AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 20 July 2023

R v Rosamond (No 3)

[2023] NSWDC 267

Fraud & dishonesty
ORDINATE EVENTS — CO WORK RELATED PURCHASES AND HOLIDAYS

Citation: R v Rosamond (No 3) [2023] NSWDC 267
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 July 2023
Judge: Sutherland SC DCJ

Background

The offender, Helen Mary Rosamond, was the director of an event management company, Human Group Pty Ltd, which had been retained by the National Australia Bank (NAB) to organise conferences, functions, and events over approximately 12 years. Rosamond's co-offender, Rosemary Rogers, was the NAB's Chief of Staff to the Chief Executive Officer and held a delegated authority to approve expenditure of up to $20 million. The two women met at a Hong Kong conference in 2006 and developed an extremely close personal relationship over subsequent years.

The fraud operated through a symbiotic arrangement: Rosamond generated inflated budgets and fraudulent invoices through Human Group, and Rogers approved them from inside the Bank without requiring supporting documentation. Rosamond used Bank funds to finance lavish benefits for Rogers, including overseas holidays, a house deposit worth $380,000, a bank cheque of $1.5 million toward a property purchase, marina berthing fees, luxury accommodation, and interior design work. Rosamond also caused the Bank to meet personal expenses for herself, including rent on her Potts Point residence and home furnishings.

The scheme continued undetected for more than five years, partly because Rogers' extraordinary delegation shielded the transactions from routine internal audit scrutiny. The fraud came to light after a whistleblower letter was received by the Bank in early 2018, though Rosamond still attempted to issue a further fraudulent invoice exceeding $3.3 million before the contract was terminated.

  • What sentences were appropriate for 59 counts of corruptly providing a benefit under s 249B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900?
  • What sentences were appropriate for 29 counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception under s 192E(1)(b), plus two counts of attempting to obtain a financial advantage?
  • How should the aggregate sentence reflect the totality principle, given the very large number of counts and the scale and duration of the offending?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including the absence of prior convictions, her age, and her health?
  • What parity considerations arose from the fact that a co-offender (Rogers) had already been sentenced?

Decision

Sutherland SC DCJ assessed the objective seriousness of the offending as very high across most counts, with some counts placed in the most serious category. The scheme was characterised by sustained planning and deliberate concealment, the exploitation of a position of trust, the corruption of a senior Bank employee, and the extraction of very large sums over an extended period. The judge noted that the use of disguised project codes, over-inflated budgets, and unsupported invoices reflected a high degree of sophistication.

The court imposed individual sentences for each count, grouped into seriousness bands. For the most serious counts (band 1), including the $1.5 million payment toward Rogers' house purchase and the related "Project Eagle" invoice, sentences of up to six years were imposed. For counts in lower bands, sentences ranged from 12 months to four years, reflecting the relative quantum and nature of each transaction. Two counts returned as not guilty verdicts were excluded from the sentencing exercise.

On the question of parity with Rogers, the court noted that Rogers, as the corrupt insider, bore the greater criminality in some respects, and this was reflected in the comparative structuring of their respective sentences. The offender received some mitigation for her lack of prior convictions, her age (in her 50s at the time of sentencing), and identified health considerations, but these factors carried limited weight given the gravity and duration of the fraud.

The court then applied the totality principle (which requires the overall sentence to reflect the full criminality without becoming crushing or disproportionate) to arrive at an aggregate sentence. Individual sentences were ordered to be served concurrently or partially concurrently to achieve an appropriate overall term, consistent with principles from Pearce v The Queen and Lowe v The Queen.

Orders Made

No orders were made in this decision.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court treated sustained, deliberately concealed fraud against an employer or contracting institution, carried out over five or more years and involving millions of dollars, as objectively very serious, warranting significant head sentences on individual counts.
  • A symbiotic relationship between an external contractor and an internal approver, where each party both facilitated and benefited from the fraud, was treated as a significant aggravating feature going to both planning and breach of trust.
  • Under the totality principle, where a very large number of counts arise from a continuing scheme, sentencing courts must structure concurrent and partly concurrent terms so that the aggregate sentence reflects the overall criminality without producing a disproportionate result.
  • Parity between co-offenders required the court to calibrate sentences by reference to Rogers' earlier sentence, having regard to the relative roles each played and the degree to which each bore responsibility for the primary corruption.
  • The absence of prior convictions, the offender's age, and health considerations carried mitigating weight, but those factors were substantially reduced in significance by the gravity, sophistication, and duration of the offending.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 192E(1)(b), 249B(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases
- Daley v R (1983) 8 A Crim R 433
- De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197
- Edelbi v R [2021] NSWCCA 122
- Holloway v R [2017] NSWCCA 17
- Kapua v R [2023] NSWCCA 14
- Kelly v R [2023] NSWCCA 104
- Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606
- McLaren v R [2021] NSWCCA 12
- MO v R [2023] NSWCCA 26
- Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
- Power v R [2002] NSWCCA 244
- R v Albert [2019] NSWDC 869
- R v Burke [2002] NSWCCA 353
- R v Corbett (1991) 52 A Crim R 112
- R v Cornell [2015] NSWCCA 258
- R v David Charles Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430
- R v Dimitri De Angelis [2013] NSWDC 79
- R v Doorey [2000] NSWCCA 456
- R v Finnie [2002] NSWCCA 533