NSW Found Guilty of Fraud for Overdrawing My Bank Account?

[luke moore]

Hi everyone,

Many years ago, I overdrew my bank account via direct debit to the amount of about 2 million dollars. Now i have been found guilty of obtaining money by deception. I am appealing the conviction. I never deceived the bank or lied to them about my income. The terms and conditions of the account said I was authorised to direct debit and overdraw the account if the bank permitted it without prior arrangement (ie a pre-approved overdraft). The contract also said I was authorised to operate the account "in any way permitted by the bank."

It was the prosecution's case that committed the offence under s192B(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which defines deception as "conduct by a person that causes a computer, a machine or any electronic device to make a response that the person is not authorised to cause it to make".

How can this be so if the contract I signed with the bank said I was authorised to operate the account in the manner I did? I get it that they approved the transfer because of some oversight but how does that then mean I have committed an offence under criminal law?

Thoughts anyone? I can provide more details upon request...

 

[Tim W]

In this post, you said this

I am a law student and not a lawyer.

.
That being the case, if your current question relates to your law studies, then please post it in the homework section.
And if it doesn't, then I strongly suggest seeking formal, case specific legal advice, as a matter of urgency.

 

[luke moore]

In this post, you said this .
That being the case, if your current question relates to your law studies, then please post it in the homework section.
And if it doesn't, then I strongly suggest seeking formal, case specific legal advice, as a matter of urgency.

Yeah, I do have a barrister for my appeal and their view is "there can be no dispute that you were entitled, permitted and authorised to make the direct debit requests".

Unfortunately, the lawyers i had at trial did not share the same view, told me I was f**ked and should plead guilty so I get 3 years instead of 5. The judge said at trial that it was absurd to say just because there is "some bank document" (the legally binding contract mind you) that said I was authorised to withdraw, direct debit and 'all the rest' that I was entitled to do what I did on the account.

In the end, I was sentenced to 2 years 3 monthsnon-parolee and did 6 months before getting bail pending my appeal.

I was just looking for anyone's point of view or opinion on the case.

Thanks