Fraud Charges in NSW

What is fraud?

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 192E: a person who, by any deception, dishonestly obtains property belonging to another, or obtains any financial advantage or causes any financial disadvantage, is guilty of the offence of fraud. Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 10 years.

Fraud in NSW is one offence with a very wide reach. Since 2010, section 192E has replaced a patchwork of older dishonesty offences with a single charge built on three elements: a deception, dishonesty, and an obtaining — of property or a financial advantage — or the causing of a financial disadvantage to someone else. The same section covers a dishonoured personal arrangement, a manipulated payroll, an inflated insurance claim and a corporate scheme running across years.

Two definitions do the heavy lifting. A deception (s 192B) is any deception by words or conduct, about fact, law or a person's intentions — and it extends to conduct that causes a computer or machine to respond in an unauthorised way. No human needs to have been deceived; a keystroke can be enough. Dishonesty (s 4B) is measured against the standards of ordinary people — and the prosecution must also prove you knew the conduct was dishonest by those standards. That second, subjective limb is where many fraud defences live.

What the police must prove

To convict you of fraud under s 192E, the prosecution must prove each of these beyond reasonable doubt:

• You practised a deception — intentionally or recklessly — by words, conduct, or by causing a computer to respond in an unauthorised way;
• By that deception you obtained property belonging to another, obtained a financial advantage, or caused a financial disadvantage;
• The obtaining or causing was dishonest — judged by ordinary standards, and known by you to be dishonest by those standards; and
• The deception caused the obtaining — a link the prosecution must establish transaction by transaction.

Each element is genuinely contestable. Was the representation actually false when made? Was it a deception or an unfulfilled promise? Did the alleged victim part with the money because of it, or for their own reasons? Was the conduct dishonest, or a claim of right, a misunderstanding, or ordinary commercial optimism that later failed? Fraud briefs are document-heavy, and documents cut both ways.

Fraud doesn't require that you gained anything

The most common misreading of this offence: people assume there is no fraud unless someone ended up with money in their pocket. Section 192E does not require it. Causing a financial disadvantage to another person is enough — and both the advantage and the disadvantage can be temporary. Deferring a debt, holding off a creditor, keeping an account open that should have been closed: all of these have founded fraud charges where a deception and dishonesty are alleged.

The same logic runs the other way, and it matters to defence: because the offence is built on deception and dishonesty rather than loss, a transaction where money moved — even where someone lost out — is not fraud unless both of those contested elements are proved. A bad deal, a failed venture or a debt gone wrong is not a crime without them.

Identity fraud and identity theft

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), Pt 4AB: dealing with identification information with intent to commit an indictable offence (s 192J, 10 years); possessing identification information with that intent (s 192K, 7 years); possessing equipment to make identification documents (s 192L, 3 years).

What people search as "identity theft" is charged in NSW under its own provisions, separate from s 192E. Dealing in identification information — names, dates of birth, licence and Medicare numbers, banking credentials, biometric data — with intent to commit or facilitate an indictable offence carries up to 10 years. Mere possession of identification information with that intent carries up to 7 years; possessing the equipment to make identification documents, up to 3 years.

These charges frequently travel alongside s 192E counts, and they raise their own issues: whose information it was, what the alleged intent actually was, and whether possession was knowing. Where identity material was used to obtain Commonwealth payments, the matter may instead be prosecuted federally — see our Centrelink fraud page for how those prosecutions differ.

Thresholds, court and sentencing

The maximum penalty for fraud is 10 years' imprisonment in the District Court. In practice, most fraud charges are dealt with in the Local Court, where the maximum is 2 years for a single offence — and the value involved shapes both where the matter is heard and how it is sentenced. Lower-value matters typically remain in the Local Court; larger or multi-count frauds are more likely to proceed on indictment, where the sentencing range opens up.

What moves a fraud sentence up or down: the amount involved and whether it was repaid, the duration and sophistication of the conduct (a single transaction sits differently from a system worked over months), whether there was a breach of trust — employee, professional, fiduciary — the motive (need against greed), and the subjective case: health, gambling or other underlying drivers genuinely addressed, references, and demonstrated steps toward restitution. Outcomes span the full range from non-conviction orders under section 10 for isolated, low-value matters through Community Correction Orders and Intensive Correction Orders to full-time custody for sustained breach-of-trust frauds. Every matter turns on its own facts.

Defences to fraud

• No deception — the representation was true, was honestly believed, or was a promise that failed rather than a lie when made;
• No dishonesty — a claim of right, an honest belief in entitlement or authority, or conduct an ordinary person would not call dishonest;
• No causal link — the other party did not part with anything because of the alleged deception;
• Identification and attribution — in electronic frauds especially, proving who was at the keyboard;
• Duress — in the rarer cases where it arises on the facts.

Which of these has real prospects is a judgement made on the brief — the documents, the digital trail, the accounting evidence — and it is the conversation to have before any police interview, not after.

How Lenz Legal approaches fraud charges

Fraud matters are won and lost in the documents. The approach is to get to the brief early and read it the way a forensic accountant would: trace each transaction the prosecution relies on, test whether the deception and dishonesty elements are actually made out for each count, and identify where the Crown's narrative depends on inference rather than evidence. Multi-count fraud charges are frequently overcharged at the outset — negotiation over which counts proceed, and on what agreed facts, can transform the sentencing exercise, and that negotiation works best before positions harden.

Where the evidence is strong, the work turns to the plea: restitution put on a proper footing, the underlying drivers addressed with evidence rather than assertion, and a subjective case that gives the court a real basis for the least serious available outcome.

If you have been charged with fraud — or investigators have asked you to come in, or your employer has raised allegations and mentioned police — get advice first. What is said in an interview, or in an internal "explanation" meeting, routinely becomes the centrepiece of the prosecution case.

Fraud — your questions answered