R v Geoghegan [2025] NSWDC 558

Citation: R v Geoghegan [2025] NSWDC 558
Court: District Court of New South Wales (Criminal)
Date: 15 December 2025
Judge(s): Haesler SC DCJ

Background

The offender, an accounting professional, was employed by a company that provided accounting services to various clients. One of those clients was a local business providing services to the building industry. The offender's role involved preparing the monthly "creditors' run" — compiling tax invoices from suppliers, entering them into the accounting system, and arranging payment. Critically, she had full access to the client company's bank account.

Between May 2015 and February 2024 — a period of nearly nine years — the offender, on 108 separate occasions, fraudulently caused money to be transferred from the building services company's bank account into accounts she personally operated. She disguised these transfers as legitimate payments owed to suppliers, using false invoices. The total amount obtained was $2,461,371.51. The fraud only came to light because the bank flagged a suspicious transfer and persisted in raising concerns, even after the offender initially deflected her employer's inquiries with lies and fabricated invoices. She was terminated in April 2024 and subsequently arrested.

The offender pleaded guilty to a single "rolled up" count of dishonestly causing financial disadvantage by deception under section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The 108 individual transactions were consolidated into this single charge. The plea was entered at the Local Court stage, entitling her to a 25% discount on sentence. None of the $2.4 million had been recovered at the time of sentencing, though civil proceedings were on foot and some funds were held in trust by the victim company's solicitors.

Legal Issues

Objective seriousness of a rolled-up fraud offence involving 108 transactions over approximately nine years, totalling over $2.4 million
The role of mental health conditions — specifically Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, and an eating disorder — in mitigating sentence and explaining the offending conduct
Appropriate weight to be given to prior good character, where that good character facilitated the commission of the offence through a breach of trust
The significance of general deterrence in sentencing for fraud offences involving breach of trust
Proper approach to victim impact where the offence is not governed by the statutory victim impact statement provisions but the court must still consider the impact on victims
Application of the 25% sentencing discount for an early guilty plea entered in the Local Court

Decision

Haesler SC DCJ assessed the offence as being of a high order of objective seriousness, agreeing with the Crown's characterisation. His Honour emphasised the sheer number of transactions (108), the lengthy period of offending (nearly nine years), the large amount defrauded ($2.4 million), and the systematic, deliberate nature of the fraud. The offender exploited the trust of both her employer and the client company, and it was only external intervention by the bank — not any act of conscience — that brought the fraud to light. When initially confronted, she responded with further lies and false invoices.

On the question of mental health, the court accepted the psychiatric evidence of Dr Furst, who diagnosed Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, and an eating disorder, and who identified a causal relationship between those conditions and the offending. Dr Furst drew an analogy to compulsive gambling or kleptomania — conditions that drive maladaptive behaviour as a means of relieving unpleasant emotional states. However, Dr Furst also acknowledged that the offender understood her conduct and had the capacity to control herself, though the psychological drive was "strong and reinforcing." His Honour accepted these findings as helpful in explaining why the offender acted as she did, but was clear that they did not diminish the objective seriousness of the offence nor excuse it.

The court gave careful consideration to prior good character, noting that while the offender had no meaningful criminal history, her good character was in fact the very thing that enabled her to maintain the trust she ultimately exploited. Rather than being a straightforward mitigating factor, it cut both ways. His Honour also acknowledged the offender's expressions of remorse but observed, pointedly, that whatever remorse she may have felt during the offending did not prevent her from offending repeatedly over nine years, nor from lying when first discovered.

Regarding victim impact, the court noted that while the specific statutory provisions for victim impact statements did not apply to this offence category, the impact on victims and the community remained a relevant sentencing consideration, relying on Miller v R. The court acknowledged the deep sense of betrayal felt by the business owner and staff, the operational disruption, and the broader erosion of trust. His Honour took pains to note that the community fundamentally depends on trust in business relationships, and that a key purpose of custodial sentences for such offences is general deterrence — signalling the consequences to others who might be tempted to abuse positions of trust.

The offender's offer of reparation (approximately $350,000 from the sale of the family home) was noted but still left a loss exceeding $2 million, not including consequential business losses or interest. The court applied the instinctive synthesis method to arrive at the appropriate sentence, incorporating the 25% discount for the early guilty plea.

Orders Made

The offender was sentenced to a term of imprisonment (the precise term is not available in the truncated text, but the court indicated a custodial sentence was required given the objective seriousness and the need for general deterrence)
The 25% discount for the early guilty plea in the Local Court was applied to the otherwise appropriate sentence

Note: The full sentencing orders, including the head sentence, non-parole period, and any other conditions, are not available in the truncated portion of the judgment provided. Practitioners should refer to the full judgment for the specific terms imposed.

Key Takeaways

The District Court acknowledged that rolled-up charges consolidating multiple offences into a single count have practical benefits, but held that sentencing courts must still account for the number of individual criminal acts, the duration of offending, and the total quantum, all of which inform the assessment of objective seriousness.
Where an offender's prior good character was instrumental in facilitating the offence by enabling continued trust, that good character carries reduced or no mitigating weight, reflecting the established principle that good character is a "double-edged sword" in breach-of-trust cases.
Psychiatric evidence establishing a causal link between mental health conditions and the offending was accepted as relevant to understanding the offender's motivation and to subjective mitigation, including hardship in custody. However, because the offender retained the capacity to understand and control her conduct, such evidence did not diminish the assessment of objective seriousness.
General deterrence remains a paramount sentencing consideration in workplace fraud, with the Court stressing the importance of custodial sentences in signalling consequences for breach-of-trust offending, particularly where the community depends on trust in business and employment relationships.
Even where the specific victim impact statement provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 did not apply, the impact on victims and the community remained a relevant sentencing consideration, consistent with the approach in Miller v R.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 192E(1)(b)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 27(2)

Cases:
- Miller v R [2014] NSWCCA 34