Citation: R v Fahmy [2026] NSWDC 330
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 11 September 2026
Judge(s): Mahony SC DCJ
Background
The offender operated a disability support services business, Quick Health and Care Services Pty Ltd, which was registered as a provider under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Between December 2020 and July 2023, she caused false claims to be submitted to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) for support services that were never actually delivered. The claims were made in the names of two ostensible service providers: SOS Restorations Pty Ltd and an individual trading as "Day in Day Out".
The fraud was channelled through multiple corporate entities and bank accounts. The court found that the offender used the identities of employees to open accounts and register or amend corporate officeholders across several institutions. The total amount fraudulently obtained across the five fraud counts was approximately $2.21 million.
The offender was tried by jury and, on 5 May 2026, was found guilty on all six counts: five counts of dishonestly causing a gain from a Commonwealth entity (the NDIA) under s 135.1(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), and one count of dealing in proceeds of crime valued at $1 million or more under s 400.3(1) of the same Act.
Legal Issues
- What facts could be found to the requisite standard from the jury verdicts, for the purpose of sentencing?
- What was the appropriate aggregate sentence for five counts of NDIA fraud and one count of money laundering?
- How should the sentences for the individual counts interact with one another, including the degree of concurrency between the fraud counts and the money laundering count?
- Whether a forfeiture order should be made, and whether unresolved civil proceedings and a tax demand affected the sentencing exercise.
Decision
Fact-finding standard: The court applied the principles from The Queen v Olbrich and Filippou v The Queen. Facts adverse to the offender required proof beyond reasonable doubt, while facts asserted in the offender's favour required proof on the balance of probabilities. Where neither competing version was established to the relevant standard, the court proceeded without accepting either.
Findings on the fraud counts: The court found that the offender intentionally caused false claims to be submitted across all five fraud counts, with full knowledge that the conduct was dishonest by ordinary standards. The total amount obtained across Counts 1 to 5 was approximately $2.21 million, funnelled through a network of corporate accounts that the offender controlled. The court found that the offender used employees' identities to open accounts and manipulate corporate records to disguise the scheme's operation.
Money laundering count: The court found that the offender's dealing in the fraudulently obtained money, through banking transactions across the relevant accounts, constituted the money laundering offence in Count 6. Her belief that the funds were proceeds of indictable crime was established by her own intentional commission of the underlying fraud offences.
Concurrency and the aggregate sentence: The court held that some concurrency was appropriate across Counts 1 to 5, and partial concurrency between those counts and Count 6, on the basis that the money laundering involved additional criminality not fully captured by the fraud counts alone. Applying the principle that cumulative sentences should not exceed what is warranted to reflect total criminality, the court fixed an aggregate sentence of 7 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years. The court also made a forfeiture order in the amount of $2,212,967.90, noting that under s 320(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) a forfeiture order relating to proceeds of the offence must not be taken into account in passing sentence. Unresolved Supreme Court forfeiture proceedings and an outstanding tax demand were not taken into account, as no evidence confirming their resolution was before the court.
Orders Made
- Conviction entered on all six counts.
- Aggregate sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, commencing 24 April 2026, imposed pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
- Non-parole period of 4 years, commencing 24 April 2026 and expiring 23 April 2030.
- Balance of term: 3 years and 6 months, expiring 23 October 2033, subject to supervision.
- Forfeiture order made in accordance with MFI 3 (the amount identified in the judgment is $2,212,967.90).
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that, on sentencing after a jury verdict, facts adverse to the offender must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while mitigating facts asserted by the offender must be established on the balance of probabilities.
- Where the money laundering offence involved additional criminality beyond what was already captured in the fraud counts, partial rather than full concurrency was appropriate between the two sets of offences.
- Under s 320(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), a court passing sentence must not treat a forfeiture order as a factor reducing the sentence, to the extent that the order forfeits actual proceeds of the offence.
- An aggregate term of 7 years and 6 months with a 4-year non-parole period was imposed for a scheme that generated over $2.2 million in fraudulent NDIA payments across approximately two and a half years, operated through multiple corporate entities and involving identity misuse.
- Unresolved collateral proceedings, such as Supreme Court forfeiture proceedings and an outstanding tax demand, did not affect the sentencing exercise where no evidence of their resolution was before the court.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
- Crimes ( Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
- Proceeds of Crimes Act 2000 (Cth)
Cases
- Attorney-General (NT) v Emmerson (2014) 253 CLR 393; [2014] HCA 13
- Badaric v R [2025] NSWCCA 117
- Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
- Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Fairfull [2026] FCA 748
- Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
- R v Farah [2005] NSWCCA 67
- R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
- Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1
- Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74
- The King v McGregor [2026] HCA 3
- The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270