Charged with fraud in NSW.

The legislative source.

The section captures three patterns: dishonestly obtaining property by deception; dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception; and dishonestly causing a financial disadvantage by deception. The same maximum penalty (10 years) applies to all three.

The deception element (section 192B) is broad. It covers spoken and written deception, conduct deception, and deception by silence where a duty to disclose exists. The dishonesty element (section 4B) imports the Ghosh test as modified for NSW: dishonest by the standards of ordinary people and known by the accused to be dishonest by those standards.

The general-deficiency provision in section 192E(3) is significant. The Crown can aggregate a series of small obtainings into a single course of conduct charged in one count. The course-of-conduct framing matters at sentencing because it shapes how the offending is presented and whether maximum-penalty considerations under section 21A apply.

Penalties and likely outcomes.

The Local Court track.

Section 192E is a Table 1 offence. The Local Court has a 2-year jurisdictional maximum on penalty (section 267 Criminal Procedure Act 1986). The prosecution or the accused can elect to commit the matter for trial. For low to mid-range frauds (under $20,000 typically) the matter remains in the Local Court.

The District Court track.

Where the value is significant ($100,000+), where the conduct was sustained over a long period, where multiple victims were involved, or where the offending has organised dimension, the matter is committed to the District Court for sentence or for trial. Full-time custody is the realistic outcome for serious frauds; ICO is available where the head sentence is within the 2-year cap.

Sentencing factors.

Value of the loss, duration of the conduct, breach of trust (especially employee fraud, professional fraud, fiduciary fraud), number of victims, victim vulnerability, sophistication, planning, restitution, and prior record. Restitution is the single most powerful mitigating factor on a fraud sentencing.

Defences and arguments worth running.

Lack of dishonesty.

The Crown must prove the accused was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people and knew that the conduct was dishonest by those standards. Where the accused believed honestly (whether reasonably or not) that they were entitled to the property or advantage, the dishonesty element is not made out. The colour-of-right defence is run in many fraud matters.

No deception.

The Crown must prove a deception within the broad section 192B definition. Where the accused did not deceive (the relevant facts were disclosed, no false representation was made, no implied representation can be drawn from the conduct), the element is not made out.

No causal link.

The deception must have caused the obtaining or the disadvantage. Where the property was obtained, or the disadvantage caused, for reasons independent of the alleged deception, the section is not made out.

Identification.

For digital fraud (online banking fraud, card-not-present fraud, e-commerce fraud), the Crown must prove the accused was the person who carried out the conduct. Where multiple people had access to the device, account, or credentials, identification is contestable.

Procedural.

Search warrants, the lawful provenance of digital evidence, the integrity of any imaged device, the continuity of bank statements obtained on subpoena, and the admissibility of confessional material under sections 84 and 90 of the Evidence Act are all live procedural issues in fraud matters.

What we do for clients facing this charge.

Fraud matters benefit from early intervention. Where the prosecution is in the investigation stage (often led by a police fraud squad), early written representations on the deception, dishonesty, or causation elements can prevent charges being laid at all. Where charges are laid, the brief is analysed against each element.

For matters that proceed on plea, restitution is paramount. We work with the accused to identify what can be restored and to whom, and we present restitution evidence at the sentencing hearing as a matter of strategy. Subjective material includes employment history, character references from people who know the offending conduct, psychological reports where mental health context is relevant (gambling, addiction, depression), and updated rehabilitation engagement.

For matters that proceed to trial, the brief is run hard. Forensic accounting evidence is independently reviewed. Bank-statement reconstructions are tested. Where the case is built on inference (no direct evidence of the obtaining), the inferential reasoning is challenged at trial.

What we tell clients on the first call.

The practical detail below is not legal advice for your matter. It is the version of the conversation the firm typically has with a client charged with fraud in the first hour.

What evidence police usually rely on.

Documentary evidence of the transactions, victim statements, banking records, and the audit trail compiled by the investigating officer. Fraud briefs are typically the largest by volume.

What to bring to the first consultation.

• The Court Attendance Notice (or charge sheet) and any bail papers.
• Anything police gave you in writing — fact sheet, certificate of analysis, search warrant copy, property seizure record.
• A short written timeline of the day, in your own words.
• Anything you have in writing relating to the transactions (emails, ledgers, banking statements); a list of every account and entity involved.

Common mistakes in the first twenty-four hours.

• Talking to anyone other than your lawyer about the matter. Friends, family, co-accused and social media are not privileged.
• Deleting messages, photographs, posts or browser history. The trail left by deletion is often more damaging than what was there.
• Contacting the complainant or any prosecution witness, even through a third party.
• Continuing to operate the accounts under question without specific advice. Pattern evidence after the charge date is admissible.

What not to say to police without advice.

You must give your name and address. You do not have to answer anything else, and in most cases you should not. The standard answer is: “I do not wish to answer questions. I want to speak to my lawyer.” Section 89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) protects silence; the narrow section 89A exception applies only on indictable matters and only where a special caution has been given in the presence of an Australian lawyer.

The timeline you can expect.

From charge to first court appearance is typically two to six weeks in the Local Court and longer where the matter is indictable. The brief of evidence is served by the prosecutor on a date set at the first mention. From service of the brief to first reply is typically twenty-eight days. Defended hearings and committals are then listed weeks or months out depending on the court list.

When an early plea may or may not be appropriate.

An early plea attracts a sentencing discount of up to twenty-five per cent if entered at the first available opportunity, but it locks in a conviction. The firm does not advise an early plea before the brief is served and read. The dishonesty element is contested on the brief. An early plea is rarely appropriate before forensic accounting is reviewed.

Court-specific notes.

If the matter is listed at the Downing Centre, Parramatta, Penrith, Burwood, Manly, Newtown, Waverley, Hornsby or Sutherland Local Court, the firm appears in person. Wollongong Local Court matters are run from the firm's Wollongong office. ACT Magistrates Court and ACT Supreme Court matters are run from chambers; the firm appears in person at all ACT mentions.

Recent outcomes · fraud matters.

Anonymised outcomes from the firm's matter set. Names, dates beyond the year, and identifying details have been altered or omitted to preserve client confidentiality. Each result was determined on the particular facts and is not a guarantee of any future outcome.

Frequently asked.