AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 17 July 2019

R v Ngaosri; R v Bevinetto

[2019] NSWDC 547

Fraud & dishonesty

Citation: R v Ngaosri; R v Bevinetto [2019] NSWDC 547
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 July 2019
Judge(s): M L Williams SC DCJ

Background

Two co-offenders, a man and his partner, were sentenced after pleading guilty to jointly making counterfeit Australian currency at their home in Five Dock, Sydney. Between June and August 2017, they produced $30,100 in counterfeit $100 notes using two large industrial printing machines, specialist software, laminates, and cutting equipment. The notes were described by the court as highly realistic and almost indistinguishable from genuine currency.

The male offender faced a broader range of charges. In addition to the joint counterfeiting offence, he faced separate Commonwealth charges of possessing and uttering counterfeit money, as well as State charges of possessing a small quantity of methylamphetamine and possessing ammunition without authorisation. His co-offender, the female partner, faced a single charge: jointly making counterfeit currency.

Both offenders pleaded guilty at an early opportunity, attracting a 25% discount on any term of imprisonment. The sentencing judge was required to weigh the objective seriousness of a professional-grade counterfeiting operation against a range of subjective factors personal to each offender.

  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate for the male offender, having regard to his prior criminal record, the multiplicity of offences, and his personal circumstances?
  • Whether the female offender's more limited role, lack of criminal history, and the hardship to her young children justified a sentence of imprisonment to be served without actual custody (that is, release forthwith on a recognisance).
  • How the court should treat personal hardship, drug addiction, motivation, and rehabilitation prospects as mitigating factors.
  • What weight to give to the principle of general deterrence in counterfeiting offences.

Decision

The court characterised the counterfeiting operation as objectively serious. The currency produced was of professional quality, the operation was sophisticated and sustained over several months, and the male offender had taken steps to conceal evidence after police visited the address. The court noted the established view in cases such as DPP v Rohde and R v Institoris that counterfeiting offences attract significant judicial condemnation given their broader economic consequences.

For the male offender, the court weighed his prior record of dishonesty offences and prior imprisonment against his early plea, his conduct in custody, his diagnosed substance use disorder and depressive illness, and his claimed motivation of financing custody proceedings for a child taken overseas. The court accepted that the Hong Kong custody matter was a relevant motivating factor, but noted discrepancies in his account. His drug use was acknowledged as affecting his judgment, though it did not rise to a level that diminished moral culpability in a legally significant way under the principles in Muldrock v The Queen.

For the female offender, the court accepted that her involvement was more limited, being confined primarily to trimming the printed notes. She had no criminal record, was assessed as a low reoffending risk, and expressed genuine remorse. The court accepted that actual imprisonment would cause significant hardship to her young children, and the Crown did not contest that a sentence of imprisonment released forthwith on a recognisance fell within the appropriate range.

The State offences of possessing a prohibited drug and possessing ammunition without a licence were both dealt with by conviction and no further penalty under section 10A of the Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, reflecting their relative minor weight in the overall sentencing exercise.

Orders Made

Mr Bevinetto:
- Convicted of all offences
- Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years and 7 months, commencing 22 February 2018
- Non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months, expiring 21 November 2020
- Indicative sentences: Count 002 (possession) 2 years; Count 007 (uttering) 2 years; Count 010 (making) 4 years
- State drug and ammunition offences: convicted with no further penalty imposed under s 10A
- Destruction orders made for counterfeiting equipment, software, and data

Ms Ngaosri:
- Convicted of jointly making counterfeit currency
- Sentence of 18 months imprisonment commencing 17 July 2019
- Released forthwith pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), on a recognisance of $100, with a condition of good behaviour for 18 months
- Destruction orders made for counterfeit currency

Key Takeaways

  • Counterfeiting offences involving professional-quality currency and sophisticated equipment attract significant terms of imprisonment, with courts emphasising the broader economic harm and the strong need for general deterrence.
  • Co-offenders in the same enterprise can receive substantially different sentences where their respective roles, criminal histories, and personal circumstances differ materially.
  • A sentence of imprisonment released forthwith on a recognisance under s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) remains available in Commonwealth matters where rehabilitation prospects are strong, the offender has no prior record, and actual imprisonment would cause significant hardship to dependants.
  • Drug addiction and difficult personal motivation, including a contested overseas custody dispute, were treated as relevant background factors but did not substantially reduce objective culpability in this case.
  • Under s 10A of the Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a court can record a conviction for a State offence without imposing any additional penalty, a mechanism used here for the minor drug and firearms ammunition charges subsumed within the overall sentencing picture.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 10A
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Pt 1B, s 16A(2)(p), s 20(1)(b)
- Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 (Cth), ss 6, 7, 9(1)
- Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.2A(1)
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 10
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 65(3)

Cases:
- DPP v Rohde (1985) 17 A Crim R 166
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
- R v Institoris (2002) 129 A Crim R 458; [2002] NSWCCA 8
- R v Gittany [2002] NSWCCA 139
- R v Doherty [2016] VCC 1359
- R v Nasser [2016] VCC 2033
- R v Megaloudis [2013] NSWDC 302
- R v Haywood (unreported, NSWDC, 20 June 2016)
- R v Meades (unreported, NSWDC, 29 June 2000)
- R v Sabbah (unreported, NSWDC, 31 August 2018)