that order is indicative of the Court’s need to hold that there is a guarded prospect of rehabilitation and a likelihood of reoffending.

25. The Sentencing Assessment Report assesses the offender as a medium to high risk of reoffending. In respect of that, I note from his record that he has had the benefit of conditional liberty and rehabilitation in the community in the past, including receiving Community Correction Orders, Conditional Release Orders without conviction, s 10A convictions with no other penalty and s 9 bonds. Apparently, the manner in which the courts have dealt with him in the past has not assisted him.

26. He has a very extensive criminal history. The number of pages presented in order to reflect his criminal history is perhaps not a good indication of the extent of it, but I note there are some 59 pages before me, and on many occasions there are recorded sentences and long lists of matters that have been taken into account on the one occasion.

27. He has been dealt with in the past for offences involving motor vehicles, such as never licensed or use unregistered, uninsured, drive while suspended; possessing prohibited drugs; contravening restrictions in an AVO; larceny as a bailee; enter prescribed premises without lawful excuse; police pursuit; not stop/drive dangerously; attempt stalk/intimidate intend fear or harm; use carriage service to menace, harass, offend; use carriage service to make a hoax threat; larceny; destroy/damage property; behave in an offensive manner in or near a public place or school; resist or hinder police officer in execution of duty; drive vehicle with illicit drug present in blood; fail to comply with a requirement of a public health order; and, as I have previously referred to, dishonestly obtaining property by deception. And in many instances, there are numerous entries for like offences to the list I have just described.

28. He has spent since December 2005 a number of periods in custody as a result of being sentenced for various offences. Considering the period of time that he has been in custody, his compliance with Corrective Services regulations whilst in custody appears to be, in my view, quite reasonable.

29. He has not confined his criminal offending to New South Wales. He has been dealt with in Queensland for possessing utensils for use and, on one occasion, had to be extradited from South Australia to be dealt with in New South Wales.

30. In Victoria he has been dealt with for offences such as use indecent language in a public place, and he has been before the courts on a number of occasions for offences which have either been struck out or withdrawn and are accordingly irrelevant except to the extent that they demonstrate familiarity with the legal system.

31. According to the Sentencing Assessment Report, he informed the assessment officer that he had been in receipt of a Disability Support Pension for over 20 years; that he has been socially isolated, with minimal supports in the communit, and was homeless prior to his incarceration - not for these offences but the last offences that he was dealt with.

32. The Sentence Assessment Report states that

“Mr Muldoon’s criminal history demonstrates a pattern of dishonesty/fraud and related offences not dissimilar to the index offences”.

33. As to his insight into the impact of his offending, that report states:

“Mr Muldoon was able to recognise the impact of his offending on the victims, stating that he has been a victim of scammers himself and it wasn’t nice.”

34. Considering the significant number of offences for fraud and/or recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime, I do not accept that assertion made to the sentencing assessment officer that “it wasn’t nice” or that he appreciates that being scammed is not nice.

35. His past supervision by Community Corrections, in October 2021, after the commission of the index offences, indicates initial compliance. However, following the cessation of his medication regime, his mental health deteriorated significantly, resulting in poor engagement with service providers and Community Corrections, breach action was subsequently taken due to his instability and increased risk of reoffending. As to his risk of reoffending, he is assessed as being a medium to high risk, according to the revised LSI-R.

36. He is currently serving a term of imprisonment for a number of offences as previously referred to. The sentence was to commence on 27 October 2023, being for a period of two years and eight months. It does not expire until 26 April 2028. The non-parole period provides that he may be released on parole on 26 June 2026. He is yet to serve a number of terms that have been imposed in relation to H78856969, from 14 December 2026 to 13 June 2028, and in respect of H94645854, from 11 June 2026 to 10 February 2027. In respect of H94650942, from 14 July 2026 to 13 July 2028; and in respect of H94437666, from 14 July 2027 to 13 July 2028.

37. In respect of each of those matters, the non-parole period is three years dating from 14 July 2023, making him eligible for parole on 13 July 2026.

38. I have been provided on his behalf with a psychological report by Dr Manta Sidhu, dated 6 August 2025, and Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network records, dated 24 August 2024 to 10 March 2025, and some documents referred to as “the offender’s work-assigned documents,” dated 31 July 2025.

39. The offender was apparently born in Manilla, New South Wales, and he has an older brother and a younger sister. His father apparently held employment as a linesman at an electrical company and his mother worked to maintain the household. He reports having been exposed to violence, drug use and crime in the community, and the presence of domestic violence with his mother as the aggressor in the home. He was also exposed to cannabis as a result of his mother’s use, which apparently resulted in outbursts of rage from time to time from her.

40. He also alleged to the psychologist that he was the subject of childhood sexual abuse over an 18-month period when he was nine years of age, asserting that a schoolteacher was the perpetrator in the school environment, involving both oral and anal rape on multiple occasions. That may well be entirely true, but Mr Muldoon has given no evidence so that the Court might assess it.

41. I also note that in relation to offenders who have previously spent time in custody, whether that be by way of serving a sentence or on remand awaiting sentence, it has now become the case that many of them, when due to be sentenced for new offences, frequently report for the first time in their long criminal history that they were abused as a child.As I have said, it may be that it occurred, but it is now a prevalent and common factor relied on when due to be sentenced for a fresh offence.

42. He apparently struggled with the school environment but was assisted in his early years with remedial classes. High School was much better, although he did not socially integrate well. Since having left formal education in Year 11, he has not engaged in any further education. He claims to have been engaged in casual work for around six months in a supermarket when he left school, which is his longest period of employment.

43. He reported using cannabis from 15 years of age, and using it consistently until 28 years of age, before ceasing this at 31 years of age. He also used crystal methamphetamine, or ice for a brief period in 2019 and now denies significant drug use for a number of years. He also denied that drug use was a factor in his current offending or instability.

44. He expressed that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and that his symptoms are more manic than depressive, with his last depressive episode occurring two years ago when he was residing in the community. The Justice Health records support that he suffers from Bipolar Disorder Type 1, as they record that he has been medicated with depot Olanzapine.

45. He is currently working as a cook within the prison system, and I note from the Justice Health records that he has complained of being assaulted within the prison system, although the record of his complaint is that he had “a fight over cereal, got hit in the head two, three times”. I note that he was examined. He was found to be alert and orientated, speaking in full sentences and ambulating independently, with breathlessness and a slight redness to the top of his forehead, with nil obvious head injuries, nil bruising or swelling noted. “Nil loose teeth/bleeding in the mouth or nose noted.” And “Nil swelling in the face and denying any pain or dizziness”. He was apparently advised to further report if he noticed any significant issue in relation to developing headache, dizziness, fatigue or light headedness.

46. Otherwise, the Justice Health reports reflect that he regarded himself as being bullied within the wing, and I note the Justice Health records record that he has been admitted on various occasions to hospitals, particularly in relation to his bipolar condition.

47. A plea of guilty does not necessarily reflect contrition. In the offender’s case, the plea was entered in the face of overwhelming evidence: the moneys having been deposited into his account and there being evidence of him personally being in contact with some of the victims to request the deposit of funds, that being shown by way of emails and/or telephone numbers, including numbers for his mobile phone.

48. Considered separately, each of the individual offences, including those matters that are on the Form 1, in my view, would not justify crossing the Court finding that the s 5 threshold had been crossed. However, this is a matter in relation to which there were seven separate offences within a five month period, each being highly similar to a large number of offences committed by him in the past, and they were committed while he was the subject of a Conditional Release Order without conviction, which he breached, which is of course, as referred to, a statutory aggravating factor; s 21A(2)(j).

49. Had these matters been dealt with at the same time as his last batch of offending matters, I am of the view that it would not have made a significant difference to the penalty to be imposed.

50. I have taken all of those matters into account, including the 25% discount, and that there is some relevance of Bugmy in the current matter, even in the absence of the offender having given evidence, reducing his moral culpability and the need for the sentence to reflect general deterrence.

51. Having considered all of those matters, I intend to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence.

52. In relation to Sequence 11, including the Form 1 matter of Sequence 10, the indicative sentence will be six months’ imprisonment.

53. In relation to Sequence 13, also taking into account the Form 1 matter of Sequence 12, the indicative sentence is nine months’ imprisonment.

54. In relation to Sequence 17 and the Form 1 matters of Sequence 15 and Sequence 16, the indicative sentence is one year.

55. The aggregate sentence will be two years’ imprisonment. I will date that from today, 14 August 2025.

56. I see no reason to vary the statutory relationship between the term of sentence and the non-parole period. Accordingly, the non-parole period is one year, six months, and the offender will first become eligible for parole in relation to these matters on 13 February 2027. The two-year sentence will expire on 13 August 2027.

57. I note that that sentence is effectively rendered a nil effect as he will still be serving the sentences I previously referred to.

Is there anything in particular of importance that I have missed or any error?

DOWLING: Not from the Crown’s perspective, your Honour.

GIDLOW: No, your Honour.

**********