3rd Sep 2015
Millionaire’s wife jailed for fraud
Millionaire’s wife jailed for fraud

The wife of millionaire mining executive, Hamish Bohannan, has been sentenced to 18 months’ jail for committing Centrelink fraud to the tune of $62,000.

Julie Bohannan, 42, received $62,709.85 in Centrelink payments over a period of eight years between November 2001 to July 2009 – even after she’d married the former Chief Executive of Braemore Resources and Bathurst Resources in 2006. She began making claims prior to meeting Mr Bohannan, but after moving in with him in 2004 and, even though Mr Bohannan had made $3.8 million in the five preceding years, she continued to fraudulently receive Centrelink payments, claiming she was a single mother living with her parents with no other source of income.

Her fraud also included falsifying forms, lying about property ownership and claiming a family tax benefit for her second child, Ella, despite Mr Bohannan’s massive income.

Mrs Bohannan’s lawyers pleaded on her behalf for a merciful sentence, pointing out that, four years before being charged, she had paid back the money she’d received. They also asked the judge to consider her case for extenuating circumstances, as she was still caring for her first daughter, Georgia, who has severe epilepsy.

But Judge Andrew Stavrianou, when passing sentence, said the fraud was planned and deliberate, “not truthful” and “not forthright” and was motivated by “greed not need”, and that a prison sentence was necessary both to punish and send a message to the community.

Mrs Bohannan was sentenced to 18 months prison, but will be eligible for parole in nine months.

Read more at www.news.com.au

Read more at www.abc.net.au

Read more at The Guardian

Opinion: A strong message to welfare cheats

With so many Australians doing it tough, including Age Pensioners and the unemployed, this sentence is fully justified and sends a strong message to current and would-be welfare cheats.

I mean, how much does she need? Sure, whilst Mrs Bohannan was a single mother of one child she was deserving of Centrelink payments. But after meeting and marrying a millionaire, there is just no excuse for this blatant ripping off of the system.

How could she think she could be eligible for ‘special circumstances’? She claims it is because she has a child with a mental disorder. Really? There are plenty of Australian mothers looking after children with an illness or a disability who, because of this duty of care, can’t get a job and definitely don’t have the luxury of access to a multimillion-dollar bank account.

The fact that her lawyers even expected to receive leniency for this gross abuse of the system is appalling. Mrs Bohannan may have once been a deserving recipient of welfare payments, but to go on claiming benefits – which in her case were ‘benefits’ – after she had married a millionaire is, in my opinion, simply unpardonable.

But that’s just my opinion. I’d be interested in hearing what the 2.5 million Australians who live in poverty think about this case, as well as the older Australians who do not own a house, who have minimal assets, and rely on a welfare system that is constantly under the microscope, being threatened with cut backs, and is, in many cases, barely enough on which to live even a modest lifestyle.

What do you think? Do you think this sentence is justified? Should Mrs Bohannan have been given leniency for her circumstances? Or do you think this sentence should have been harsher? Do you feel that this sentence sends a strong message to deter would-be welfare cheats?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Queensland Diva
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:10am
    I am appalled at this story. The fact that this woman thinks she deserves special treatment because she has a daughter with epilepsy astounds me. I work in the disability sector and I know of so many families who ARE doing it tough - 18 months with only 9 months to serve? - way to lenient in my opinion.
    Graeme
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:47am
    Whether it is lenient or not can only be determined by comparing it to other sentences for similar crimes, but I do believe that no one should punished to set an example to others, the punishment should be for what they did, not to stop others
    Anonymous
    3rd Sep 2015
    6:26pm
    Graeme
    Yes, the 'rule of law' is very important, I agree (everyone should be equal before the law).

    However, how many times do we see wealthy perpetrators of crime simply walk away with a slap on the wrist, in contrast, a desperate mother caught shop lifting winter baby clothes, is sent to gaol (first offence). In giving one wealthy person only a slap on the wrist the judge stated that "the [wealthy person] would not do well in prison".... no one does well in prison!!

    So, I am very pleased that, at last, a GREEDY wealthy person is actually paying for their crime. $62000 is a lot of money, even in this day and age. IF a person stole this money from a bank, he/she would get 20years.
    student
    5th Sep 2015
    12:50pm
    I agree Graeme. Punishment should not be used as a deterrent to crime as this does NOT work! Punishment is a product of crime. It's a result of crime. If a crime, on the scale of 1 to 10, is 5, then the punishment on a scale of 1 to 10 should be 5. The crime reflects the value of the punishment.

    Executions did not stop heinous crimes, thus punishment to stop crime does not work. Crimes deserve punishment . The judge gave his verdict in all good faith. Justice was seen to be done.
    jackie
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:23am
    Definitely NOT as a matter of fact the sentence should have been higher. This greedy woman not only ripped off from our welfare system but committed fraud as well. Her millionaire husband should have been footing the bill for his disabled child and her self indulgence. This is an example of how the rich can never get rich enough. They exploit the system constantly through legal and illegal means for greed.
    MITZY
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:28am
    She defrauded Centrelink for 8 years, 4 years before meeting and moving in with the millionaire and four years afterwards. The daughter with the epilepsy may not be his daughter, she did have a second daughter later. However, if the two of them were honest with each other, he would have known and been complicit with what she was doing in accepting Centrelink payments she was not entitled to. Half of those payments were legitimate apparently and half were not. I think 9 months to serve of an 18 months sentence is fairly lenient a little over two months gaol for 4 years fraudulence. Its not much of a sentence but at least all the Centrelink payments were repaid. Now she gets free food and board for 9 months on behalf of the taxpayers. We are the losers again.
    MITZY
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:47am
    Just to clarify a little further: It appears she was dobbed in by a whistle blower. I was listening to radio a few minutes ago and the news item indicated that she also used a "false" name during that 8 years of fraud. She repaid the money in 2010 (five years ago) and moved to New Zealand, but was arrested at Perth Airport during one of her visits to Australia last year.
    Her daughter is now 17 years and was described as having a learning difficulty and the Judge, Stavriano, found her circumstances were not so exceptional that someone else could not take are of the girl while she is in prison.
    The Judge did a reasonable job seeing the events took place in 2001 to 2009 and the moneys were repaid in 2010. I think she will have learned her lesson. Her second daughter is the daughter from her partnership with of her millionaire husband.
    fearlessfly
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:21pm
    Agree completely with you Jackie !
    Anonymous
    3rd Sep 2015
    6:58pm
    jackie

    Sadly, you are spot on..... the audacity and greed of some people is unbelievable.

    Mitzy
    Thanks for that additional info, brilliant... the judge did do a reasonable job in the circumstances.
    Dotty
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:30am
    Well if that is the case how many others that have lots of money do we know are doing the same thing and getting away with it ??
    This sentence is in no way long enough to Deter someone like this !! A longer sentence is needed to deter this kind of behavior!
    Dotty
    particolor
    5th Sep 2015
    3:05pm
    I think some of the Dear Old Darlings are on a better wicket than most of us ? :-)
    One I knew Casually (Professed Old Age Pensioner) was in Coles one day Piling all the BEST of anything (The dearest Items) into the Trolley !! Yipes !! ...I said "Strewth some people live High ! :-)" And she came back with "I don't know how people cant live on the Old Age Pension?" I shook My head and walked off ! I said to My friend " I think the Main Nicholas Van rolled in front of Her on the way down here ,and she filled the back seat up with Road Kill ! :-) :-)
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:30am
    There is absolutely no excuse for this type of needless theft. I think the sentence is appropriate. Now if we could justify similar sentences for the likes of Craig Thompson and Kathy Jackson.
    Patriot
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:46am
    Frank
    Don't forget Bronwyn & Tony (educational expenses) in this round-up.
    And - I'm sure - there would/could be many other LABOUR & LNP candidates added to this list!!!
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:55am
    Poor Frank ! :-( He just couldn't help himself Patriot ! He's Got It Bad !! :-) :-)
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:08am
    What Bronnie Bishop and Tony Burke did was only worthy of a wrist slap and P plating them.
    Kaz
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:17am
    Oh Frank, now your bias is showing! Try to stay objective and more people may listen to what you you have to say, rather than dismissing it as a 'Frank rant'
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:38pm
    Fraud is fraud parti :)

    Kaz you are correct I have a bias against corruption. I hope you are still reading my posts. :) Thanks for the tip I could one day have my own blog? Perhaps? What?
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:49pm
    I didn't say it wasn't ? But why bring Politically Motivated Unrelated Cases into the Affray ??
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:02pm
    Because parti, it is important to understand what sort of example is set by our leaders. Many people see politicians as role models. I don't personally but there are others who do.
    Anonymous
    3rd Sep 2015
    6:47pm
    Frank
    I actually agree, everyone should be treated equally before the law.

    I do disagree with putting Craig Thompson and Kathy Jackson in the same sentence, though.

    Craig Thompson has had his life destroyed over an 'indiscretion' of under $10000 if I remember correctly.

    Whereas the Liberal Kathy Jackson purposely and knowingly STOLE $1.4million+, now that is a big, big difference, not only in amount but also in regard to 'INTENT'!

    Additionally, Patriot, I don't agree with categorising Tony Burke with Bronwyn Bishop.

    Again, Tony Burke did NOT breach any of the travel rules, everything he did was within the travel rules guidelines..... NO CRIME or MISDEMEANOUR. It was the GENEROUS travel rules which should be looked at.

    Then, we have Bronwyn Bishop who purposely and knowingly STOLE money from taxpayers and then FRAUDULENTLY claimed that she ALSO attended SECRET official MEETINGS before or after each and every one of her PRIVATE FUNCTIONS. These SECRET official MEETINGS were said to have been conducted with no minutes, no one willing to confirm they attended, and they were undertaken on weekends and evenings.

    Bronwyn Bishop should not only have been asked to step down from the Speakers Position, she should have been prosecuted and then forced to resign as an MP.

    If you or I were to steal so much money, we would not be able to retain a position which has in its title 'honourable'.

    Craig Thompson, was forced to step down and LOST his LIFE over his indiscretion which was with Union Members Funds ONLY and NOT Public Taxpayers Funds. So Bronwyn Bishop should be treated no differently, especially when her malfeasance amounted to over $50,000 and was purposeful and knowing!
    Adrianus
    4th Sep 2015
    7:54am
    Mussitate, I find it interesting that you think it is less of a crime to steal from vulnerable union members than it is to steal from Taxpayers Funds?
    This long lived cultural issue in Australia is more evidence of the need for the TURC. We need to route out this vulture like corruption perpetrated on those who can least afford it.
    So Jackson blew the whistle and in so doing became a liberal? That's funny :)
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:37am
    Please give Her a Merciful sentence Judge !
    mogo51
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:40am
    If the husband knew why was he not charged with adi and abet fraud.
    Patriot
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:48am
    mogo51
    BE REAL !!!
    How are the Pollies going to fund their next election if they resort to measures like that???
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:48am
    His "Mates Rates" were not entered into ! :-)
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:57am
    Patriot, we know that union fees have gone up recently.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:33pm
    But have LIBERAL Membership Fees remained Steady ? :-)

    3rd Sep 2015
    11:00am
    I am absolutely appalled at the lenient sentence handed out to this wealthy woman, who carried out an orchestrated and continuing act of welfare fraud, over EIGHT YEARS!

    I trust the prosecutor appeals and the sentence is increased.

    What is incredible about the whole saga to me - is that the ANNUAL salary of her MULTI-MILLIONAIRE mining magnate husband, is only on a par with what people seriously disabled by accidents, get as FULL COMPENSATION for LIFE! - when a compensation case is finalised!!

    This whack-over-the-wrist-with-a-wet-lettuce punishment, only reveals that if you have enough wealth, you can employ the most expensive lawyers in the land, to present you as a downtrodden, illness-suffering, object of pity - and thereby incur a minimal sentence for serious fraud!!

    There are tens of thousands of people looking after disabled children, who do not even get half the help and money they deserve.
    The vast majority of these people do not indulge in welfare fraud to gain financial advantage - even though they would have understandable reasons to do so!

    One of my nephews, who operates a large business, has been defrauded by a woman book-keeper, who cunningly fleeced him of at least $500,000 over about 10 years!
    In addition, this same woman has also defrauded another business associate of my nephews, over the same period, for another $680,000!!

    Not a single cent of this approximately $1.2M has been found, or returned!
    She claims she gambled it all. The police believe otherwise, as she has made large numbers of trips to Asia, and they strongly suspect she has "socked away" a large amount of the stolen funds.
    Needless to say, they aren't getting any co-operation in finding out about the whereabouts of the stolen funds.

    This woman was arrested late last year and her case may not be heard for another 12 mths.
    The police say they expect a penalty of 8-10 years for her fraud crimes - but I'll wager she blubbers her way through her criminal trial, presents as a downtrodden, illness-suffering object of pity - and she too, will get away with a wet-lettuce-flogging sentence!!

    Something stinks in our justice system, when blatant and continuing fraud on a large scale is so rewarding, and the penalties are so pathetic.
    Kato
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:12am
    Or like all the other millionaire rorters' a sudden case of illness related amnesia is the way they do it.
    Anonymous
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:46pm
    Money talks, the guilty one walks.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:50pm
    Have some "Truth In Sentencing" ! A Years Jail for every Year of Pension or Dole Stolen ! Yep That'll fix em !! :-)
    fearlessfly
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:23pm
    Well said Aaron !
    Gra
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:25pm
    I couldn't agree more Aaron. A year to be served for every year they committed their offence sounds fair to me. Forget time off for good behaviour, she has already had the holiday.
    Gra
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:26pm
    I couldn't agree more Aaron. A year to be served for every year they committed their offence sounds fair to me. Forget time off for good behaviour, she has already had the holiday.
    MITZY
    4th Sep 2015
    12:57pm
    It was 8 years of Centrelink entitlements to which 4 years were legitimate.
    She wasn't the wealthy one for four of those eight years. As I indicated above if she is getting a sentence of 18 months, reduced to 9 months for good behaviour, then the sentence amounts to a little over two months for each of the four years she defrauded which is quite lenient. He was an executive in a mining company. not a mining magnate and the amount of his earnings was calculated over the four year period of the defrauding incident. I suppose the sentencing was lenient because the fraud took place over a period of four of the eight years she received payments up to 2009. In 2010 she (or he) on her behalf paid back the full amount of the defrauding period and then they both left Australia for New Zealand. It was only last year (2014) that she came back to Australia for a visit and was arrested at Perth airport and of course now sentenced.
    If she had been a more prominent person in the media, she would have probably got no sentence whatsoever. Hands up how many of us have heard of her beforehand?
    Anonymous
    4th Sep 2015
    2:07pm
    Mitzy - Her husband is Hamish Bohannan, CEO of Bathurst resources until earlier this year. He has also been CEO of several other mining companies. A CEO is not just an executive, he is the BOSS, the primary director of the company, and he controls that company.
    Hamish Bohannan and his wife live in a "luxury house" on 20Ha of land. He's not exactly working class.
    Julie Bohannan's Centrelink fraud started BEFORE she met her husband. She was claiming benefits fraudulently from 2001. She met her husband in 2004, moved in with him shortly after, and married him in 2006. Her Centrelink fraud took place over EIGHT years, from 2001 to 2009, and she repaid the Centrelink money in 2010.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pub/hamish-bohannan/58/ba3/a11
    Anonymous
    4th Sep 2015
    3:20pm
    You might also note that Julie Bohannan used a false name to claim Centrelink benefits - a major offence, just in itself!
    Using a false name to claim benefits fraudulently, shows a carefully-planned dedication to fraud.
    Using a false name on declarations, as Julie Bohannan would have done, can incur a maximum penalty of between 5 and 10 years jail.
    Polly Esther
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:02am
    I wonder which hotel penthouse she will spend the nine months in?
    Polly Esther
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:13am
    sorry. I can be a sarcastic bitch at times.
    actually it should be 9 years hard labour.
    Kato
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:18am
    Nine months at a time?
    Kato
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:18am
    Nine months at a time?
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:55am
    Polly, do you mean 9 years of listening to Labor speeches?
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:43pm
    OR Imagine 9 months of listening to "There will be NO Cuts to Blap Blap Blap ! :-(
    TREBOR
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:10am
    Eighteen months sounds a bit harsh. The only reason I can suggest she would have done this is because, perhaps having been in the single motherhood life, it can be very hard to get away from the insecurity and the feeling of need to have something for a rainy day.

    It is also possible she has some psychological issue.

    Such a story sounds heinous on the face of it, but there must have been a reason for it.

    I don't like to condemn too harshly without all the facts at my disposal.
    Graeme
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:53am
    Well said, too many people jump to rash conclusions based on the limited evidence provided by one reporter
    Mamacrystal
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:14am
    IMHO the sentence is not tough enough....she's out in 9 months and who knows how many perks money will buy her. Others are probably getting away with it, it doesn't excuse her or them!
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:20am
    She should be out in 3 months. Tanya Plibersek's husband got 9 years and he was out after 2 yrs 9 months. So yes maybe she should have got 4yrs & 6 months, so a full 18 months would be served.
    Anonymous
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:51pm
    Whatever the term of incarceration, it will be a very minimal one, if any, and will be served at a minimum security correctional facility - another "Club Fed" type punishment. As is said, "The law is an ass", and the courts are there to interpret the law, not to interpret JUSTICE. This is about as fair to the victims as the federal government's management of the country is to it's residents.
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    5:04pm
    Yes Fasty, how often do we hear about a home invasion where the homeowner becomes the perpetrator and gets punished.
    Kato
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:16am
    Surprised the legal hacks didn't come up with she had claims for travel and overnight expenses. Oh damn she's not a pollie is she.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:56am
    And awarded Her a Million Bucks for Harassment !! :-)
    Tassie
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:18am
    More of this should happen..how disturbing that someone with soooo much would steal from those with sooo little-govt complaining of no money and putting cut backs in place....did she have no consciousness of that....really!!!! and what a bad example for her child too...what was she thinking???!! Unreal...typical though...not a long enough sentence..
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:22am
    It's good that we have a government which is not afraid to clean it up. Fraud is costing us heaps.
    MITZY
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:56am
    She defrauded from 2001 to 2009. Paid it back in 2010 and left the country to live in New Zealand. She was arrested at Perth Airport on one of her visits to Australia in 2014, apparently dobbed in by a whistle blower. Maybe if she had not tried to claim (through her lawyers) that she was needed to look after her daughter the Judge may have even been lenient enough to suspend her sentence. See my comments above.

    3rd Sep 2015
    11:25am
    Getting caught is supposed to be the mother of invention. She should have thought faster.
    nena
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:25am
    Hope she has to pay back all the money plus, plus. Rich, good looking, intelligent, polite, nice, popular, beautiful, healthy, well educated and all those positive adjectives do not make an individual a good human being.
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:39am
    No they don't nena, but they assure you of a lack of empathy on here.
    Anonymous
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:07pm
    "A pretty face don't make no pretty heart".
    Blossom
    6th Sep 2015
    6:07pm
    Frank, I know for a fact that they do have to pay it back.. If is fraud from the past, and they are genuinely entitled to Centrelink when it goes to court, when they come out of gaol the pension is reduced each payment until they have paid back. I personally know of 3 people who have been caught. Two of the even signed staturary declarations of what they stated as earning. They were working under aliases.
    One moved into a house to housekeep and mind another person's child in exchange for free board, food etc. and got caught. She later moved out as was then entitled to pension for herself and own children. After she came out of gaol her pension was reduced so much that friends of hers were buying food for them.
    bartpcb
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:27am
    Given that the lady paid back the monies 4 years before being charged I would have thought her debt to society had been nullified. The criminal justice system is about recompensing society for crimes committed against it. It is about the offender accepting the error of their actions. She seems to have completed both these prime functions. Rapists and peodophiles get less gaol time than this lady has done. She could have been found guilty (criminal record) and given a fully suspended sentence.
    Happy cyclist
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:56am
    Surely there has to be some penalty for committing the fraud beyond just repaying it or there is no incentive for others not to give it a go. If the only penalty for fraud was to repay if caught, what incentive is there not to try?
    nena
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:40pm
    bartpcb: Your standard of appropriateness justifies the increasing numbers of corrupted individuals in our decadent society.
    Do the crimes repent and go make another one, perhaps better luck then.
    Anonymous
    3rd Sep 2015
    6:41pm
    bartpcb - Oh, Great! So according to you, I can steal $10M from my employer over many years in a calculated fraud - then when I'm caught, I just pay it all back, and no charges are laid, and no penalty is imposed? What parallel planet do you live on?
    margie
    4th Sep 2015
    2:40pm
    Well no need to borrow from the banks anymore and repay interest the way all the rest of we 'dummys', just steal from anybody and if caught pay it back and move on to the next victim.
    Wstaton
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:38am
    This just show that a lot of rich people don't think they are rich enough and always want more. usally at the disadvantage of others. The 7-eleven fiasco is anothere prime example. Where a billionaire seems to wnat more by running his business at the disadvantage of others.

    It makes me sick. Unfortunately this sort off thing sticks to all rich people because of the blaggards.
    Dickb
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:43am
    In this case the offender has been jailed but probably let out in 6 months for good behaviour. Often offenders (of all types of offences) are only fined and the fine does not reflect the financial capacity of the offender to pay. The Courts base the fine on the court sentencing guidelines for the offence, not the deterrent value if someone is wealthy. A homeless man with no assets may get the same fine for any offence as a millionaire. The homeless man may feel a $20 fine as a deterrent but the equivalent for a millionaire may have to be $100,000 and seizure of some material assets.
    Lescol
    3rd Sep 2015
    11:48am
    I sense that this was a polically inspired matter and she repaid the money in '10. How nine months detention could be justified baffles me. One week would have been sufficent to have achieved the same result and been cheaper!
    Wstaton
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:15pm
    Yes, after all the pollies don't get detention when they pay back their rorted expenses.
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:00pm
    Should Julie Bohannan's lawyer have produced the "reasonable man theory" on Judge Andrew Stavrianou to have him ejected from the courtroom?
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:37pm
    If I were a Rich Man Doodle Doodle Dee !! :-)
    Adrianus
    4th Sep 2015
    7:25am
    I get your point. are you saying the unions can hike up membership fees to cover it?
    taylah
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:02pm
    its the inconsistency of sentencing that worries me - Think of all the robbery thats gone on in the union movement, even Bill Shorten got away with receiving $46000. to pay for his campaign manager, sure he finally admitted it like this woman did - I think the justice sstem needs a huge overhaul.
    Wstaton
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:18pm
    Ahem, Shorten was given it by a Builder he didn't steal it. It may be have been a bad thing but it wasn't criminal.
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:52pm
    Shorten actually did them a favour by stopping a visit from the other union *wink*
    Perhaps a knighthood is in order?
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    2:05pm
    I'm starting to think that You need a bit of Ali Barber in you to get anywhere in this world now ? And if You get caught Stiff !! :-(
    Adrianus
    4th Sep 2015
    3:21pm
    Hockey said the other day ....Ali Barber is the biggest retailer in the world but it does not own a single shopfront.
    Mike
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:04pm
    Disgraceful. Less money for Hockey and Bronnie Bishop to splurge on themselves. This whole thing is politically motivated as she repaid the money.
    Jen
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:28pm
    Since when was repaying stolen money, when caught, considered "justice" or "punishment?"
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:32pm
    Since a few weeks ago during the Trade Union Corruption Royal Commission. Providing it is repaid within 48 hours of the hearing apparently.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:53pm
    Yes You Balance out How Much S**T You think You will be in in 2 days and then give it back !! Yep :-) How Convenient ! :-) :-) Does it apply to the Unwashed ? NO !! :-(
    Amadeoz
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:22pm
    No, it will not deter all potential cheaters. These are greedy people, by nature, and they can't resist stealing more. The richer, the worse. They feel it as a triumph, an achievement. Jail is not the solution, whether it's 18 moths or 18 years. It cost the tax payer money. A short sentence of six month is enough to give them a good scare.
    But in addition to a short detention, give them two bonuses: they have to pay Centrelink 10 times the money they stole plus be committed to 12 months community service in a shame uniform.
    By putting a mixed penalty package together for this scum, one or more parts of the cocktail will teach them a lesson.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:27pm
    NAAH !! Have some guts give it a go ! The best you can get is 18 months out in 9 ! :-)
    Supernan
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:29pm
    Just shows you how some people think ! Yes, sentence too lenient !
    biddi
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:41pm
    Centrelink is making an example of her. Watch out fraudsters! Find it hard to believe her husband wasn't aware of this.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    12:46pm
    I know Nusink ! :-)
    Mamacrystal
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:12pm
    Maybe husband has his own Centrelink payments? LOL
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:24pm
    :-) :-) :-)
    Tassie Diva
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:06pm
    as a parent of a child with very high support needs, using the child with special needs is poor form on the part of the lawyer and her to get a sympathy vote in court is just low,low low. Ripping off tax payer, be it $1.00 or $1 million is beside the point. The woman got 18months and this is pathetic and joke. Far more was needed to send a very strong message to those thinking of doing this kind for crime is not on.
    margie
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:09pm
    What an appalling excuse for a human she is, always some reason as to why they just had to commit a crime. Oh it's not my fault, I've had a hard life, kids are sick, treated badly growing up, poor me, show leniency. Get real and punish these criminals (that is what she is) and make sure the punishment sends a message to anyone else contemplating ripping of the hard working, tax paying public. This sense of entitlement needs to be stopped and maybe she should also be checked before she was married that she should have been on benefits then, would not surprised to find she wasn't eligible then.
    Alexia_x
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:11pm
    I just wonder , why did she bother?
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:16pm
    It wasn't any bother !
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:47pm
    It must have bothered her in 2010? But not in the previous 8 years.
    Sunflower
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:16pm
    I hope it serves as a deterant, but it should mainly be a punishment, even if she did pay back the money. That was because she was caught, otherwise she could still be doing it!!! How did she get away with it??? I doubt it will make a difference to her. My husband and I are struggling, and Centrelink watch our every cent!!! It's a constant battle. Never claimed anything since we started working at 16, now though no fault of our own, my husband is out of work and forced to go on Newstart- we are 64......
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:20pm
    I hope you make it to the Pension ! It will make a bit of difference !! How anyone can live on that Newstart don't ask Me ! :-(
    World Prophet
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:17pm
    My dear old Dad always used to say: "Before you point the finger, make sure your hands are clean". Whilst I think the judge has struck a fair balance, let's look into our own hearts. Have we never stayed silent when the grocer has undercharged us? Not spoken up when a mistake was made in our favour? I'm not saying that any of us have gone through the length she did to defraud the taxpayer, but a theft is a theft is a theft, no matter how small and no matter from who. Just sayin'...
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    1:22pm
    OK ! Ill put the Post Office pen back ! Sorry ! :-(
    World Prophet
    3rd Sep 2015
    2:16pm
    Ha ha, parti - I'll bet you don't, cause it would have run out of ink a long time ago...!
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    2:27pm
    Years back they had a Chain on it ! :-( One day I saw an Old Lady take out some nail clippers and cut it off the chain !! :-) :-)
    nena
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:16pm
    I always do right things from both sides because my father explained to me, when I was only 4 or 5 y. o., that it doesn't matter if you are caught or not but what your conscience tells you. Yes, a very old school but it works....I´m poor of material things, perhaps, but my inner is totally reach...and happy the way I am.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:26pm
    Goog on You Nena !! :-)
    oasis1frog
    3rd Sep 2015
    2:06pm
    Only if people realize how much the medical businessmen (aka doctors) rorting Medicare !!! They will never get charged because they are above the laws.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    2:09pm
    YES ! I said that in a Roundabout way, Up Above !!
    Bonny
    3rd Sep 2015
    2:14pm
    If you hook your Medicare up to your MyGov account you will be able to see what Medicare paid for all your medical services for last 3 years. A real eye opener.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    2:24pm
    If I went back 20 years Mine would show Zero !! Poor Broke Doctors !! :-(
    toot2000 (Sydney)
    3rd Sep 2015
    2:56pm
    Having a severely disabled 16 year old child who needs constant care and repaying the money years before she was charged I thought would get her off but not with this judge, he's tough. Did he do the right thing? Yes.
    fabbo
    3rd Sep 2015
    3:19pm
    The sentence is justified for Julie Bohannan and as she is already married to a Millionaire she should be made to pay back the $62,709.85 that defrauded honest taxpayers.
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:56pm
    fabbo, apparently she paid it back 5 years ago. I think it should have attracted some interest though and she should have paid the interest as well. By paying back the amount of the fraud surely she would have received some leniency from the Judge. I would hate to think what the sentence would be had she not repaid the money.
    mangomick
    3rd Sep 2015
    3:23pm
    Bit of a hard one. What is the best way to deal with grubs like this.They put her in jail and now it costs the tax payer $100000 a year to house her there. Maybe they should have fined her substantially more and suspended the sentence so she wouldn't keep being a cost to society while housed in jail . Now she is going to get free clothing, free food and lodging and access to gyms etc all at the tax payers expense and if anything happens to her in jail she will sue the Government for "failing their duty of care". is it worth it for $62000? May be different if jail time wasn't made so easy for them.
    Tassie Diva
    3rd Sep 2015
    3:35pm
    yes she is costing tax payers again, but this time she has been plastered all over the net, she has a criminal recording, so being a wife of a millionaire will not give her a good standing in society. The woman is tarnished, and now has tarnished her husbands name. The sentence was far too lenient, and she did not fool the judge with the sob story.
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    5:00pm
    I think the pay for a prisoner is around $1.90 per day, but surely that could be made up from number plate making or laundry for local hospitals etc. I think all gaols should be privatised. It makes no sense for governments to run gaols.
    mangomick
    4th Sep 2015
    11:00am
    Australia’s prisoners each cost an average of $292 per day, in a system that costs the nation $2.6 billion (after expenses) in 2013-14, new justice data from the Productivity Commission reveals.
    mangomick
    4th Sep 2015
    11:03am
    Good one Frank. Let's put them on a boat and send them to van Diemans land. it worked out o.k last time.
    Adrianus
    4th Sep 2015
    11:18am
    $2.6b ? That cost seems awfully low compared to what Labor were spending on asylum seekers? It may be lower if prisoners are no longer supplied with smokes?
    So do you think when or if shorten gets back in he could learn something there?
    mangomick
    4th Sep 2015
    11:56am
    I don't think you will ever see Shorten lead labor to power to be quite honest. i think that labor will dump him and possibly Anthony Albanese will lead Labor. As I have said many times Abbott is no leader and Shorten doesn't have the goods either. if LNP dump Abbott for any of the three better candidates in Julie Bishop, Malcolm Turnbull or even Scott Morrison then LNP will be returned. if they insist on keeping Abbott and Labor keep Shorten it's anyone's guess but the result will probably be a hung Parliament.
    If we don't want to spend money on asylum seekers(refugees) what we need to do is stop pretending we care and opt out of the United nations Convention on Refugees.Problem solved. why pretend we have a humanitarian bone in our body when obviously our government doesn't.
    Adrianus
    4th Sep 2015
    3:34pm
    If you judge a government's level of humanity on how many people suffer and get killed by its policies then I think this Abbott government comes first without a doubt.
    mangomick
    6th Sep 2015
    12:06pm
    Sticking your head in the sand, blanketing out media reporting ,pretending nothing is happening, and leaving this grave problem to every other Country to deal with, isn't a Policy. And if you call it a Policy it is definitely not a Policy one should be very proud of.
    Adrianus
    6th Sep 2015
    2:09pm
    What policy would you be proud of mango? How would you solve the problem?
    rtrish
    3rd Sep 2015
    3:24pm
    Of course this sentence is too lenient. At least it should be one month jail for every $1,000 she 'took' from the government and, by extension, us. And what was her husband thinking? How did he not know what was going on?
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:06pm
    Why should he know rtrish? It was an income stream which started well before they married apparently.
    downunder
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:04pm
    It stinks and it serves her right. This is appalling, that's all that can be said
    downunder
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:05pm
    It stinks and it serves her right. This is appalling, that's all that can be said
    Adrianus
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:10pm
    You could form that opinion at first glance downunder.
    VJ
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:29pm
    I am pleased that her fraud was discovered and that she will have to pay for being such a cheat. Why would she do it? Married to a rich man, because she could? Harsh penalty but it may deter others.
    pauly
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:37pm
    I agree with the Judges sentiments and reasoning behind his decisions, I wish we could have this judge take all of our politicians who have in the past and are still thinking they are entitled to special treatment when it comes to ripping off the Australian tax paying public by believing it to be alright for them to have their travel, living away from home and all other raughts they inflict on this country each and every day, maybe a long stint behind bars would also allow us the Australian public the opportunity to elect people who are there for the good of the country and our people instead of only thinking of lining their own pockets at the expense of the rest of us.
    Marzipan
    3rd Sep 2015
    4:58pm
    I feel really good that this greedy woman has been found out...there are a lot of people out there I reckon that have been ripping the system off for years...I know of two that have been doing it for years.......they collect the aged pension while getting paid cash for various things that they do....they are just very greedy people.
    Ageing but not getting old
    3rd Sep 2015
    7:05pm
    How well do you know those people, Marzipan? I mean, do you know for a fact that they never report any/all the money they earn? Centrelink allows a small amount to be earned each fortnight (it's $128 or something below $200 I believe) before C'Link starts to reduce the Aged Pension according to a schedule. Maybe they are earning around that amount or declaring what they earn. I'm not saying they are, but they might be....If you KNOW they have been rorting, and you feel strongly about this, why haven't you dobbed them in yet?
    gxh
    3rd Sep 2015
    5:00pm
    I wonder. Was her sentence heavier because she married a millionaire? Would she have received the same sentence if she had married someone on an "average" income? Does the "tall poppy" syndrome really have a place in the criminal justice system? Or should everyone who "fiddles" the social security system expect to go to jail?
    lizanne
    3rd Sep 2015
    5:05pm
    Anyone who receives support from the government should be honest about their financial circumstances. My brother received very large inheritances from our aunt and then from our mother over the past 11 years yet he continues to receive the pension plus lives in a supported housing unit and has community support as well. He believes that he is entitled to this money because he paid taxes when he was employed - has not worked since 1989 and relied on our mother to support him until the inheritances arrived. He should be charged with fraud too.
    Tigers
    3rd Sep 2015
    5:07pm
    She paid it all back, so why hasnt she been treated the same as our Politicians? They get caught misappropriating funds, they pay it back, no further action is taken against them. If she's been given 18 months, they should be given 36!!!
    Dollars over Respect?
    3rd Sep 2015
    5:30pm
    This is an example of a disgusting abuse of our welfare system - the fine should have been greater and the sentence should be served for the full 18 months. Another instance where our justice system needs to be changed so that 'truth in sentencing' is implemented. As she is a mother, a full 18 months would be enough I believe (only because she is a mother of child with a disability - as possibly the child could suffes more than she would). Tougher sentencing would be the most effective way to demonstrate that the govt is serious about dealing with this type of outlandish abuse of the limited resources meant for those who really 'need' them.

    Our society is full of people who believe it is 'smart' to get away with dishonest behaviour, knowing that the punishment won't be too bad even if they are caught. Parasitic behaviour grows in a society that is tolerant toward parasites. How many people over 60, who are fortunate enough to be still working full time, claim the Seniors travel Discounts for instance - at least twice every day? Obviously there are no checks done here either (and these could be implemented rather easily now that Opal is in place). The cost of transport is expensive for people on a very limited incomes or having to live off their savings. If nothing is done about this, next we'll be hearing that this is no longer unaffordable. What is the cost to the States in lost transport revenue I wonder? I'd like to suggest that we bring back some public shaming!

    How do these people get away with this for such a long period of time? There are not enough checks and balances in place to ensure this cannot slip through. Does the cost to the community, by taking action, also come out of that same welfare budget?
    Paulodapotter
    3rd Sep 2015
    6:02pm
    Not knowing the full circumstances, I'm reluctant to pass judgement on this woman. Is she mentally competent? What was the true relationship with the her millionaire husband. Was he abusive and not supportive of her daughter. I find media coverage of most stories to be highly inaccurate and playing on emotions rather than facts. I'll leave it to the inaccuracy of the justice system to comment on this story. There's always a context we never get to know behind every story that comes out of the media.
    elephants
    3rd Sep 2015
    6:26pm
    for crying out loud, the nerve of this woman..I'm glad she has gotten caught. I & others had been ringing & going in to them re our daughter doing the wrong thing for years. Giving them so much info on her & partner it took yrs.with all the info.For those out there doing the wrong thing i hope you get your just deserves.
    elephants
    3rd Sep 2015
    6:26pm
    for crying out loud, the nerve of this woman..I'm glad she has gotten caught. I & others had been ringing & going in to them re our daughter doing the wrong thing for years. Giving them so much info on her & partner it took yrs.with all the info.For those out there doing the wrong thing i hope you get your just deserves.
    Scrivener
    3rd Sep 2015
    6:42pm
    Poor dear. Now she at least knows where her next meal is coming from. Wished I did. I watched an old friend at IGA a few days ago buying cat food - I know she doesn't have a cat. I'm not in a position to help her either. Next thing I'm sure she will come down with the effects of hydatids or some such from her terrible diet and become a substantial burden on the 'State' (and what a state the 'State' is in). Yeah, I can see how the maths add up (actually, I have no clue how the current government computes the cost/benefit analysis of starving older folk, making them sick, then throwing them to the dogs, other than for purposes of 'pensioner recycling'). It makes any sense at all.
    Maybe this lady has 'reflexive poverty syndrome' from so many years on the dole. Poverty stains your mind - and Tony Rabbit and the rest of his idiot cronies just don't get it. All they seem to be doing is implementing the IPA agenda because they have zero imagination, zero leadership, zero heart, zero interest in Australians who have already dome their bit and all the coalition knows and understands is political pugilism. I wonder the Rhodes Scholar boxer would be like a in a real fight - say something like Long Tan or Afghanistan. I guess he would stick a great big bullet sucking shield up in front of him to protect himself. Now who would fall that job? Have to be someone with a looney ego the size of the planet and the hubris of the 'king with no clothes' - Joe Hockey you say? Perfect for the job.
    https://thesnipertakesaim.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/ipa-agenda-to-re-shape-australia/
    Scrivener
    3rd Sep 2015
    6:42pm
    Poor dear. Now she at least knows where her next meal is coming from. Wished I did. I watched an old friend at IGA a few days ago buying cat food - I know she doesn't have a cat. I'm not in a position to help her either. Next thing I'm sure she will come down with the effects of hydatids or some such from her terrible diet and become a substantial burden on the 'State' (and what a state the 'State' is in). Yeah, I can see how the maths add up (actually, I have no clue how the current government computes the cost/benefit analysis of starving older folk, making them sick, then throwing them to the dogs, other than for purposes of 'pensioner recycling'). It makes any sense at all.
    Maybe this lady has 'reflexive poverty syndrome' from so many years on the dole. Poverty stains your mind - and Tony Rabbit and the rest of his idiot cronies just don't get it. All they seem to be doing is implementing the IPA agenda because they have zero imagination, zero leadership, zero heart, zero interest in Australians who have already dome their bit and all the coalition knows and understands is political pugilism. I wonder the Rhodes Scholar boxer would be like a in a real fight - say something like Long Tan or Afghanistan. I guess he would stick a great big bullet sucking shield up in front of him to protect himself. Now who would fall that job? Have to be someone with a looney ego the size of the planet and the hubris of the 'king with no clothes' - Joe Hockey you say? Perfect for the job.
    https://thesnipertakesaim.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/ipa-agenda-to-re-shape-australia/
    cougar
    3rd Sep 2015
    6:55pm
    Nasty greedy lying b...h. How dare she steal money that I pay in tax for people who really deserve a lot of help. When she is allowed out after her "compulsory " 9 months, she needs to do community service among the "true poor" in our society. I now intend to google her...just so I know what she looks like...
    Bonny
    3rd Sep 2015
    6:57pm
    I had people who served on juries tell me very similar stories but with much larger amounts so I guess her husband being a millionaire got the media interested.

    What really concerns me is that Centrelink is in fact very generous with some of their payments and if you play by the rules you have nothing to fear. One area that comes to mind is the family payment system where it is possible to be overpaid for up to 18 months or more without penalty. How it works is that people on irregular low incomes are required to accept fortnightly payments so that they qualify for the Health Care Card. Is not until their tax is worked out sometimes six months or more after the financial year that an overpayment becomes apparent. No problem Centrelink just adjusts everything and sends them a bill for the overpayment. People on higher income not elligible for the Health Care Card have the luxury of claiming a lump sum after the end of the tax year but Centrelink won't allow low income earners to do this and qualify for the Health Care Card.

    However to falsify forms and hide her real circumstances for over 4 years is fraud and not within the rules. Yes she did pay it back but what prompted her to pay it back?
    Bonny
    3rd Sep 2015
    7:02pm
    I know of one single mother who claimed benefits while living with a fellow and even having a child to him. Normally she would have had a claim on half his assets but because she claimed these benefits to claim half his assets she would of had to admit to Centrelink fraud. What she got form Centrelink was mere penies to what she would have got with half his assets. One lucky fellow.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    7:02pm
    An episode or Two of PRISONER Reruns on the Telly I suspect ! :-) :-)
    Bonny
    3rd Sep 2015
    7:43pm
    Good gracious NO Prisioner has nothing on what happens in real life. Yes I do personally know this lucky fellow who unfortunately has not had such luck with subsequent women.
    Ageing but not getting old
    3rd Sep 2015
    7:18pm
    The main thrust of this article has been more than adequately covered in the comments so far, but I'd just like to add that in one place it's stated that the daughter had severe epilepsy, and in another place it said she had a learning difficulty. Somewhere else it's mentioned that the daughter had 'mental' problems. Wrong. Epilepsy is a (medical) neurological condition. Severe epilepsy would be a highly disabling condition. Learning difficulties can have a severe effect on a child's/person's life insofar as their ability to support themselves and live a life on their own, but again, is a neurological condition. A 'mental' condition is generally a psychological condition, which could be anything from a nuisance to a condition which endangers others or the person themselves. Any of these circumstances could have a mild to serious drain on the mother's own 'mental' health. BUT IT DOES NOT EXCUSE WHAT SHE DID AFTER SHE MARRIED.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    7:35pm
    I noticed that but never commented on it !
    Paulodapotter
    5th Sep 2015
    9:48am
    Unless she was on medication????
    particolor
    5th Sep 2015
    3:17pm
    Medical Maryyouanna ?
    Blossom
    6th Sep 2015
    5:58pm
    Paulodapotter,
    Even is she is on medication, the Epilepsy may not be controlled. I know patients who even though they are on very strong medication still have several seizures every day. Some can't communicate at all. Serious injuries and loss of memory are every day risks for some sufferers. Some are not supposed to be alone - no chance of living alone at all. Some have been known to choke to death on their own saliva.
    midnight
    3rd Sep 2015
    7:24pm
    I have met mothers who have nothing and do everything they can to support their children, put food in their mouths, hopefully get them to school, and hopefully home again for dinner. No treats, no holidays, nothing extra, just survivial. Rarely have I met one of these mothers who has ripped off the system no matter what their circumstances. To read what this woman has done make me sick to the stomach. I wonder if he had any knowledge of what she was doing. If so, then they are a very sad pair. Yes, she deserves a sentence, whether it is this one or not would take more research and knowledge on my behalf... but I sincerely believe that she deserves more than a slap on the hand. The sadness now is the child she is currently neglecting because of her own greed.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    7:40pm
    I wouldn't say Neglecting ! And I think Mr Millionaire can look after things, She will probably be out in a month or so !! And back to Centrelink .

    3rd Sep 2015
    7:52pm
    I fully agree with the judgement, however reading your comments, who can put up his or her hand and state I never ripped off the system and
    as to make it a political issue, it just show your mental capabilities, it does not make any difference if you labor or liberal minded, put your hand up if you never attempted to cheat on your tax returns and you will be known for the rest of your life as a cheat who got away with it as for aaron's comments, please come up with substantiations of your claims, so easy to accuse without naming the persons involved. as for the sentence, 10 years with hard labor might and I say might get a message across.
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    8:12pm
    Can You put Your hand up if You wish You Had Have ? :-)
    Anonymous
    4th Sep 2015
    2:18pm
    I am not making "claims", I am merely stating the facts of the case - facts that you have apparently not read!

    https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29415107/millionaires-wife-jailed-for-centrelink-fraud/
    Paulodapotter
    5th Sep 2015
    9:44am
    Be careful of statements of facts you glean from the written word from media sources or even from the court room. Secondary sources cannot claim to have all the facts.
    Mags
    3rd Sep 2015
    9:18pm
    How in the hell did we get from Centrelink fraud to politics....Ms Bishop paid back money owed....at least she was on government business and Tony Burke had an affair on tax payers money....fair....whatever
    particolor
    3rd Sep 2015
    9:38pm
    Well No ! But now that we are here we may as well stay here !! Now back to Affairs of the Office :-) :-)
    babyboomer
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:13pm
    I am afraid I think the sentence is well-deserved. Has she been incarcerated for 9 months while awaiting trial? Is that why she only has to serve 9 months? There are so many people who live on the smell of an oily rag with disabled children or diabled relatives. Its is shamefully greedy. Shame on her.It is people like me she is ripping off..
    GS
    Anonymous
    4th Sep 2015
    2:14pm
    She was not incarcerated while awaiting trial, people such as her, charged with fraud offences, are placed on bail.
    She only has to serve 9 mths because under sentencing laws, judges have to give a 50% discount on sentences, so that prisoners have early release to look forward to, if they behave well in jail. If prisoners behave badly in jail, they have to serve their full sentence.
    Uncomitted
    3rd Sep 2015
    10:25pm
    The misuse of entitlements is endemic in our welfare system and will continue until a measure of integrity and responsibility is the community expectation of every person in receipt of any funds from the public purse. And as has been inferred 'let he is without sin---" Etc"
    Paulodapotter
    5th Sep 2015
    9:46am
    Wrong! 1% is not endemic. That's a dact check!
    Snow
    4th Sep 2015
    12:08am
    Lock her up for life, throw away the key and fine him to the hilt. Those sort of people never learn and don't care about the true strugglers.
    Paulodapotter
    5th Sep 2015
    9:47am
    Yeh, and let all the murderers out of jail for their lesser crime.
    student
    5th Sep 2015
    1:07pm
    silly me!! Fancy not realising 'he' was in on the fraud too!!
    "... and fine him to the hilt. ... "

    Thank you snow for showing me the light!! However, methinks you are a bit wrong saying ... "Those sort of people never learn and don't care about the true strugglers. ..."

    I just hope their marriage is strong enough to withstand the negativity and they both don't have to rely on the pension to 'live' :)
    Pass the Ductape
    4th Sep 2015
    4:23am
    You don't mess with the 'man' - especially if it has anything to do with money and Centrelink. You're outnumbered, outgunned and frankly, if you are so much in need that you require any kind of welfare benefit, then according to the 'man' - you are so far down the scale of life, you're nothing but a damned nuisance. The woman would have got less time had she robbed a bank for the same amount!
    gonebush
    4th Sep 2015
    9:07am
    This sentence is a joke no way is that a tough sentence should have been 2 year plus and the husband made to repay what money she received
    particolor
    4th Sep 2015
    10:43am
    Plus Interest and GST !!
    Adrianus
    4th Sep 2015
    10:46am
    What 2 years plus??? What if it was just a fraudian slip up? :(
    jeffr
    5th Sep 2015
    1:59am
    Hi Frank, this is what I googled:-TOP DEFINITION
    Fraudian Slip
    When you accidentally let slip (Freudian Slip) that you think Freud was a fraud.
    I made a Fraudian Slip yesterday when I told my psychologists, who loves Freud, that reading Freud "made me feel crappy". I was going to lie and say 'feel happy,' but I let it slip.
    Tomorrow I'm going to tell her that people should be "more grateful of Freud," and hopefully I don't accidentally say 'more hateful'.

    Methinks your a little bit Freudian yourself ?
    Adrianus
    5th Sep 2015
    8:18am
    Hi jeffr, I did not know that and I have read some of Freud's work. He's someone I admire. Very interesting.
    student
    5th Sep 2015
    1:13pm
    Hey jeff and Frank, Fraud was v-e-r-y strange!! He lived with his wife and her sister and I mean lived, .... he had a live-in mistress and wife.

    Jung (Fraud's pupil) is a better read.
    particolor
    5th Sep 2015
    3:20pm
    And Mad Magazines are even better ! :-)
    student
    6th Sep 2015
    8:06am
    Mad magazine?? Oh Parti, you are showing your age! I haven't read a Mad Magazine for years/decades/centuries!! I used to sneak into my older brothers room and read his. What wonderful memories :)
    Adrianus
    6th Sep 2015
    9:44am
    You can have your Freud and Jung and your Mad. Why not let your imagination have limitless freedom? When you grow up on Walt's Tomorrow Land there is no better way of continuing the journey than with Asimov.
    student
    5th Sep 2015
    12:37pm
    from the little I know of this case, I would have changed my attorney .There is a serious mental health problem here. We all should know the difference between right and wrong and be able to act upon them. Would our perception of this lady and her circumstances be any different if she had not married a wealthy man?? Are we reacting because we feel cheated?? What is the reason for bringing this case to light after being settled so many years ago??

    "... four years before being charged, she had paid back the money she’d received. ..."

    What am I missing?? I 'live' (meaning I exist!) in the welfare system but I can not agree with you Leon. I really think the lady has a mental illness. I will not make excuses about the stress of rearing a disabled child and the uncertainty of that child living or dying at any moment, but I do see two women here. One living in uncertain circumstances and the other living in financially secure circumstances, but with the uncertainty of it lasting because of the child's illness. I am surprised the solicitors didn't go for mental illness.

    It is a very sad case from all angles.
    particolor
    5th Sep 2015
    3:11pm
    Probably not Islamic enough to go for "Mental Illness"..
    jeffr
    5th Sep 2015
    4:35pm
    Hi student,
    I think you are missing that she actually did a "runner"to New Zealand before the court case. Only caught when she returned to Perth 4 years later. A warrant for her arrest was still in the system.
    student
    6th Sep 2015
    8:11am
    thanks jeffr. Maybe justice IS seen to be done, but she is not very smart.
    student
    6th Sep 2015
    8:15am
    if she had repaid the money then why was there still a warrant out for her arrest? Mentally ill or not, she has certainly made some bad life choices.
    Anonymous
    7th Sep 2015
    1:40pm
    Student, you seem to be having problems grasping the laws of fraud and theft.
    If you steal money and then repay it, that does not immediately eliminate any possibility of you being charged with a fraud or theft offence.
    Once you have carried out a planned theft or fraud, you are eternally liable to be charged and sentenced for that offence, irregardless of what you do to try and make amends.
    Not Senile Yet!
    6th Sep 2015
    1:46am
    Yep! Deliberate Fraud should not go unpunished!!!
    I wonder what Bronnie would have got from the same judge for her Helicopter Fraud.....or for that matter any MP found guilty of fraudulent claims????
    Oh what??? They just pay it back and keep their MP Status/jobs???? Then that means they are still called Honourable doesn't it????
    What a joke!!!!
    Agree with Punishment ......disagree with the fact that it does not apply to MP's found cheating/rorting the system.......save Fraud different animal????
    Marzipan
    6th Sep 2015
    7:36am
    I agree with you....people should be grateful for what they have....but they just seem to want more and more....
    shirboy
    6th Sep 2015
    4:16pm
    I personally think that a prison sentence is not warranted for her crime.Maybe serving the community in some way is more appropriate. After all our taxes pay for prison upkeep.We will end up like the U S A with prisons overflowing with people incarcerated for minor happenings.Because her husband is a millionaire is probably the reason she copped it hard.
    JAID
    8th Sep 2015
    10:10pm
    I don't know if the punishment is comparatively hard or not Shirboy but I agree we would be wise to find mechanisms which effect redress without the wasted lives and costs of imprisonment. Exposure, repair of the damage and community service sound like significant deterrents with benefit to me.
    Blossom
    6th Sep 2015
    6:11pm
    I agree that she should be gaoled. I just hope that she was given a chance to arrange alternative sufficient care for her disabled daughter. Epilepsy can be life threatening and not all respond to medication or combinations of medications.
    I know of a case where there was 2 school age children. The court didn't even ask if there was anybody available to take care of the children. Neither of them were old enough to leave school and get jobs.
    sybilla
    7th Sep 2015
    12:04pm
    When did Epilepsy become a mental disorder?
    JAID
    8th Sep 2015
    10:02pm
    Judgements vary but for the most part we put a judge in place to deal as appropriately as can be managed within the laws created on our behalf. Evidence has been reviewed and a type of justice has been done. Unless it is extraordinarily out of synch with similar judgements where a vocal alert for review may be useful what do we need to add? What value could we bring to this given our scant knowlege of the facts in the case? None, move on; alternatively stop and contemplate the grave implication ignorant use of power, even the power of mass opinion has for liberty.
    Adrianus
    9th Sep 2015
    9:27am
    The power of mass opinion is used to eventually destroy what it is seen to uphold.....democracy. It's like having ones enemies turn their weapons on themselves until liberty and freedom are nothing but a distant memory.
    particolor
    9th Sep 2015
    8:28pm
    Ill bet She is glad that Fraud was jailed for Her !! :-)


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles