Centrelink Fraud Charges

Criminal Code (Cth)

Get informed about the law, defences, and penalties in Australia

Centrelink fraud (sometimes referred to as ‘Welfare Fraud’ or ‘Social Security Fraud’) is regarded as a serious criminal offence in Australia, which is punishable by actual imprisonment. There are a number of different charges that may apply under the Criminal Code (Cth) for cases of this kind.

Legal Disclaimer

Page Contents


Anderson Legal defends individuals facing criminal allegations relating to violent offences and misconduct.


On-Demand Resources

View our growing library of articles and webinars, which are accessible no matter the time of day or night.


Free Consultation

Anderson Legal provides a free, no-obligation consultation to understand whether this firm can assist you.


Anderson Legal defends individuals facing criminal allegations relating to violent offences and misconduct.

On-Demand Resources

View our growing library of articles and webinars, which are accessible no matter the time of day or night.

Free Consultation

Anderson Legal provides a free, no-obligation consultation to understand whether this firm can assist you.
Before you can properly defend yourself against an allegation of any kind, you need to understand it.
This section deals with the following:
Criminal Defence Image
Before you can properly defend yourself against an allegation of any kind, you need to understand it.
This section deals with the following:
Criminal Defence Image

Australian Law

The Commonwealth Criminal Code contains a number of offences that may apply in cases of Centrelink fraud. The main offences are:

  • Section 134.1: Obtaining property by deception (Maximum Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years)
  • Section 134.2: Obtaining a financial advantage by deception (Maximum Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years)
  • Section 135.1: General dishonesty (Maximum Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years)
  • Section 135.2: Obtaining financial advantage (Maximum Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months)

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has ultimate responsibility for charging decisions for cases of this kind. There is a real degree of overlap between some of the charges, which makes it important for criminal lawyers to understand the different options available under the law, as well as how to obtain the best outcome for their client based on the evidence.

Proof of “Dishonesty”

Dishonesty is an element of a number of offences associated with welfare fraud offences. For the purpose of Centrelink fraud offences, section 130.3 of the Criminal Code (Cth) defines the word ‘dishonest’ as follows:

(a) dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people; and

(b) known by the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.

Although section 130.3 defines the word ‘dishonest’, the word ‘dishonesty’ is used in sections 134.1, 134.2, and 135.1. The language used is consistent with dishonesty being a fault element for each charge, which attaches to the particular act or omission that gives rise to the offence. For that reason, it is important for anybody facing a Centrelink fraud offence involving an allegation of dishonesty to understand how the acts or omissions are said to disclose dishonesty. In some cases, evidence such as lies to deceive and gain a benefit may make the case plain, in other cases, such as those based only on circumstantial evidence, may point to a number of possible explanations for the conduct other than dishonesty.

For every criminal charge in Australia, there are ‘elements’ that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to prove just one element means the person charged must be found not guilty. Sometimes there will be an alternative offence that a person may then be found guilty of instead if proof of the primary charge fails.

For Centrelink fraud offences, the elements will depend on the specific offence charged. For instance, the elements of the offence under section 135.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth) are as follows::

  1. The person charged engaged in conduct
  2. As a result of that conduct the person charged obtained a financial advantage
  3. The person charged was not eligible to receive the financial advantage
  4. The financial advantage came at the expense of a Commonwealth entity (such as Centrelink)

For charges under section 135.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth), it is common for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to particularise the ‘conduct’ as the failure to comply (an omission) with section 66A of the Social Security (Administration) Act (Cth), which creates a legal duty to advise of an event or change in circumstances affecting a person’s entitlement to payments from Centrelink.

Whether one or more of these elements is a real issue in a trial will depend on the circumstances of the case. For instance, a prosecution case based only on circumstantial evidence may involve no question of a financial advantage, but it may be disputed that the person charged had any duty to update their details. In other cases, there may be no dispute that the person charged engaged in particular conduct, but there may be an issue as to whether their conduct affected their eligibility to receive the financial advantage.

Australian law makes it possible for more than one person to be found guilty of the same offence. For instance, a person may be found guilty if they are shown to have taken part in a criminal conspiracy or formed part of a joint illegal enterprise, particularly with respect to dishonest schemes against Commonwealth entities.

In reviewing an individual case, the work of a criminal lawyer often begins with a careful analysis of the evidence to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution case and, in particular, its ability to prove each element of the offence.


Possible Defences

The ‘presumption of innocence’

When people think about a ‘defence’ to a charge, such as Centrelink fraud offences, they are generally thinking about what makes them ‘not guilty’ of the offence. Because of the presumption of innocence, whenever a person faces a charge involving social security fraud in Australia, it is for the prosecution to prove they are guilty – and to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. What that means in practical terms is that it is for the prosecution to disprove any defences that may be raised on the evidence.

For welfare fraud offences, the prosecution must not only prove the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, it must also disprove all defences that may apply beyond reasonable doubt.

How are defences raised on the evidence?

A defence may be raised on the evidence of both the prosecution and the defence. That is, people who give witness statements to police may indicate that an event occurred accidentally, or a person appeared to act under a mistaken belief as to a relevant fact. The prosecution has an obligation to call all material witnesses at a trial – even those unfavourable to its case. Alternatively, a person charged with an offence may also call their own witnesses at a trial, which may provide the basis for a defence to be raised.

One of the important roles of a criminal lawyer is to identify, as early as possible, the relevant defences that may apply in a given case. The reason it is important to do it as early as possible is to ensure relevant witnesses are found while matters are freshest in their mind, or to prevent other evidence being lost or destroyed.

Some defences available under the Criminal Code (Cth) do not apply to certain aspects of welfare fraud offences. For example, for a charge of obtaining property by deception under section 134.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth), absolute liability applies to the element that the property obtained belongs to a Commonwealth entity. The effect of that element being absolute liability is the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth) is unavailable on that issue.

The requirement that ‘dishonesty’ be proved for a number of offences brings focus to the second limb of the definition found in section 130.3 that the conduct was “known by the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.” In some cases, where a defence of mistake of fact arises, there may be some underlying belief that is relevant to a defence to a charge. Analysing the subjective mindset of a person accused of a Centrelink fraud offence in relation to the circumstances is critical in cases of this kind.

Amongst the most important advice a lawyer can provide is whether or not a defence applies to an individual case. In some cases, multiple defences may apply. In others, no defence may be considered viable. Certain defences cannot operate together. For this reason, anybody facing a welfare fraud charge should seek early, authoritative advice from an experienced criminal lawyer to understand their legal position.


Possible Penalties

Maximum Penalty

The maximum penalty for Centrelink fraud offences varies depending on the particular offence alleged to have been committed. The maximum penalties for the general offences are as follows:

  • Section 134.1: Obtaining property by deception (Maximum Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years)
  • Section 134.2: Obtaining a financial advantage by deception (Maximum Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years)
  • Section 135.1: General dishonesty (Maximum Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years)
  • Section 135.2: Obtaining financial advantage (Maximum Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months)

Minimum Penalty

While some offences in Australia law can carry mandatory minimum sentences, Centrelink fraud offences do not have any mandatory minimum penalty in Australia.

Sentencing in Australia

For welfare fraud offences in Australia, the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) sets out a laundry list of mandatory sentencing considerations for courts. Section 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) states that the court must have regard to the following considerations when sentencing for Centrelink fraud offences:

Matters to which court to have regard when passing sentence etc.–federal offences

(1) In determining the sentence to be passed, or the order to be made, in respect of any person for a federal offence, a court must impose a sentence or make an order that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence.

Note: Minimum penalties apply for certain offences–see sections 16AAA, 16AAB and 16AAC.

(2) In addition to any other matters, the court must take into account such of the following matters as are relevant and known to the court:

(a) the nature and circumstances of the offence;

(b) other offences (if any) that are required or permitted to be taken into account;

(c) if the offence forms part of a course of conduct consisting of a series of criminal acts of the same or a similar character–that course of conduct;

(d) the personal circumstances of any victim of the offence;

(e) any injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence;

(ea) if an individual who is a victim of the offence has suffered harm as a result of the offence–any victim impact statement for the victim;

(f) the degree to which the person has shown contrition for the offence:

(i) by taking action to make reparation for any injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence; or

(ii) in any other manner;

(fa) the extent to which the person has failed to comply with:

(i) any order under subsection 23CD(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 ; or

(ii) any obligation under a law of the Commonwealth; or

(iii) any obligation under a law of the State or Territory applying under subsection 68(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 ;

about pre-trial disclosure, or ongoing disclosure, in proceedings relating to the offence;

(g) if the person has pleaded guilty to the charge in respect of the offence:

(i) that fact; and

(ii) the timing of the plea; and

(iii) the degree to which that fact and the timing of the plea resulted in any benefit to the community, or any victim of, or witness to, the offence;

(h) the degree to which the person has cooperated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence or of other offences;

(j) the deterrent effect that any sentence or order under consideration may have on the person;

(ja) the deterrent effect that any sentence or order under consideration may have on other persons;

(k) the need to ensure that the person is adequately punished for the offence;

(m) the character, antecedents, age, means and physical or mental condition of the person;

(ma) if the person’s standing in the community was used by the person to aid in the commission of the offence–that fact as a reason for aggravating the seriousness of the criminal behaviour to which the offence relates;

(n) the prospect of rehabilitation of the person;

(p) the probable effect that any sentence or order under consideration would have on any of the person’s family or dependants.

Due to the number of issues that can aggravate or mitigate the punishment imposed by a court, experience shows that the earlier a person facing a charge obtains sound advice from an experienced lawyer, the better their chance of securing the best outcome possible for their situation.

Possible Outcomes

The possible penalty outcomes for Centrelink fraud offences are wide, although for serious examples of Centrelink fraud lengthy terms of imprisonment may be imposed. It is also possible, in some cases, for people guilty of Centrelink fraud offences to be discharged without a conviction under section 19B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). In cases where it is shown that a benefit has been obtained, or a loss incurred, courts may order restitution to compensate the relevant Commonwealth entity for its loss as a result of the offence. Such orders of restitution or compensation may be made in addition to other punishments.

The significant issues that affect the sentencing outcome relates to the quantity of the benefit gained or loss suffered, as well as the motivations driving the acts and length of time over which the offence occurred. In that regard, courts generally tend to distinguish between well-planned schemes and those that are indicative of ill-thought, momentary lapses of judgement.

In some cases, a charge relating to Centrelink fraud charges may be substituted for, or charged in addition to, other frauds or financial crimes. The prosecution may determine that a more or less serious charge may be appropriate, based on the evidence. Related fraud or financial crimes include:


Expert Criminal Defence

Although based in Brisbane, Anderson Legal is frequently engaged to defend people facing criminal allegations across Queensland. If you are dealing with an allegation relating to Centrelink fraud offences and need advice and representation, Anderson Legal offers comprehensive criminal defence services for its clients. This includes:

  • providing advice relating to allegations made or documents served on our clients;
  • identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the case alleged against our clients;
  • advising clients on options relating to obtaining evidence, including expert evidence;
  • communicating on behalf of its clients with police, courts, and others;
  • resolving, where appropriate, criminal charges through negotiation;
  • representing clients in trials and setnences before all courts; and,
  • filing and litigating appeals against wrongful convictions and unjust sentences.

This firm places an emphasis on providing clear guidance so that our clients are placed in a real position to make informed decisions about their options and their preferred path forward. Anderson Legal provides clear, transparent disclosure of its legal costs at every stage.

  • Andrew Anderson, Legal Director, is an award-winning lawyer who has been independently described by the Courier Mail as “one of the best legal minds” and a “leading corporate and white-collar crime lawyer” (16 December 2021).
  • Having successfully represented litigants in the High Court of Australia, Queensland Court of Appeal, Royal Commissions, and multiple other courts dealing with trials and other hearings, Andrew Anderson has a demonstrated record of success in complex and difficult cases.
  • Prior to operating a law firm, Andrew Anderson worked as a Principal Crown Prosecutor in Queensland and barrister in private practice at 8 Petrie Terrace Chambers in Brisbane. His depth of courtroom advocacy experience ranges from straightforward cases right through to complex homicide trials and appeals.
  • Anderson Legal is a law firm that is dedicated to the best ideals of the legal profession. Seeking to exceed client expectations and fighting for justice is an everyday pursuit.

Limitations on general information

Each legal issue is unique. The information on this page and website cannot – and is not meant to – substitute legal consultation. It is designed to outline information of a general nature if you want to learn more about Centrelink fraud offences, particularly as it relates to anybody facing an issue of this kind in Queensland. Anybody dealing with a welfare fraud charge ought to obtain expert legal advice and guidance as soon as possible.

No content accessible on the website is created to provide specific legal answers or advice. It is designed to provide general information about legal matters and related concepts. It should not be used as, or in substitute of, your own legal advice or other advice as appropriate.

To the extent allowed by law, no warranty, condition, or guarantee is provided in relation to the accuracy or reliability of any information contained on this site. Content may be changed from time to time without notice.

If you face a Centrelink fraud into Australia, contact Anderson Legal. This firm provides expert advice and representation for people needing assistance to defend themselves against unjust accusations.

For more information, read our Terms of Use

On-Demand Resources

View below the on-demand resources of this firm.

On-Demand Resources

View below the on-demand resources of this firm.
On-Demand Resources

On-Demand Resources

ImageTitleOverviewcategories_hfiltertags_hfilter
WHSQ – Coercive PowersInspectors with Work Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ) have powers that allow them to compel people to provide information and access to documents and other records, which they may seize. They may also compel people to answer their questions. Getting advice can be crucial to understanding your rights and obligations.Viewcoercive-investigations whswork-health-safety-queensland
CCC – Coercive PowersThe Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) is an independent agency in Queensland that has responsibility for combating major crime and corruption in Queensland. It has powers of surveillance, investigation and the use of coercive powers to gather intelligence, undertake investigations and manage enforcement proceedings.Viewcoercive-investigations corporate-crimecrime-corruption-commission
ASIC – Coercive PowersThe Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has coercive powers to compel the production of documents or other evidence relevant to an investigation. The powers are broad and non-compliance can have criminal consequences. Evidence obtained through such investigations may be used later in court proceedings.Viewcoercive-investigations corporate-crimeaustralian-securities-investments-commission
ACIC – Coercive PowersThe Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC), still also referred to as the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), conducts secretive operations and investigations into serious criminal activity. It has the power to compel individuals to participate in examinations and to serve notices to produce documents and other information.Viewcoercive-investigations corporate-crimeaustralian-criminal-intelligence-commission
Industrial ManslaughterIndustrial manslaughter is a relatively new criminal offence in Queensland, having commenced on 23 October 2017. It targets business operators and senior officers in corporations who, through negligence, cause the death of a worker the course of carrying out their work. The maximum penalty is up to 20 years imprisonment.Viewcriminal-offences whshomicide-offences penalties-prosecutions
Unlawful Striking Causing DeathIn Queensland, punishment for unlawful striking causing death carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Introduced to target the prevalence of 'coward punch' deaths, it removes what were common defences in cases where it is alleged the person killed was struck to the head or neck.Viewcriminal-offenceshomicide-offences
ManslaughterManslaughter may be proved in a number of ways, such as by criminal negligence or a deliberate act. An unlawful killing that does not meet the definition of murder may be deemed manslaughter. In Queensland, punishment for manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.Viewcriminal-offenceshomicide-offences
Proceeds of CrimeProceeds of crime offences exist to make it unlawful to receive or possess property that is tainted by crime. While proceeds of crime laws are often used in relation to drug offences, their reach under the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld) and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) covers all types of serious criminal offences.Viewcriminal-offencesfraud-and-financial-crimes
FraudFraud is a serious criminal offence in Queensland, which may be punishable by actual imprisonment. The essential element of the charge is proof of 'dishonesty', which requires the prosecution to prove that what a defendant did was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people.Viewcriminal-offencesfraud-and-financial-crimes
ExtortionExtortion is a serious criminal offence, which may be punishable by actual imprisonment. While it is most commonly charged when threats of violence are used to blackmail a person to hand over property, other forms of coercion or intimidation can give rise to the offence of extortion in Queensland.Viewcriminal-offencesfraud-and-financial-crimes violent-offences
Centrelink FraudCentrelink fraud (sometimes referred to as 'Welfare Fraud' or 'Social Security Fraud') is regarded as a serious criminal offence in Australia, which is punishable by actual imprisonment. There are a number of different charges that may apply under the Commonwealth Criminal Code for cases of this kind.Viewcriminal-offencesfraud-and-financial-crimes
Drug Importation OffencesDrug importation offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code can attract some of the highest penalties for drug offences in Australia, which generally reflects the commercial and coordinated efforts involved in such offences. The maximum penalty for importing a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs is life imprisonment.Viewcriminal-offencesdrug-offences
Possessing Dangerous DrugsFor a drug possession case in Queensland, the prosecution sets out to prove that (1) the person charged (2) unlawfully (4) possessed (5) a dangerous drug. Penalties vary considerably, from drug diversion orders in minor cases through to lengthy terms of imprisonment for serious cases of possessing dangerous drugs.Viewcriminal-offencesdrug-offences
Producing Dangerous DrugsProducing dangerous drugs is a serious criminal offence in Queensland. The definition of the word 'produce' in the Drugs Misuse Act (Qld) is extremely broad and allows individuals to be charged with producing a dangerous drug even though there may never be any dangerous drugs actually produced.Viewcriminal-offencesdrug-offences
Supplying Dangerous DrugsSupply dangerous drug charges a serious criminal offences in Queensland, which can be punishable by imprisonment. The definition of 'supply' in the Drugs Misuse Act (Qld) is extremely broad and allows individuals to be charged with supplying a dangerous drug even though there may never be a transaction or actual exchange of drugs.Viewcriminal-offencesdrug-offences
Drug TraffickingFor a drug trafficking case in Queensland, the prosecution sets out to prove that (1) the person charged (2) carried on the business of (3) unlawfully (4) trafficking in a (5) dangerous drug. In Queensland, the maximum penalty for carrying on the business of unlawful trafficking is 25 years' imprisonment.Viewcriminal-offencesdrug-offences
Attempted MurderFor an attempted murder case, the prosecution sets out to prove that the person charged unlawfully attacked or did something to another person with the intention of killing them, using means capable of doing so, but without death resulting. In Queensland, the maximum penalty for attempted murder is life imprisonment.Viewcriminal-offenceshomicide-offences violent-offences
Serious AssaultSerious assault is an offence in Queensland that is commonly charged when police officers are allegedly assaulted in the execution of their duties, the offence is also charged in other circumstances, such as in cases of assaults of elderly people or working corrective services officers.Viewcriminal-offencesviolent-offences
Grievous Bodily HarmIn Queensland, grievous bodily harm is an offence under section 320 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Suffering life threatening or permanent injuries are examples of grievous bodily harm. The offence is punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment and may be deemed a 'serious violent offence'.Viewcriminal-offencesviolent-offences
Common AssaultCommon assault is a criminal offence, which relates to the unlawful application of force, or threatened application of force in some circumstances, without consent. An assault is unlawful when it is not authorised, justified or excused. In Queensland, the offence of common assault has a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment.Viewcriminal-offencesviolent-offences
Unlawful WoundingUnlawful wounding is a serious criminal offence, often punishable by actual imprisonment. The word 'wounding' refers to a break of the true skin, often by a sharp object. A wound may be caused in any number of ways, such as by a knife or a bottle. The maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment.Viewcriminal-offencesviolent-offences
Assault Occasioning Bodily HarmAssault occasioning bodily harm requires proof of an unlawful assault that caused bodily harm. The term 'bodily harm' refers to any bodily injury that interferes with health or comfort. The maximum penalty is 7 years' imprisonment, although if a circumstance of aggravation applies, it rises to a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment.Viewcriminal-offencesviolent-offences
Malicious Act With IntentMalicious act with intent is a serious criminal offence, generally punishable by actual imprisonment. In Queensland, it generally is charged in cases in which a serious injury has been caused by someone who intended to cause such a result. The maximum penalty for a charge of malicious act with intent is life imprisonment.Viewcriminal-offencesviolent-offences
MurderThere are multiple definitions of what constitutes murder in Queensland, including murder by intentional harm or through ‘reckless indifference’. In Queensland, punishment for murder carries mandatory life imprisonment with a current minimum non-parole period of at least 20 years imprisonment.Viewcriminal-offenceshomicide-offences

Free Consultation

Free Consultation

Free Consultation

Can We Help?

It costs nothing but time to see if we are the right firm for you case. Contact us to see if this firm can assist you.

This firm offers a ‘free consultation’. The reason is simple – it shouldn’t cost anything for a person to pick up the phone and understand if a particular law firm can help them or not. Anderson Legal takes the time necessary to understand the issues and to determine if we are in a real position to provide the standard of advice and representation you are entitled to expect.

Our Clients

Our clients make our practice. They are the ones we worry about each day, and to whom we owe a great obligation.

Our clients often have sought out Anderson Legal because they have been told something about expertise and experience. They put their faith and trust in the work of this firm. Professional reputation follows reality and not the other way around. Andrew Anderson, Legal Director, offers our clients a proven track record of success in complex and difficult cases across all court levels, including multiple appeals before the High Court of Australia.

Our Focus

Justice is best served by lawyers who are focused on their clients and not their competitors. The primary interest of this law firm is justice in the interests of its clients. Whilst we provide premium services at highly competitive rates, it is not about undercutting our competitors. It is simply a function of our real focus – you.

Cost Comparisons

Comparing lawyers is not just a question of price, but value. Backed by the experience of successful courtroom advocacy across Australia, this firm offers significant value to its clients beyond price.
It is notoriously difficult to compare lawyers. Past courtroom experience and outcomes achieved do provide some basis for comparison. Andrew Anderson has an enviable record of success in contested hearings, trials and appeals.

You may find other principal lawyers charge 50% (or more) above the hourly rates of the principal lawyer of this firm, but that may not be the most important measure of value. When you face a legal issue, particularly a complex one, there are other issues to consider.

As a lawyer who has achieved significant outcomes in a variety of contexts – as a Principal Crown Prosecutor, as a barrister, and as a law firm principal – Andrew Anderson brings a different level of experience to his advice and representation as compared to most solicitors. While he routinely works with leading Queens Counsel and other specialist barristers in complex cases, his significant experience in litigating and resolving disputes in cases throughout Australia means his clients have genuine expertise available from the start.

This firm may use several fee options, either exclusively or at various stages. The purpose is to make legal fees predictable, understandable, and transparent. Options include ‘fixed fee’ agreements, ‘capped’ legal costs, and agreements where the costs are calculated on a ‘pay as you go’ basis.

Entering into costs agreements that are understandable, and transparent allows this firm to remain focused on the outcomes our clients seek.

Our Referrals

If, unfortunately, we cannot provide you advice or representation, we will probably know who can.

The areas of law this practice handles are deliberately narrow and deep. Our deep focus on select areas of law allows this firm to handle some of the most complex and challenging cases that come before the courts.

It is not uncommon for this firm to receive enquiries we know will be better handled by others. In the interests of maintaining the highest standards, there are also occasions when cases we would otherwise welcome are declined to focus on existing clients’ needs. In such instances, we will try to identify who may be in a position to assist you.