AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 20 October 2025

R v Sulaiman

[2025] NSWDC 415

Fraud & dishonesty
SENTENCE KNOWINGLY DEAL WITH PROCEEDS OF CRIME AGGREGATE SENTENCE INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER

Citation: R v Sulaiman [2025] NSWDC 415
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 October 2025
Judge: Mahony SC DCJ

Background

The offender, born in Afghanistan in 1989, migrated to Australia in 1999 and became an Australian citizen in 2004. He was employed by Telstra from 2013 until his dismissal in late 2023, eventually working in a business verification testing role with privileged access to Telstra's ordering and billing systems.

Between March 2022 and September 2023, the offender used his unique Telstra login credentials to fraudulently order 1,407 mobile phone devices and accessories, together with SIM cards and accessories, at a cost to Telstra of approximately $2.59 million. The devices were delivered to his home address and predominantly resold on platforms such as Gumtree for between $1,500 and $2,000 each. To conceal the fraud, the offender manually deleted 1,396 order records from Telstra's systems and applied credits to mask the charges.

Proceeds from the sales were deposited across bank accounts held by the offender, his mother, and his brother, totalling approximately $1.31 million. The offender's own account showed a balance of over $424,000 shortly before the scheme was detected. His mother and brother were separately sentenced in the Local Court, each receiving terms of imprisonment served by way of Intensive Correction Orders (ICOs).

  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate for the two principal offences (dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception under s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime under s 193B(2))?
  • Whether the proceeds of crime offence (Sequence 3) should be sentenced concurrently or cumulatively with the fraud offence (Sequence 1), having regard to the totality principle.
  • Whether the sentence should be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order rather than full-time custody, having regard to community safety as a paramount consideration under s 66(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
  • What weight should be given to the offender's background, including childhood trauma, his role as primary carer for a young daughter, and his prospects of rehabilitation?

Decision

His Honour imposed an aggregate sentence of three years imprisonment. The court found the fraud offending was objectively serious: it was planned and sophisticated, involved a sustained breach of the trust placed in the offender by his employer, extended over approximately 18 months, and caused substantial financial harm exceeding $2.5 million. The concealment of records within Telstra's systems demonstrated deliberate steps to avoid detection and compounded the seriousness of the primary fraud.

On the proceeds of crime count, the court applied the totality principle and ordered the sentences for Sequences 1 and 3 to run concurrently. The totality principle requires a court to assess whether the combined effect of sentences for related offending is just and appropriate, rather than mechanically accumulating terms. Here, the proceeds of crime conduct was so closely connected to the fraud that a concurrent structure was warranted.

Notwithstanding the objective seriousness, the court accepted a number of mitigating circumstances. The offender had no prior criminal history, had experienced significant childhood trauma including violent abuse in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and had entered early pleas of guilty. A psychologist's report supported findings about his background and adjustment difficulties. The Sentencing Assessment Report assessed him as a medium to low risk of reoffending, and he expressed willingness to engage in intervention programs.

The court was satisfied, having regard to the offender's role as primary carer for his young daughter and his ongoing treatment needs, that community safety would not be compromised by the sentence being served in the community. Accordingly, the three-year term was ordered to be served by way of an ICO. Because of the exceptional circumstances surrounding the offender's care of his daughter, no additional conditions beyond the standard ICO conditions were imposed.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage or causing a financial disadvantage by deception (s 192E(1)(b), Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)).
  • The offender was convicted of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime (s 193B(2), Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)).
  • The Form 1 matter (unauthorised modification of computer data) was taken into account.
  • An aggregate sentence of three years imprisonment was imposed pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
  • The sentence is to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order under s 7(1) of that Act, commencing 20 October 2025.
  • The offender must report to the Community Corrections office at Fairfield within seven days.
  • Standard ICO conditions apply: no further offences, and submission to supervision by a Community Corrections officer.
  • No additional conditions were imposed, by reason of the exceptional circumstances of the offender's care of his daughter.

Key Takeaways

  • A sustained, employer-trust fraud of this scale (over $2.5 million across 18 months) involving deliberate concealment through manipulation of computer records was treated as objectively serious, even where the offender had no prior criminal history.
  • Under the totality principle, a proceeds of crime sentence arising directly from the same fraudulent conduct may properly be ordered to run concurrently with the principal fraud offence rather than cumulatively.
  • The District Court confirmed that community safety is a paramount consideration under s 66(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) when determining whether to impose an ICO, and that an ICO remains available even for serious, large-scale fraud offending where the individual circumstances support it.
  • Significant weight was given to the offender's history of childhood trauma, consistent with the principle affirmed in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 that the effects of deprivation and trauma do not diminish over time as a mitigating consideration.
  • Exceptional caring responsibilities can, in appropriate cases, justify limiting ICO conditions to the standard terms only, without additional restrictions.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 192E(1)(b), 193B(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 7(1), 53A, 66(1)

Cases:
- Badaric v R [2025] NSWCCA 117
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
- Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
- Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169
- Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28
- Matthews v R [2018] NSWCCA 186
- Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73
- O'Dwyer v R [2025] NSWCCA 95
- R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
- R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34
- R v Talia [2009] VSCA 267
- R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
- Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21
- Wanstall v R [2024] NSWCCA 167
- YZ v R [2025] NSWCCA 165