Citation: R v Siddiqui [2026] NSWDC 331
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 August 2026
Judge: Anderson SC DCJ
Background
The offender was a director of Equitable Financial Solutions Pty Ltd (EFSOL), a company that operated from 2011 by receiving investments from members of the public and using those funds to provide loans for property and vehicle purchases structured to comply with Sharia law. The company attracted investors and customers from within the Muslim community, a community in which the offender held a position of standing and trust.
By 2016 and 2017, EFSOL was experiencing serious liquidity problems. A 2019 strategic review by Grant Thornton revealed a $7 million shortfall in investor withdrawal requests, and by April 2019 the offender was aware that over $11 million in refund requests remained unpaid to 130 clients. External administrators were appointed in October 2019, and EFSOL went into liquidation in November 2019. Liquidators subsequently identified unsecured creditor claims totalling approximately $21.8 million.
Rather than directing funds into EFSOL's accounts during this period, the offender diverted refinancing proceeds from property settlements into a separate bank account held by another company, Goldyna Pty Ltd, of which he was sole signatory. He also caused a payment of $371,026.75 from a real estate investment trust settlement to be deposited into his personal bank account, funds he subsequently used to repay personal credit cards and make transfers to family members.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for two counts of dishonestly using a director's position to gain an advantage, contrary to s 184(2)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)?
- What weight should be given to the guilty plea, contrition, personal circumstances, and the utilitarian benefit of avoiding trial?
- How should the court treat the additional offence listed on the s 16BA schedule (a "take into account" offence) when fixing the sentence for Count 1?
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify a non-parole period shorter than the statutory ratio.
Decision
Objective seriousness and moral culpability
The court characterised the offender's moral culpability as high. No reduction in culpability was available on account of childhood deprivation, mental health, or other personal disadvantage of the kind considered in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa. The offender exploited his position of community trust to facilitate the offending, a significant aggravating factor. The total funds dishonestly diverted across both counts and the schedule offence exceeded $1.7 million, occurring against a background of known investor losses on a far larger scale.
Plea discount and contrition
The guilty pleas were entered on 17 June 2026 at a plea resolution callover, shortly after a fresh indictment. The court accepted there was significant utilitarian benefit in avoiding a trial estimated at four to six weeks. Separately, the court was satisfied the pleas reflected genuine contrition, supported by the offender's letter to the court and a psychologist's report. Applying ss 16A(2)(f) and (g) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) together, the court applied a 25% sentence reduction.
The s 16BA schedule offence
The court took the additional offence (involving the $371,026.75 REIT payment diverted to the offender's personal account) into account when sentencing for Count 1. Consistent with the applicable guideline judgment, that consideration increased the weight given to personal deterrence and community retribution, without exceeding the maximum penalty for the primary offence or breaching the totality principle.
Special circumstances and indicative sentences
The court did not formally find special circumstances but acknowledged the offender's first time in custody, hardship to his family, and the benefit of a longer period of supervised parole. The maximum penalty for each offence is now 15 years' imprisonment, having tripled from the previous five-year maximum in 2019. The court noted that prior comparative cases were decided under the old regime and were of limited assistance. Indicative sentences were set at 5 years 7 months (Count 1) and 4 years 6 months (Count 2), before fixing an aggregate sentence.
Orders Made
- Conviction entered on Counts 1 and 2.
- Indicative sentence for Count 1: 5 years and 7 months (pre-discount: 7 years and 6 months).
- Indicative sentence for Count 2: 4 years and 6 months (pre-discount: 6 years).
- Aggregate sentence: 6 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
- Non-parole period: 3 years and 3 months.
- Sentence commences 5 August 2026; expires 4 February 2033.
- Earliest release date (non-parole period expiry): 4 November 2029, subject to the Commonwealth Attorney-General.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court treated the offender's exploitation of community trust as a significant aggravating feature in the sentencing exercise, giving it substantial weight alongside the scale of financial harm caused.
- A combined 25% discount applied where the court was satisfied that a guilty plea reflected both genuine contrition and meaningful utilitarian benefit, drawing on ss 16A(2)(f) and (g) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) together rather than treating them as separate, additive reductions.
- Under s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), a "take into account" offence does not attract a separate sentence but operates to increase the penalty for the nominated primary count by heightening the weight given to personal deterrence and retributive considerations.
- The tripling of the maximum penalty under s 184(2)(a) of the Corporations Act from 5 to 15 years in 2019 significantly limits the utility of pre-amendment comparative sentences; the court emphasised that sentencing principles rather than prior numerical outcomes should guide the exercise.
- Where special circumstances are not formally found, first-time custody status and family hardship may still be acknowledged as factors informing the appropriate balance between custodial and non-parole periods without altering the ratio.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
- Criminal Code 1995 ( Cth)
Cases
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] 79 NSWLR 1
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1
- Nicholls v R [2016] VSCA 3
- R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8