Sentencing Snapshot no. 203 describes sentencing outcomes for the offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception in the County and Supreme Courts of Victoria from 2011–12 to 2015–16.
More recent Snapshots are available for this offence.
You can also find statistics for this offence on SACStat.
Authored and published by the Sentencing Advisory Council
© State of Victoria, Sentencing Advisory Council, 2017
Snapshot 203: Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception
Introduction
This Sentencing Snapshot describes sentencing outcomes[1] for the offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception in the County and Supreme Courts of Victoria from 2011–12 to 2015–16.[2] Adjustments made by the Court of Appeal to sentence or conviction as at December 2016 have been incorporated into the data in this Snapshot.
Detailed data on obtaining a financial advantage by deception and other offences is available on SACStat.
A person who, by any deception, dishonestly obtains any financial advantage for his- or herself or another person is guilty of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. Obtaining a financial advantage by deception is an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment[3] and/or a fine of 1,200 penalty units.[4] Indictable offences are more serious offences triable before a judge and jury in the County or Supreme Court. Obtaining a financial advantage by deception can also be tried summarily by the Magistrates’ Court if the financial advantage involved meets certain criteria, the Magistrates’ Court considers it appropriate and the defendant consents.
Obtaining a financial advantage by deception was the principal offence[5] in 2.2% of cases sentenced in the higher courts from 2011–12 to 2015–16.
People Sentenced
From 2011–12 to 2015–16, 199 people were sentenced in the higher courts for a principal offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception.
Figure 1 shows the number of people sentenced for the principal offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception by financial year. There were 26 people sentenced for this offence in 2015–16, down by 16 people from the previous year. The number of people sentenced was highest in 2013–14 (64 people).
Figure 1: The number of people sentenced for obtaining a financial advantage by deception by financial year, 2011–12 to 2015–16
| Financial year | Total |
|---|---|
| 2011–12 | 29 |
| 2012–13 | 38 |
| 2013–14 | 64 |
| 2014–15 | 42 |
| 2015–16 | 26 |
| Total | 199 |
Sentence Types and Trends
Figure 2 shows the total number of people sentenced for obtaining a financial advantage by deception and the number that received an immediate custodial sentence. An immediate custodial sentence is one that involves at least some element of immediate imprisonment or detention.[6] Over the five-year period, 47% of people were given an immediate custodial sentence.
Figure 2: The number of people sentenced for obtaining a financial advantage by deception and the number that received an immediate custodial sentence, 2011–12 to 2015–16
| Financial year | Custodial | Non-custodial | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011–12 | 17 | 12 | 29 |
| 2012–13 | 15 | 23 | 38 |
| 2013–14 | 26 | 38 | 64 |
| 2014–15 | 22 | 20 | 42 |
| 2015–16 | 14 | 12 | 26 |
| Total | 94 | 105 | 199 |
Table 1 shows the number of people sentenced for obtaining a financial advantage by deception from 2011–12 to 2015–16 by the types of sentences imposed. The availability of different sentence types has changed over time. Most notably, wholly and partially suspended sentences have now been abolished.[7]
Over the five-year period, 40% of people received a form of imprisonment (including aggregate imprisonment, imprisonment combined with a community correction order, and aggregate imprisonment combined with a community correction order), 15% received a community correction order and 12% received a fine.
The number and percentage of people who received imprisonment were lowest in 2012–13 (10 of 38 people or 26%). The number was highest in 2013–14 (22 people) while the percentage was highest in 2011–12 (15 of 29 people or 52%).
Table 1: The number and percentage of people sentenced for obtaining a financial advantage by deception by sentence type, 2011–12 to 2015–16 (in descending order of numbers for 2015–16)
| Sentence type | 2011–12 | 2012–13 | 2013–14 | 2014–15 | 2015–16 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community correction order | 3 (10%) | 8 (21%) | 8 (13%) | 3 (7%) | 8 (31%) | 30 (15%) |
| Imprisonment | 15 (52%) | 9 (24%) | 20 (31%) | 15 (36%) | 5 (19%) | 64 (32%) |
| Aggregate imprisonment and community correction order (combined) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 3 (7%) | 5 (19%) | 8 (4%) |
| Aggregate imprisonment | 0 (–) | 1 (3%) | 2 (3%) | 2 (5%) | 2 (8%) | 7 (4%) |
| Wholly suspended sentence | 8 (28%) | 15 (39%) | 17 (27%) | 5 (12%) | 2 (8%) | 47 (24%) |
| Imprisonment and community correction order (combined) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 1 (4%) | 1 (<1%) |
| Partially suspended sentence | 2 (7%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (5%) | 2 (5%) | 1 (4%) | 12 (6%) |
| Fine | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 12 (19%) | 10 (24%) | 1 (4%) | 23 (12%) |
| Adjourned undertaking without conviction | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 1 (4%) | 1 (<1%) |
| Aggregate wholly suspended sentence | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 2 (5%) | 0 (–) | 2 (1%) |
| Aggregate partially suspended sentence | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 1 (2%) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 1 (<1%) |
| Partially suspended sentence with recognizance release order (Cth) | 0 (–) | 1 (3%) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 1 (<1%) |
| Wholly suspended sentence and fine (combined) | 1 (3%) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 1 (<1%) |
| Adjourned undertaking with conviction | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 1 (2%) | 0 (–) | 0 (–) | 1 (<1%) |
| People sentenced | 29 | 38 | 64 | 42 | 26 | 199 |
Age and Gender of People Sentenced
Data on the age and gender of people sentenced for obtaining a financial advantage by deception is available on SACStat.
Principal and Total Effective Sentences
Two methods for describing sentence types and lengths are examined in this section. One relates to the principal sentence and examines sentences for the offence at a charge level. The other relates to the total effective sentence and examines sentences for the offence at a case level.
The principal sentence is the sentence imposed for the charge that is the principal offence.[8]
The total effective sentence in a case with a single charge is the principal sentence. The total effective sentence in a case with multiple charges is the sentence that results from the court ordering the individual sentences for each charge to be served concurrently (at the same time) or wholly or partially cumulatively (one after the other).
In many cases, the total effective sentence imposed on a person is longer than the principal sentence. Principal sentences for obtaining a financial advantage by deception must be considered in this broader context. The following sections analyse the use of imprisonment for the offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception from 2011–12 to 2015–16.
Principal Sentence of Imprisonment
A total of 80 people received a principal sentence of imprisonment for obtaining a financial advantage by deception from 2011–12 to 2015–16.[9]
Figure 3 shows these people by the length of their imprisonment term.[10] Imprisonment terms ranged from 9 months to 7 years, while the median length of imprisonment was 2 years and 6 months (meaning that half of the imprisonment terms were shorter than 2 years and 6 months and half were longer).
The most common length of imprisonment imposed was 2 to less than 3 years (20 people).
Figure 3: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for obtaining a financial advantage by deception by length of imprisonment term, 2011–12 to 2015–16
| Imprisonment length | Number of people |
|---|---|
| Less than 1 year | 3 |
| 1 to less than 2 years | 14 |
| 2 to less than 3 years | 20 |
| 3 to less than 4 years | 18 |
| 4 to less than 5 years | 8 |
| 5 to less than 6 years | 1 |
| 6 to less than 7 years | 0 |
| 7 to less than 8 years | 1 |
| People sentenced | 65 |
As shown in Figure 4, the average (mean) length of imprisonment imposed on people sentenced for obtaining a financial advantage by deception ranged from 2 years and 1 month in 2012–13 to 3 years and 2 months in 2015–16.
Figure 4: The average (mean) length of imprisonment imposed on people sentenced for obtaining a financial advantage by deception, 2011–12 to 2015–16
| Financial year | Number of people | Average length of imprisonment term |
|---|---|---|
| 2011–12 | 15 | 2 years, 4 months |
| 2012–13 | 9 | 2 years, 1 month |
| 2013–14 | 20 | 2 years, 10 months |
| 2014–15 | 15 | 2 years, 4 months |
| 2015–16 | 6 | 3 years, 2 months |
Other Offences Finalised at the Same Hearing
Often people prosecuted for obtaining a financial advantage by deception face multiple charges, which are finalised at the same hearing. This section looks at the range of offences for which offenders have been sentenced at the same time as being sentenced for the principal offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception.
Figure 5 shows the number of people sentenced for the principal offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception by the total number of offences for which sentences were imposed. The number of sentenced offences per person ranged from 1 to 129, while the median was 3 offences. There were 74 people (37.2%) sentenced for the single offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The average number of offences per person sentenced for obtaining a financial advantage by deception was 7.08.
Figure 5: The number of people sentenced for the principal offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception by the number of sentenced offences per person, 2011–12 to 2015–16
| Number of offences | Number of people |
|---|---|
| 1 | 74 |
| 2 | 24 |
| 3 | 17 |
| 4 | 15 |
| 5–9 | 32 |
| 10–19 | 20 |
| 20–49 | 13 |
| 50–99 | 3 |
| 100+ | 1 |
| Total | 199 |
Table 2 shows the 10 most common offences for people sentenced for obtaining a financial advantage by deception, by number and percentage. The last column sets out the average number of offences sentenced per person. For example, 22 of the total 199 people (11.1%) also received sentences for attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception. On average, they were sentenced for 3.14 counts of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception.
Table 2: The number and percentage of people sentenced for the principal offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception by the most common offences that were sentenced and the average number of those offences that were sentenced, 2011–12 to 2015–16
| Offence | Number of cases | Percentage of cases | Average number of proven offences per case | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Obtaining a financial advantage by deception | 199 | 100.0 | 4.73 |
| 2. | Attempt to obtain a financial advantage by deception | 22 | 11.1 | 3.14 |
| 3. | Obtaining property by deception | 18 | 9.0 | 5.11 |
| 4. | Theft | 12 | 6.0 | 15.50 |
| 5. | Make false document to prejudice of other | 7 | 3.5 | 2.29 |
| 6. | Possess drug of dependence | 7 | 3.5 | 1.14 |
| 7. | Possess identification information to commit indictable offence | 5 | 2.5 | 1.60 |
| 8. | Use false document to prejudice of other | 3 | 1.5 | 2.00 |
| 9. | Handling stolen goods | 3 | 1.5 | 1.67 |
| 10. | Make/use/supply identification information to commit indictable offence | 2 | 1.0 | 3.00 |
| People sentenced | 199 | 100.0 | 7.08 |
Total Effective Imprisonment Terms
Figure 6 shows the number of people sentenced to imprisonment for obtaining a financial advantage by deception from 2011–12 to 2015–16 by length of total effective imprisonment term. The total effective imprisonment terms ranged from 5 months and 7 days (with a two-year community correction order) to 9 years and 10 months, while the median total effective imprisonment term was 3 years and 8 months (meaning that half of the total effective imprisonment terms were below 3 years and 8 months and half were above).
The most common total effective imprisonment terms were 1 to less than 2 years and 2 to less than 3 years (14 people each).
Figure 6: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for obtaining a financial advantage by deception by length of total effective imprisonment term, 2011–12 to 2015–16
| Total effective imprisonment length | Number of people |
|---|---|
| Less than 1 year | 5 |
| 1 to less than 2 years | 14 |
| 2 to less than 3 years | 14 |
| 3 to less than 4 years | 8 |
| 4 to less than 5 years | 13 |
| 5 to less than 6 years | 7 |
| 6 to less than 7 years | 11 |
| 7 to less than 8 years | 4 |
| 8 to less than 9 years | 1 |
| 9 to less than 10 years | 3 |
| People sentenced | 80 |
Non-Parole Period
If a person is sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment of less than 1 year, the court cannot impose a non-parole period. For terms between 1 year and less than 2 years, the court has the discretion to fix a non-parole period. For terms of imprisonment of 2 years or more, the court must impose a non-parole period in most circumstances. Where a non-parole period is fixed, the person must serve that period before becoming eligible for parole. Where no non-parole period is set by the court, the person must serve the entirety of the imprisonment term in custody.
Of the 80 people who were sentenced to imprisonment for obtaining a financial advantage by deception, 75 were eligible to have a non-parole period fixed.[11] Of these people, 67 were given a non-parole period (89%).[12] Figure 7 shows the number of people sentenced to imprisonment for obtaining a financial advantage by deception from 2011–12 to 2015–16 by length of non-parole period. Non-parole periods ranged from 6 months to 7 years, while the median length of the non-parole period was 2 years and 6 months (meaning that half of the non-parole periods were below 2 years and 6 months and half were above).
The most common non-parole period imposed was 1 to less than 2 years (19 people).
Figure 7: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for obtaining a financial advantage by deception by length of non-parole period, 2011–12 to 2015–16
| Non-parole period | Number of people |
|---|---|
| Less than 1 year | 7 |
| 1 to less than 2 years | 19 |
| 2 to less than 3 years | 18 |
| 3 to less than 4 years | 8 |
| 4 to less than 5 years | 9 |
| 5 to less than 6 years | 4 |
| 6 to less than 7 years | 0 |
| 7 to less than 8 years | 2 |
| No non-parole period | 11 |
| Total people | 78 |
Total Effective Sentences of Imprisonment and Non-Parole Periods
Figure 8 presents the average length of total effective sentences of imprisonment compared with the average length of non-parole periods from 2011–12 to 2015–16.
From 2011–12 to 2015–16, the average length of total effective sentences for all people ranged from 3 years and 2 months in 2015–16 to 4 years and 5 months in 2013–14. Over the same period, the average length of non-parole periods ranged from 2 years and 3 months in 2014–15 to 3 years and 1 month in 2015–16.
Further data on total effective sentences of imprisonment and corresponding non-parole periods for obtaining a financial advantage by deception is available on SACStat.
Figure 8: The average total effective sentence and the average non-parole period imposed on people sentenced to imprisonment for obtaining a financial advantage by deception, 2011–12 to 2015–16
| Financial year | Average total effective length | Average non-parole period |
|---|---|---|
| 2011–12 | 4 years, 2 months | 2 years, 7 months |
| 2012–13 | 3 years, 11 months | 2 years, 4 months |
| 2013–14 | 4 years, 5 months | 2 years, 6 months |
| 2014–15 | 3 years, 4 months | 2 years, 3 months |
| 2015–16 | 3 years, 2 months | 3 years, 1 month |
Non-Imprisonment Sentences
Data on the length of non-imprisonment sentence types, such as community correction orders, suspended sentences and fines, for obtaining a financial advantage by deception is available on SACStat.
Summary
From 2011–12 to 2015–16, 199 people were sentenced for obtaining a financial advantage by deception in the higher courts. Of these people, 80 (40%) were given a principal sentence of imprisonment.
The number and range of offences for which people with a principal offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception were sentenced help explain why imprisonment sentence lengths were longer for the total effective sentence than for the principal sentence. The median total effective imprisonment length was 3 years and 8 months, while the median principal imprisonment length was 2 years and 6 months.
Total effective imprisonment lengths ranged from 5 months and 7 days (with a two- year community correction order) to 9 years and 10 months, and non-parole periods (where imposed) ranged from 6 months to 7 years.
Endnotes
1. This series of reports includes custodial and non-custodial supervision orders imposed under Part 5 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) as sentencing orders and in the count of people sentenced. These orders are not sentencing orders as they are imposed in cases where the defendant is found to be unfit to stand trial or not guilty because of mental impairment. However, they are included in this report as they are an important form of disposition of criminal charges.
This Sentencing Snapshot is an update of Sentencing Snapshot no. 169, which describes sentencing trends for obtaining a financial advantage by deception from 2009–10 to 2013–14.
2. Data on first instance sentence outcomes presented in this Snapshot was obtained from the Strategic Analysis and Review Team at Court Services Victoria. Data on appeal outcomes was collected by the Sentencing Advisory Council from the Australasian Legal Information Institute, and also was provided by the Victorian Court of Appeal. The Sentencing Advisory Council regularly undertakes extensive quality control measures for current and historical data. While every effort is made to ensure that the data analysed in this report is accurate, the data is subject to revision.
3. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 82.
4. The value of a penalty unit changes each year and can be found in the Victorian Government Gazette and on the Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents website.
5. If a person is sentenced for a case with a single charge, the offence for that charge is the principal offence. If a person is sentenced for more than one charge in a single case, the principal offence is the offence for the charge that attracted the most serious sentence according to the sentencing hierarchy.
6. Immediate custodial sentences include imprisonment, imprisonment and community correction order (combined), aggregate imprisonment, aggregate imprisonment and community correction order (combined), partially suspended sentences, aggregate partially suspended sentences and partially suspended sentences with recognizance release order (Cth).
7. Suspended sentences have been abolished in the higher courts for all offences committed on or after 1 September 2013 and in the Magistrates’ Court for all offences committed on or after 1 September 2014.
8. Refer to Endnote 5.
9. This total includes the people in Table 1 who received sentences of imprisonment, imprisonment combined with a community correction order, aggregate imprisonment and aggregate imprisonment combined with a community correction order.
10. Data presented in this section does not include imprisonment lengths for people who received an aggregate sentence of imprisonment. Sentence lengths for aggregate sentences of imprisonment apply to the whole case, while Figure 3 only deals with sentences of imprisonment for the principal proven offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. From 2011–12 to 2015–16, 15 people received an aggregate form of imprisonment.
11. A total of 5 people were not eligible to have a non-parole period fixed because they were given a total effective sentence length of less than 1 year.
12. Two people were not given a non-parole period relating to that case alone, but a non-parole period that also related to other cases. It is not possible to determine the length of the non-parole periods that relate to these cases. The non-parole periods for these people are excluded from the analysis. A non-parole period was not set for 6 people who were eligible for a non-parole period.
