DISAVOWAL

Card 016: breach of the law “same crime, same sentence” — Conspiracy to dishonestly cause a loss to the Commonwealth (tax fraud) and conspiracy to deal with money reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime (money laundering). New South Wales, Australia. · Australia, New South Wales · he — 15 years (9 years and 12 years, accumulated); non-parole period 10 years, she — 8 years (4 years and 6 years, accumulated by 2 years); non-parole period 5 years

Conspiracy to dishonestly cause a loss to the Commonwealth (tax fraud) and conspiracy to deal with money reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime (money laundering). New South Wales, Australia. · Australia, New South Wales · 2023 / 2023 · he — Found guilty on both counts by a jury; pleaded not guilty, 15 years (9 years and 12 years, accumulated); non-parole period 10 years; she — Found guilty on both counts by a jury; pleaded not guilty, 8 years (4 years and 6 years, accumulated by 2 years); non-parole period 5 years.

Adam and Lauren Cranston were convicted in the Supreme Court of New South Wales of the same conspiracy on two counts: tax fraud against the Commonwealth and money laundering. Both were convicted by a jury after trial; both pleaded not guilty. The Plutus scheme of unpaid payroll tax and GST caused a loss of at least $105,625,304.36. (para. 1; other paragraph numbers not given in the record)

Adam, 36, no record, was one of the architects of both conspiracies for more than three years and controlled the second-tier companies. He gained at least $6,861,782.17. The court agreed with the Crown that his criminality was slightly higher than Menon's. Sentence: 15 years in custody (9 years and 12 years on the two counts, accumulated), with a non-parole period of 10 years. (para. 1; other paragraph numbers not given in the record)

Lauren, 21 at the start of the charge period, was previously of good character. She processed payroll payments and made transfers from the accounts of the second-tier companies, knowing of the fraud from no later than February 2015, for more than two years. The court took into account her subordinate role, small gain and misguided loyalty to her brother Adam. Sentence: 8 years in custody (4 years and 6 years, accumulated by 2 years), with a non-parole period of 5 years. (paragraph numbers not given in the record)

The court noted that Adam's wife, in a written statement, described him as a caring father and husband, and fatherhood was taken into account in assessing hardship to his family. Of Lauren the court said: "She is a good mother to her young daughter" and treated the effect of the sentence on her daughter as a mitigating family factor. The Crown considered Lauren's role slightly higher than Hammond's. (paragraph numbers not given in the record)

Details: both decisions, the law, what happened after

He

She

Law

After

none

Machine version: /api/v1/016.json · added 2026-10-17