Intention to Defraud by Destroying Accounts

Best Intention to Defraud by Destroying Accounts Lawyers

Charges of ‘Intention to defraud by destroying or concealing accounting records’ can have a devastating impact on yourself and your family. We have consistently been recognised as Australia’s leading corporate crime lawyers. See our recent results for corporate crime.

Our specialist white-collar fraud lawyers have years of experience defending such charges and are bets placed to fight by your side.

Contact us now for a case appraisal.

WHAT SHOULD I DO?

• PLEADING NOT GUILTY

  What is ‘Intention to Defraud by Destroying or Concealing Accounting Records’?

  Section 192F of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) sets out that if you destroy or conceal accounting records with the intention of causing a financial datable or disadvantage, you can be guilty of an offence.

   

  How Do You Beat an ‘Intention to Defraud by Destroying or Concealing Accounting Records’ Charge?

  You can fight this charge in two ways. Firstly, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:

  1. You destroyed or concealed accounting records; and
  2. Your actions were dishonest; and
  3. You intended to:
     • obtain property belonging to another; OR
     • obtain a financial advantage or cause a financial disadvantage

   

  If any of these elements are not made out, then you can be found ‘not guilty’.

  Secondly, you can rely on one of the defences.

   

  What Are the Defences to ‘Intention to Defraud by Destroying or Concealing Accounting Records’

  You will be Not Guilty if:

  1. Honest and reasonable mistake: You genuinely believed, and that belief was reasonable, that you were entitled to destroy or conceal the accounting record
  2. You were not aware of the nature of the document.
  3. You did not intend to obtain property, nor gain a financial advantage or cause a financial loss
  4. Duress: Your actions were necessary in the circumstances
  5. Necessity: Your actions were necessary in the circumstances.

   

  Our white-collar crime lawyers are experts at finding defences that other lawyers routinely miss. We also emphasise negotiating with Police to have charges withdrawn early in the proceedings.

  Contact us now to discuss your case with a senior criminal lawyer for ASIC charges.

• PLEADING GUILTY

  If you decide to plead guilty, our guide on pleading guilty to Fraud offences will provide you some assistance in preparing for sentencing. Please note that this guide is a non-exhaustive list and not specifically tailored to your case.

  Contact us now so that our accredited specialist in criminal law can provide you advice tailored to your case and represent you in Court.

   

  What is the Maximum Penalty for ‘Intention to Defraud by Destroying or Concealing Accounting Records’?

  The maximum penalty for ‘Intention to defraud by destroying or concealing accounting records’ is 5 years imprisonment for heard in the District Court.

  If heard in the Local Court, the maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment.

   

  What are the Possible Sentences for ‘Intent to Defraud by Destroying or Concealing Accounting Records’?

  Below are possible sentences you can receive:

  1. Section 10 dismissal
  2. Conditional Release Order without Conviction (previously known as Section 10 good behaviour bond)
  3. Fine
  4. Conditional Release Order with Conviction (previously known as Section 9 good behaviour bond)
  5. Community Corrections Order (previously known as Community Service Order)
  6. Intensive Corrections Order
  7. Full Time Imprisonment

  Will You Go to Jail for ‘Intention to Defraud by Destroying or Concealing Accounting Records’?

  Sentencing statistics for intention to defraud charges since 2018 show that while no one has been sentenced to imprisonment for this offence, there has also been no cases where an offender has avoided a conviction.

  As such, you should speak to Australia’s best ASIC crime lawyers to give you the best defence possible.

FAQ

What is the Hamzy principle?

The ‘Hamzy principle was set out in R v Hamzy (1994) 74 A Crim R 341 where the Court held:

“…the Crown is entitled to plead in the one count a charge of supply where it intends to prove a number of individual acts of supply by the accused to different people at different times, provided that those acts can fairly and properly be identified as part of the same criminal enterprise or the one criminal activity, but the trial court has power to direct the Crown either to elect or to separate the offences where the indictment would otherwise produce an unfairness to the accused.”