The Court of Appeal has dismissed an accountant’s appeal against sentences imposed for eight offences involving falsified VAT returns, finding the three-year terms were within the appropriate range.
The appellant pleaded guilty to eight counts on a 24-count indictment at Trim Circuit Criminal Court on 3 June 2015. On 11 November 2015, he received three years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The final 18 months of each sentence were suspended, subject to a €200 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for 18 months after his release.
The offences were committed between November 2008 and May 2010. The judgment said the appellant, an accountant and tax adviser, falsified VAT returns for two clients to obtain VAT exemptions or repayments fraudulently. The money was divided between him and the clients, and the total involved was approximately €52,000. The clients received fully suspended sentences.
The appellant argued that his sentence was unfairly disparate from those imposed on his clients, that the sentencing judge wrongly placed the offences at the higher end of seriousness, and that the sentences were disproportionate and did not sufficiently provide for rehabilitation.
The sentencing judge cited the appellant’s position of trust in preparing clients’ VAT returns and described the offending as systematic and substantial dishonesty and fraud. The judge also considered his guilty pleas, remorse, co-operation with probation services and rehabilitation. The appellant had a previous theft conviction arising from his employment as a financial controller at Gel Technologies and had served a prison sentence for it from April 2011 to September 2012.
A probation assessment in October 2015 recorded that he was in stable accommodation, free of debt and drug-free, and assessed him as a low risk of reoffending. The judgment said he had developed drug dependency from a young age and later used heroin and crack cocaine.
The Court of Appeal noted that the sentencing judge may not have followed the preferred sentencing approach set out in earlier cases, but said that alone did not justify changing the sentences. It described the suspension of half the terms as generous and said an entirely suspended sentence was not warranted. The court considered the appellant’s professional position, breach of trust, role in facilitating offences by others and previous conviction. It dismissed the appeal.