26 March 2013

Canberra man steals from ACTTAB 107 times, is sorry

| Barcham
Join the conversation
31

Simon Wheeler has just been sentenced to five years imprisonment for stealing from ACTTAB to pay off his gambling debts. Using false invoices he managed to trick ACTTAB into paying him money he didn’t win. The amazing part is he managed this 107 times. Should have quit at 106, or perhaps 0.

Five years imprisonment becomes one year full time imprisonment and six months periodic detention due to the evident remorse of the defendant. The lesson is always, always say you’re sorry.

Join the conversation

31
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Instant Mash7:59 pm 30 Mar 13

Personal views on gambling aside, it’s still a legal and legitimate business, fed by those who (hopefully) understand the consequences and risks involved.

Anyway, as far as I’m concerned, the fact of the matter is that this person has defrauded a business 107 times. While quite impressive, it’s obviously illegal. And if he’s willing to do it over and over again, I find it hard to believe he was truly remorseful.

Having said that, I don’t really have a problem with the sentence. It’s not as if anybody was directly hurt by this.

Vindalu said :

Oh Bundah and Asparagus you recognise me as the craven, feckless slave of the punt that I am. However casting nasturtiums about my clobber is a bit below the knotted rope.

Yep it was a sure bet that someone was going to whip you past the post!

Oh Bundah and Asparagus you recognise me as the craven, feckless slave of the punt that I am. However casting nasturtiums about my clobber is a bit below the knotted rope.

AsparagusSyndrome2:34 pm 30 Mar 13

Vindalu said :

Sort of like man biting dog, ACTAB has been thieving from me for years – that would never make the news! I’d love to rip them off – in a politically and socially acceptable way of course.

I’m lucky, I guess. ACTAB haven’t been stealing from me. In all the years I’ve lived in these parts, that’s never happened. And same goes for many of my friends and neighbours I think.

Perhaps it’s just the way you dress. Or do you leave your house unlocked at night? Or walk around in poorly lit neighbour hoods? These kinds of questions arise in lots of other RiotAct posts when people are victims of crime, like robbery or burglary. I normally despise correspondents who ‘blame the victim’ when crime occurs, because that just condones the crime, really and perpetuates a sense that the crime is acceptable at some level.

But in your particular case, I wonder if you might have been doing something, or partaking in some sort of activity that might, say, encourage ACTAB to thieve from you.(?) Just wondering.

Vindalu said :

Sort of like man biting dog, ACTAB has been thieving from me for years – that would never make the news! I’d love to rip them off – in a politically and socially acceptable way of course.

Really? Or is it more that you’ve willingly contributed to their coffers hoping to get a sizeable return?

Sort of like man biting dog, ACTAB has been thieving from me for years – that would never make the news! I’d love to rip them off – in a politically and socially acceptable way of course.

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

chewy14 said :

I personally think those things should be almost irrelevant in criminal matters and I think you should not get discounted or lesser sentences simply because you had a troubled life.

p.s. then you fail to understand the causes of crime and criminality. If you think that people dragged up turn into, on average, just as well-functioning people as those brought up, then you need to educate yourself on how things really are. If you are actually interested in reducing crime (which means reducing the number of victims), you need to stop people commencing offending. Locking them up with other offenders has long been shown not to achieve that. Prevention is better than cure. Prevention begins in childhood, not at the prison gates.

Anyway, no-one gets a lesser sentence or better treatment for being middle class or wealthy, like bail on a charge of making child pornography, or multi-million dollar fraud. Do they? That’s the other end of the same argument. (And in case you’re not getting the sarcasm, yes they do get better treatment.)

IP

I’m all for prevention, there should be far more money spent on crime prevention.

But,

I’m also a firm believer in personal responsibility, to which your background makes no difference.
As you’ve mentioned, some white collar people may also get preferential treatment based on their ability to defend themselves and I don’t agree with that either.

But the vast majority of crime (particularly violent crime which I think is more important than property crime) isn’t committed by those people is it?

Arguable if you include domestic violence and sexual offending (especially child sexual abuse), which are grossly under-reported and under-prosecuted, and are much less class-related.

Also arguable whether violent crime is always worse – depriving hundreds of elderly people of their retirement savings could be much worse than robbing one individual.

But all other things being equal, yes, violence is worse.

IP

IrishPete said :

chewy14 said :

I personally think those things should be almost irrelevant in criminal matters and I think you should not get discounted or lesser sentences simply because you had a troubled life.

p.s. then you fail to understand the causes of crime and criminality. If you think that people dragged up turn into, on average, just as well-functioning people as those brought up, then you need to educate yourself on how things really are. If you are actually interested in reducing crime (which means reducing the number of victims), you need to stop people commencing offending. Locking them up with other offenders has long been shown not to achieve that. Prevention is better than cure. Prevention begins in childhood, not at the prison gates.

Anyway, no-one gets a lesser sentence or better treatment for being middle class or wealthy, like bail on a charge of making child pornography, or multi-million dollar fraud. Do they? That’s the other end of the same argument. (And in case you’re not getting the sarcasm, yes they do get better treatment.)

IP

I’m all for prevention, there should be far more money spent on crime prevention.

But,

I’m also a firm believer in personal responsibility, to which your background makes no difference.
As you’ve mentioned, some white collar people may also get preferential treatment based on their ability to defend themselves and I don’t agree with that either.

But the vast majority of crime (particularly violent crime which I think is more important than property crime) isn’t committed by those people is it?

chewy14 said :

I personally think those things should be almost irrelevant in criminal matters and I think you should not get discounted or lesser sentences simply because you had a troubled life.

p.s. then you fail to understand the causes of crime and criminality. If you think that people dragged up turn into, on average, just as well-functioning people as those brought up, then you need to educate yourself on how things really are. If you are actually interested in reducing crime (which means reducing the number of victims), you need to stop people commencing offending. Locking them up with other offenders has long been shown not to achieve that. Prevention is better than cure. Prevention begins in childhood, not at the prison gates.

Anyway, no-one gets a lesser sentence or better treatment for being middle class or wealthy, like bail on a charge of making child pornography, or multi-million dollar fraud. Do they? That’s the other end of the same argument. (And in case you’re not getting the sarcasm, yes they do get better treatment.)

IP

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

No he is actually pretty much right, Pete. Don’t get me wrong, you are no stevian, but probably the closest to them.

Quotes? Evidence? On sentencing I think you’ll find the evidence points to me sharing the RiotACT hive view that ACT sentencing is abysmal. That ACT Courts are abysmal in general, in particular their timeliness. But when the Chief Justice’s family are frequent flyers in the criminal justice system, you know something’s rotten in the state (Territory) of Denmark (ACT).

If some of my opinions on the criminal justice system, or the causes of offending, don’t meet the approval of uninformed RiotACT hangers and floggers, that may say more about you than me – see the poll at this link for an alternative perspective on the world http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/prisoner-support-program-a-first-20130324-2goek.html

If in this instance I think the evil perpetrated by ACTTAB somewhat offsets the seriousness of this man’s offending. No-one whines when a drug dealer is robbed, or when one serial offender runs over another (remember Mully anyone? that a baby died in that incident too is sad). This is an analogous scenario, except governments make the law, and they’ve decided it’s okay for them and others to profit from addicted gamblers, but it’s not okay for anyone to profit from addicted drug users (except Big Pharma, the makers of methadone and naltrexone).

IP

Pete,

my first comment to you was a bit tongue in cheek but in my opinion you do have a propensity to show greater allowance for some criminals based on their history or life circumstances. I personally think those things should be almost irrelevant in criminal matters and I think you should not get discounted or lesser sentences simply because you had a troubled life.

But besides that are you really comparing a legal business with criminal drug dealers or Mully?

I think drugs should be legalised and the government should be regulating and selling them but at the moment they aren’t so your comparison is completely off base.
Drug dealers or people like Mully aren’t regulated and aren’t forced to offer extensive help for the people who they sell to or committ crimes against. I would even draw a distinction between people who sell products to willing individuals and people who directly harm others against their will.

There may be an argument for greater regulation in the gambling industry but that is an entirely seperate argument to the one you are making now and I think your drawing a massive bow by trying to say this person’s crime is less important because it was committed against the TAB.

Probably doesn’t help that I have no idea what or who stevian is.

But to analyse your argument a bit, you note that gambling is legal. Yes, only until government decides otherwise. That doesn’t mean it isn’t exploitative. And Government is profiting from it. Spot a conflict of interest here?

Obviously (to anyone with half a brain or more, and I’m glad that includes you) legalising and controlling most currently illegal drugs is the only sensible way forward. Most of them are getting buy on legal drugs now anyway, from dodgy doctors and other sources.

But obviously I still won’t accept that I am somehow “pro-criminal”, particularly in the absence of ny evidence to support that allegation. Pro-justice and pro-human rights, yes. But you can be those things and pro-victim. No victim wants to wait years to give evidence in a trial and finally get “closure”. And solid research shows that victims aren’t actually the hangers and floggers that people think they are.

IP

breda said :

Irish Pete no doubt applauds bank robbers because banks are nasty, condones insurance fraud because insurance companies are meanies, and considers that sentences for burglary should be influenced by his assessment of the character or the burgled party.

Irish Pete for Chief Justice!

Err no, that’s such a long bow to stretch that you should be planning to go hunting in NSW National Parks soon. Bank tellers aren’t nasty, and they’re the ones that suffer in bank robberies (and bystanding customers and security guards).

Insurance fraud? Well, I have quite a lot if insurance, as do you probably, so why would I think they are nasty?

And I guess you’re saying that a drug dealer burgled of the proceeds of their crimes (probably by a drug addict) should expect the full force of the law to be brought down on the offender? You did jist say that, didn’t you? Let’s change the scenario to “drug addict burgles drug dealer” and see what the general reaction is – had it coming to him, perhaps?

The CJ position will be vacant this year – hopefully they plan some personality and character testing before appointing the new person.

IP

Mr Evil said :

So much for Elton John’s song “Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word” – in the ACT Supreme Court everyone seems to be sorry after the fact, just to get the complimentary sentence reduction.

The big questions out of all this are:

– Has ACTTAB management learnt anything from this?

– And have any changes been made to ACTTAB’s processes to ensure this type of fraud cannot (easily) occur again……like 107 times again?

Especially since a similar thing happened not long ago: http://the-riotact.com/pamela-close-accused-of-placing-trifecta-bets-after-the-race-run/33984

IrishPete said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

No he is actually pretty much right, Pete. Don’t get me wrong, you are no stevian, but probably the closest to them.

Quotes? Evidence? On sentencing I think you’ll find the evidence points to me sharing the RiotACT hive view that ACT sentencing is abysmal. That ACT Courts are abysmal in general, in particular their timeliness. But when the Chief Justice’s family are frequent flyers in the criminal justice system, you know something’s rotten in the state (Territory) of Denmark (ACT).

If some of my opinions on the criminal justice system, or the causes of offending, don’t meet the approval of uninformed RiotACT hangers and floggers, that may say more about you than me – see the poll at this link for an alternative perspective on the world http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/prisoner-support-program-a-first-20130324-2goek.html

If in this instance I think the evil perpetrated by ACTTAB somewhat offsets the seriousness of this man’s offending. No-one whines when a drug dealer is robbed, or when one serial offender runs over another (remember Mully anyone? that a baby died in that incident too is sad). This is an analogous scenario, except governments make the law, and they’ve decided it’s okay for them and others to profit from addicted gamblers, but it’s not okay for anyone to profit from addicted drug users (except Big Pharma, the makers of methadone and naltrexone).

IP

Pete,

my first comment to you was a bit tongue in cheek but in my opinion you do have a propensity to show greater allowance for some criminals based on their history or life circumstances. I personally think those things should be almost irrelevant in criminal matters and I think you should not get discounted or lesser sentences simply because you had a troubled life.

But besides that are you really comparing a legal business with criminal drug dealers or Mully?

I think drugs should be legalised and the government should be regulating and selling them but at the moment they aren’t so your comparison is completely off base.
Drug dealers or people like Mully aren’t regulated and aren’t forced to offer extensive help for the people who they sell to or committ crimes against. I would even draw a distinction between people who sell products to willing individuals and people who directly harm others against their will.

There may be an argument for greater regulation in the gambling industry but that is an entirely seperate argument to the one you are making now and I think your drawing a massive bow by trying to say this person’s crime is less important because it was committed against the TAB.

Irish Pete no doubt applauds bank robbers because banks are nasty, condones insurance fraud because insurance companies are meanies, and considers that sentences for burglary should be influenced by his assessment of the character or the burgled party.

Irish Pete for Chief Justice!

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

No he is actually pretty much right, Pete. Don’t get me wrong, you are no stevian, but probably the closest to them.

Quotes? Evidence? On sentencing I think you’ll find the evidence points to me sharing the RiotACT hive view that ACT sentencing is abysmal. That ACT Courts are abysmal in general, in particular their timeliness. But when the Chief Justice’s family are frequent flyers in the criminal justice system, you know something’s rotten in the state (Territory) of Denmark (ACT).

If some of my opinions on the criminal justice system, or the causes of offending, don’t meet the approval of uninformed RiotACT hangers and floggers, that may say more about you than me – see the poll at this link for an alternative perspective on the world http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/prisoner-support-program-a-first-20130324-2goek.html

If in this instance I think the evil perpetrated by ACTTAB somewhat offsets the seriousness of this man’s offending. No-one whines when a drug dealer is robbed, or when one serial offender runs over another (remember Mully anyone? that a baby died in that incident too is sad). This is an analogous scenario, except governments make the law, and they’ve decided it’s okay for them and others to profit from addicted gamblers, but it’s not okay for anyone to profit from addicted drug users (except Big Pharma, the makers of methadone and naltrexone).

IP

Did he say “Soz”?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:56 pm 27 Mar 13

IrishPete said :

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

Just been sentenced? It was a month ago, and reported in the media at the time.

But oh, the delicious irony of a parasitic betting organisation being ripped off by a problem gambler. Perhaps he deserves a medal rather than a prison sentence.

IP

Seems you feel that way about most criminals IP.

I have a fairly low tolerance for defamatory Trolls who can’t get their facts right…

IP

No he is actually pretty much right, Pete. Don’t get me wrong, you are no stevian, but probably the closest to them.

johnboy said :

The sentence was only released on the Supreme Court website today.

What other media you speak of we don’t really give a rats arse.

Jeez, who was in a bad mood last night? RiotAct has bene known to link to news articles in other media, so I kinda thought you might read those other media soemtimes.

Surely there’s a story here about how slow the Supreme Court is to release its summaries, as well as actually pass judgements and sentences? Often they don’t put anything up on their website.

(And I won’t call you Shirley again.)

IP

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

Just been sentenced? It was a month ago, and reported in the media at the time.

But oh, the delicious irony of a parasitic betting organisation being ripped off by a problem gambler. Perhaps he deserves a medal rather than a prison sentence.

IP

Seems you feel that way about most criminals IP.

I have a fairly low tolerance for defamatory Trolls who can’t get their facts right…

IP

IrishPete said :

Just been sentenced? It was a month ago, and reported in the media at the time.

But oh, the delicious irony of a parasitic betting organisation being ripped off by a problem gambler. Perhaps he deserves a medal rather than a prison sentence.

IP

Seems you feel that way about most criminals IP.

Just been sentenced? It was a month ago, and reported in the media at the time.

But oh, the delicious irony of a parasitic betting organisation being ripped off by a problem gambler. Perhaps he deserves a medal rather than a prison sentence.

IP

The sentence was only released on the Supreme Court website today.

What other media you speak of we don’t really give a rats arse.

He’s sorry he got caught.

Mr Evil said :

So much for Elton John’s song “Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word” – in the ACT Supreme Court everyone seems to be sorry after the fact, just to get the complimentary sentence reduction.

I’d be willing to bet almost any part of my anatomy that they are universally not sorry for committing the crime and causing harm, they’re just sorry that they were caught.

In this case, does anybody seriously think this idiot would’ve realised the error of his ways and stopped at 107 offences if he hadn’t been caught? Would he have returned the money, or resigned, or entered a gambling rehab program or done one tiny little thing to indicate that he was really sorry for what he’d done. I don’t think so.

So much for Elton John’s song “Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word” – in the ACT Supreme Court everyone seems to be sorry after the fact, just to get the complimentary sentence reduction.

The big questions out of all this are:

– Has ACTTAB management learnt anything from this?

– And have any changes been made to ACTTAB’s processes to ensure this type of fraud cannot (easily) occur again……like 107 times again?

obamabinladen said :

5 years seems harsh considering Matt Massey gets less for bashing and kidnapping!

But in this case it was money that was stolen from the government. That’s far more important than some pleb getting bashed or kidnapped. LOL.

Dilandach said :

So… to pay his gambling debts, he goes to a gambling establishment? o.O

I’m guessing the initial thought process before pulling off his heists was along the lines of “If I bet on these ponies (rainbow dash fo’ real) and win, I can pay my debts!”

He was an executive with the company.

More like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.

Reading the judgement, he only has to serve 1 year full time imprisonment and then 6 months of periodic detention.

A typical ACT Supreme Court sentence, where the offender is sentenced to a particular period of imprisonment, which is then immediately discounted by about 50-75% if they agree to go onto a good behviour bond.

obamabinladen4:09 pm 26 Mar 13

5 years seems harsh considering Matt Massey gets less for bashing and kidnapping!

Well they do give one a 25% discount in one’s sentence for a guilty plea and for showing remorse.Mind you one can be an absolute tool and drive at high speed through the suburbs,crash into a tree resulting in the death of a young female occupant and then get weekend detention as punishment!

So… to pay his gambling debts, he goes to a gambling establishment? o.O

I’m guessing the initial thought process before pulling off his heists was along the lines of “If I bet on these ponies (rainbow dash fo’ real) and win, I can pay my debts!”

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.