Moore v R

(2016) 262 A Crim R 590; [2016] NSWCCA 260

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Fraud
3. › Dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception
4. › Statutory notion of deception
5. › Conduct causing computer to make unauthorised response
6. › Whether appellant authorised to cause bank's computer to process transactions overdrawing account
7. › Whether terms and conditions of bank account permitted overdrawing
8. › Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 192B(1)(b), 192E(1)(b)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Fraud
3. › Deception
4. › Statutory definition
5. › Whether s 192B(1)(b) deems deception or requires additional element of deception
6. › Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 192B(1)(b)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Unreasonable verdict
5. › Whether guilty verdict supported by evidence
6. › No evidence of lack of authorisation

Quick Take

Where a bank account's terms and conditions permit the bank to allow overdrawing at its discretion, a customer who causes the bank's computer systems to process transactions that overdraw the account is 'authorised' within the meaning of s 192B(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), even if the bank's systems permitted the overdrawing due to an internal error. The obligation to repay the overdrawn amount immediately does not negate the authorisation. The question whether s 192B(1)(b) operates as a deeming provision removing any requirement of deception, or whether some form of deception is still required, was left open.