STATE OF TASMANIA v JANELLE KAY SMITH WOOD J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 14 OCTOBER 2019
The defendant Janelle Kay Smith has pleaded guilty to one count of computer-related fraud contrary to s 257B(c) of the Criminal Code. She used a computer to credit $36,801.38 belonging to her employer, Powercom Group from its bank account to her own personal bank account with intent to defraud. Her fraudulent conduct involved a course of transactions over a period of approximately 15 months, from 1 March 2017 to 10 July 2018.
She was employed by Powercom as the finance manager and had been for a period of approximately 21 years. The Powercom Group has a number of different companies involving: providing solar powered systems, manufacturing lightning and surge protection, and a consulting engineering firm. Her husband worked for the company as an electronics assembler.
Her fortnightly salary of $1707.41 and her husband’s salary was paid into her and her husband’s joint Westpac Bank account. Apart from their salary and travel allowance, when legitimately earned, no other payments were authorised to be made into her bank account.
The defendant as part of her role had access to the company’s online banking system with NAB. She had access to the system at work and also on her personal computer. Each company had its own bank account but all bank accounts were accessible via the system. Only a limited number of senior company personnel had access to the online banking system.
On 10 July 2018, the company secretary noticed a payment from one of the companies in the Powercom Group to the defendant’s account in the sum of $954.46 described as a “supplier payment”. The date of the transaction was 10 July 2018, and Mrs Smith was on leave at the time.
Enquiries were made and it was discovered that senior company personnel knew nothing of the transaction. On 3 August 2018, Mrs Smith was asked about it. She said the money was for reimbursements for purchases she had made. She said she had supporting receipts for the transactions but then subsequently failed to provide them.
A check of company banking records was undertaken and it was discovered that there was were a number of unexplained transactions amounting to approximately $35,000.
On 6 August 2018, one of the owners of the Powercom Group and one of the company personnel held an interview with Mrs Smith and confronted her with transactions showing transfers into her joint account, and highlighting transactions that they wanted explained. Mrs Smith said some of the transactions were legitimate and some were not. It was suggested that she take the rest of the week off on full pay, but she resigned her position immediately. She mentioned that her family had been finding it difficult to survive financially and she said she would pay the money back.
On 9 August, she wrote to her employer formally resigning and apologising for her conduct, and in sincere terms expressing her regret.
The defendant’s husband had no knowledge of the unauthorised transactions. However, he also resigned from his position, presumably and understandably finding his position with the company untenable.
The details of the defendant’s offending as it came to light are as follows. In March 2017, she made a payment from her credit card to the Powercom Group account using the business’ EFTPOS terminal. She then used the NAB account to create a transfer of $1,000 to her bank account, without the knowledge or permission of the business. She repeated this process in relation to an amount of $500 on 2 March 2017. There was no financial loss to the company for these transactions but it was fraudulent conduct without authorisation.
For the period July 2017 to July 2018, the defendant made 25 unauthorised transactions, one to four times per month, involving transfers, ranging from $250 to $3,000. The total amount of these transactions representing the loss to the defendant’s employer amounted to $35,301.38.
In September 2018, the matter was reported to police and then investigated. The defendant was interviewed by police on 10 December 2018 and she made some very limited admissions.
The defendant is 40 years of age. She has no relevant prior convictions of any relevance. Since her offending came to light, her marriage has been under some strain because her husband had no knowledge at all of her offending; she feels she has let him down. However, he has stood by her and remains supportive. They have two children, aged 9 and 13 years .
I have been provided with references from the defendant’s sister and a friend. The defendant is a selfless and dedicated mother and her conduct is regarded as completely out of character. Outside her work hours, she is very involved in the lives of her children, their school community, and helping her children with their various extra-curricular activities.
It has been noted that until this offending, she was a conscientious employee, and had gained considerable trust in her role with Powercom. However, it must also be pointed out that often when this crime is committed by employees, they have gained their employer’s trust. In her role as finance manager, the defendant breached that trust in a sustained and comprehensive way.
I turn to the circumstances that is the background to her offending. In 2012, Mrs Smith’s husband lost his employment and he had only casual, intermittent work for a two year period. He obtained a position with Powercom in 2014. She had assumed responsibility for their household finances. Their salaries with Powercom were such that they continued to experience financial hardship. The defendant applied for personal loans to address that hardship but was unsuccessful. She fraudulently took the money with a mindset that she would repay the amounts, having in mind promises of pay rises and bonuses but those promised payments did not eventuate. The money she fraudulently obtained was used to meet essential household expenditure.
The defendant acknowledges that these circumstances do not provide any excuse for her conduct. She is very remorseful. She pleaded guilty at a relatively early stage. She has been stressed, depressed and anxious in the lead up to the sentencing hearing. She is waiting on a referral from her general practitioner for counselling with a psychologist.
Since the offending came to light, both the defendant and her husband have obtained new employment. She is employed part-time four days a week in an administrative role. She is well regarded by her new employer who is aware of the current charge. While the couple are working to regain control over their financial situation, there are still pressures. The defendant has taken steps to refinance their home, and it is anticipated that shortly, they will be in a position to make an initial payment in the sum of $10,000 or $15,000 and then subsequent instalments by way of reparation until the entirety of the sum is repaid.
I have a pre-sentence report. It is considered that the defendant would benefit from a period of supervision to ensure that she receives the support she needs with regard to her mental health and for financial counselling through Anglicare.
The sentence I impose today must reflect the seriousness of the breach of trust involved and the substantive nature of the fraud. However, having regard to the defendant’s personal circumstances, particularly that she is a first offender, her genuine remorse, that this crime is likely to be an isolated course of offending, noting too that these proceedings have had a punitive effect, and that there is, apparently a realistic expectation of reparation, I conclude an actual term of imprisonment is not required.
I record a conviction. I impose ten months’ imprisonment, which I wholly suspend for a period of two years from today. It is subject to strict conditions. For that period, of two years from today, the defendant must not commit an offence that is punishable by imprisonment. In addition to the remaining conditions set out in s 42AO of the Sentencing Act to be in place for two years from today, I impose the following conditions: that the defendant must submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer, and must submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer.
I make a compensation order pursuant to s 68(1) of the Sentencing Act in favour of Novaris Pty Ltd in the sum of $2,655.40. I note the application for a compensation order in the sum of $35,301.38. The application is adjourned sine die.