Fraud Lawyers - Queensland

Fraud Charges

Section 408C Criminal Code (Qld)

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

Fraud 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 in Queensland requires the prosecution to prove that what a defendant did was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people.

Legal Disclaimer

Page Contents


Fraud Charges

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.


Fraud Charges

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.

Fraud Charges

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

Fraud Charges

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

Queensland Law

Section 408C Criminal Code (Qld)

Section 408C(1) of the Criminal Code makes fraud an offence in Queensland. The law states:

408C Fraud

(1) A person who dishonestly—

(a) applies to his or her own use or to the use of any person—

(i) property belonging to another; or

(ii) property belonging to the person, or which is in the person’s possession, either solely or jointly with another person, subject to a trust, direction or condition or on account of any other person; or

(b) obtains property from any person; or

(c) induces any person to deliver property to any person; or

(d) gains a benefit or advantage, pecuniary or otherwise, for any person; or

(e) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to any person; or

(f) induces any person to do any act which the person is lawfully entitled to abstain from doing; or

(g) induces any person to abstain from doing any act which that person is lawfully entitled to do; or

(h) makes off, knowing that payment on the spot is required or expected for any property lawfully supplied or returned or for any service lawfully provided, without having paid and with intent to avoid payment;

commits the crime of fraud.

Fraud: Proof of ‘Dishonesty’

For every criminal charge in Queensland, 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.

Often the most critical element in a fraud charge is that of ‘dishonesty’. To secure a conviction, it is unnecessary for the prosecution to prove that the person charged realised that what he or she was doing was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people. Nevertheless, the knowledge, belief or intent of the person charged is far from irrelevant. It is an essential part in the determination of whether the acts by the person charged was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people. The relevance of the state of mind was explained in the High Court decision of Peters v The Queen [1998] HCA 7 at paragraph [18]:

In a case in which it is necessary for a jury to decide whether an act is dishonest, the proper course is for the trial judge to identify the knowledge, belief or intent which is said to render that act dishonest and to instruct the jury to decide whether the accused had that knowledge, belief or intent and, if so, to determine whether, on that account, the act was dishonest.

For a charge of fraud, before a person may be convicted, the knowledge, belief or intent of the person charged must be identified which renders his or her actions dishonest by the standards of ordinary, honest people.

The meaning of ‘dishonesty’ under section 408C of the Criminal Code (Qld) differs to other definitions of that word in other laws. For instance, in a case of Centrelink fraud, which is specifically charged under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, dishonesty is defined in section 130.3 of the Criminal Code (Cth). Under that law, to secure a conviction it is necessary to prove that the person charged knew their actions were dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.

Given how central the issue of dishonesty is to fraud charges, it is critical to understand the different ways the word ‘dishonest’ may be interpreted. 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 fraud, they are generally thinking about what makes them ‘not guilty’ of the offence. However, it is for the prosecution to prove they are guilty – and to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence means that the defendant carries no onus of proof. What that means in practical terms is that it is for the prosecution to disprove any defences raised on the evidence.

For a charge of fraud, the prosecution must prove the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. However, it must also exclude all defences that may apply beyond reasonable doubt. Of course, a defendant may give or call evidence that points to their innocence. The decision to give or call evidence does not shift the onus of proof away from the prosecution.

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 in self-defence. Generally speaking, 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 from being lost or destroyed.

Common defences for ‘fraud’

It is likely that for many fraud cases, the real issue will be whether the prosecution can prove the person charged acted ‘dishonestly’. While the defence of ‘mistake of fact’ may, in some cases, be raised in defence to a fraud charge in Queensland, the Queensland Court of Appeal has been inconsistent in its view of the availability of the defence of ‘honest claim of right’. In R v Dillon; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 155, the Court of Appeal indicated that the defence of honest claim under section 22 of the Criminal Code (Qld) would apply to fraud charges under section 408C of the Criminal Code:

As “dishonestly” in s 408C has its ordinary meaning, this Court must follow the meaning given to “dishonesty” by the High Court in Peters and Macleod. Despite the previously settled approach in Queensland since 1987, Queensland Courts must now construe the term “dishonestly” in s 408C as requiring the prosecution to prove only that what the accused person did was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people. To secure a conviction, the prosecution need not prove that the accused person must have realised that what he or she was doing was dishonest by those standards. This construction works harmoniously with the defence provisions of the Criminal Code, particularly s 22(2), so that, where there is evidence that the accused person had an honest belief that he or she was entitled to act as he or she did, to secure a conviction the prosecution must disprove the honest belief beyond reasonable doubt.

The case of R v Dillon; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 155 was significant, as it altered the interpretation of ‘dishonesty’ in Queensland contrary to the interpretation that had been settled since 1987. As is clear from the above passage, it did so by reasoning that the interpretation worked ‘harmoniously’ with the defence of honest claim of right. However, in the case of R v Perrin [2017] QCA 194, the defence of honest claim of right was held to be unavailable in the context of that case. It was stated by Justice Morrison:

The offence of fraud under s 408C expressly has the element of dishonesty, which, if proved, was necessarily inconsistent with an honest claim of right to do the act.

On the assumption that the defence of honest claim of right is unavailable as a specific defence, claims of right should be dealt with through the framework of the element of ‘dishonesty’. In Macleod v The Queen [2003] HCA 24, the Chief Justice, along with Justices Gummow and Hayne quoted from Peters v The Queen [1998] HCA 7 in stating:

“the intentional creation of a situation in which one person deprives another of money or property or puts the money or property of that other person at risk or prejudicially affects that person in relation to ‘some lawful right, interest, opportunity or advantage’, knowing that he or she has no right to deprive that person of that money or property or to prejudice his or her interests”.


Possible Penalties

Maximum Penalty

The maximum penalty for fraud is 5 years imprisonment when no circumstance of aggravation applies.

The maximum penalty increases to 14 years imprisonment for convictions involving the following circumstances of aggravation:

  • The offender is a director or officer of a corporation, and the victim is the corporation; or
  • The offender is an employee of the victim; or
  • Any property in relation to which the offence is committed came into the possession or control of the offender subject to a trust, direction or condition that it should be applied to any purpose or be paid to any person specified in the terms of trust, direction or condition or came into the offender’s possession on account of any other person; or
  • The property, or the yield to the offender from the dishonesty, or the detriment caused, is of a value of at least $30,000 but less than $100,000; or
  • The offender is or was an employer of the victim.

The maximum penalty increases to 20 years imprisonment for convictions involving the following circumstances of aggravation:

  • the property, or the yield to the offender from the dishonesty, or the detriment caused, is of a value of at least $100,000; or
  • the offender carries on the business of committing the offence.

Minimum Penalty

While many offences under Queensland law do not carry mandatory minimum sentences, fraud does when a person is convicted of the following circumstance of aggravation:

  1. When a person is convicted of committing the offence and the serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation applies, 7 years’ imprisonment is automatically imposed cumulatively on the sentence the court decides. The 7 years’ imprisonment must be served wholly in prison, on top of whatever other penalty is set by the court.

Sentencing in Queensland

For a charge of fraud, the Penalties and Sentences Act (Qld) sets out a range of relevant sentencing considerations. For fraud and financial crimes under the Criminal Code (Qld), the law states that the court must have regard to the following considerations:

(a) principles that—

(i) a sentence of imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort; and

(ii) a sentence that allows the offender to stay in the community is preferable; and

(b) the maximum and any minimum penalty prescribed for the offence; and

(c) the nature of the offence and how serious the offence was, including—

(i) any physical, mental or emotional harm done to a victim, including harm mentioned in information relating to the victim given to the court under section 179K; and

(ii) the effect of the offence on any child under 16 years who may have been directly exposed to, or a witness to, the offence; and

(d) the extent to which the offender is to blame for the offence; and

(e) any damage, injury or loss caused by the offender; and

(f) the offender’s character, age and intellectual capacity; and

(g) the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factor concerning the offender; and (ga) without limiting paragraph (g), whether the offender was a participant in a criminal organisation—

(i) at the time the offence was committed; or

(ii) at any time during the course of the commission of the offence; and

(h) the prevalence of the offence; and

(i) how much assistance the offender gave to law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence or other offences; and

(j) time spent in custody by the offender for the offence before being sentenced; and

(k) sentences imposed on, and served by, the offender in another State or a Territory for an offence committed at, or about the same time, as the offence with which the court is dealing; and

(l) sentences already imposed on the offender that have not been served; and

(m) sentences that the offender is liable to serve because of the revocation of orders made under this or another Act for contraventions of conditions by the offender; and

(n) if the offender is the subject of a community based order—the offender’s compliance with the order as disclosed in an oral or written report given by an authorised corrective services officer; and

(o) if the offender is on bail and is required under the offender’s undertaking to attend a rehabilitation, treatment or other intervention program or course—the offender’s successful completion of the program or course; and

(p) if the offender is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person—any submissions made by a representative of the community justice group in the offender’s community that are relevant to sentencing the offender, including, for example—

(i) the offender’s relationship to the offender’s community; or

(ii) any cultural considerations; or

(iii) any considerations relating to programs and services established for offenders in which the community justice group participates; and

(q) anything else prescribed by this Act to which the court must have regard; and

(r) any other relevant circumstance.

Possible Outcomes

A wide range of penalties may be imposed for fraud charges in Queensland, ranging from bonds where no conviction may be recorded right through to lengthy terms of imprisonment. An example of a lengthy term of imprisonment may be seen in R v Lovell [2012] QCA 43, in which a Ponzi scheme resulting in losses to investors of more than $11 million resulted in a sentence of 11 years imprisonment. The penalty in that case was imposed prior the maximum penalty being raised for offences of this type.

One matter that is taken into account for charges of this nature is the level of restitution made for any loss incurred by a victim. As was explained in R v Allen [2005] QCA 73:

Restitution in full is a means of demonstrating that crime need not pay and sometimes does not pay and restitution can also be evidence of remorse quite independently from the benefit that it gives to the victim. That benefit is appropriately extended to the person being sentenced usually by significant reduction in any actual term of imprisonment imposed.

Experience shows that with fraud charges, where a significant quantum of money is concerned or there has been a breach of trust, significant penalties are imposed to act as deterrents to others.

In some cases, a charge relating to fraud 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 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 fraud under section 408C of the Criminal Code (Qld) and need advice, Anderson Legal should be your first choice for expert criminal defence. The comprehensive services of this firm include:

  • 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 sentences 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 fraud charges, particularly as it relates to anybody facing an issue of this kind in Queensland. Anybody dealing with a 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 charge of fraud, 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
Responding to Unfair Written Warnings at WorkIn Australia, employers may issue a written warning to ensure procedural fairness. The failure to give employees a chance to fix underperformance or some misconduct can see successful unfair dismissal claims made against employers. An unfair written warning may afford no protection against an unfair dismissal claim.Viewdisciplinary-processes employment-lawwritten-warnings
Responding to a Workplace Investigation into Bullying ComplaintsFacing a workplace investigation into a workplace bullying complaint can leave people feeling stressed, uncertain and isolated. Getting informed about how you may respond to a workplace bullying complaint, as well as your rights, responsibilities and options is essential for anybody facing an issue of this kind.Viewemployment-lawworkplace-bullying workplace-investigations
Responding to a Show Cause LetterA show cause letter is meant to provide an employee with an opportunity to explain (show cause) why they should not face disciplinary action within the workplace. The failure to give employees a chance to 'show cause' why the disciplinary action is unjustified can see decisions overturned or compensation awarded.Viewdisciplinary-processes employment-lawshow-cause-letters
Responding to a Workplace Investigation into Sexual HarassmentSexual harassment complaints often result in formal workplace investigations. Generally, Australian laws define sexual harassment as involving (1) unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature; (2) the conduct leaves the person feeling offended, humiliated or intimidated; and, (3) the reaction of the person is reasonable in the circumstances.Viewemployment-lawsexual-harassment workplace-investigations
Responding to False Bullying Allegations at WorkMany people who face bullying complaints at work are managers in one form or another. However described, executives, managers, or small business owners all have as part of their role the task of managing the conduct and performance of others. It is not uncommon for performance management issues to lead to allegations of bullying.Viewemployment-law workplace-bullyingfalse-allegations
Responding to False Sexual Harassment Allegations at WorkAnybody who believes they are subject to false or wrongful sexual harassment allegations should get urgent legal advice due to the potential consequences of such claims. Employers may be vicariously liable for sexual harassment that occurs in a workplace unless they have taken "all reasonable steps" to prevent it.Viewemployment-law sexual-harassmentfalse-allegations

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.