Fraud including credit cards

Fraud case: can police only distinguish black people by the clothes they wear? R v KPA

Fraud and Dishonesty Offences are often facilitated by credit cards, computers, smart phones and email, and can be global.Black man charged with dishonestly obtaining property by deception (fraud)

KPA was charged with dishonestly obtaining property by deception (fraud) under section 192E(1)(a) of the Crimes Act. The charge followed police officers reviewing CCTV footage from a Western Sydney convenience store. The footage depicted a black man making fraudulent transactions with stolen credit cards.

The officers “recognised” this man as KPA, who had assisted the police as a witness in an unrelated car crash incident several days prior.

The maximum penalty for the offence was imprisonment for 10 years. KPA plead not guilty. 

Circumstantial case / inadmissible evidence leads Blacktown Local Court to only possible result

The Blacktown Local Court accepted submissions stating that case against KPA was essentially circumstantial. The police officers claimed that the CCTV-credit card thief was wearing the same “distinctive” polo shirt worn by KPA when acting as a witness for the police. These claims were ultimately uncorroborated by evidence. 

Further, still-images of the convenience store CCTV produced by the police were deemed inadmissible, and the original copy of the CCTV was never produced. His Honour heard the remaining evidence and found there to be no case against KPA. 

The proceedings were dismissed by the Court. KPA was found not guilty of the charges.

Keywords:

  • inadmissible evidence
  • Section 192E(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900
  • dishonestly obtaining property by deception
  • not guilty verdict
  • Fraud
  • circumstance case
  • inadmissible evidence
  • proceedings dismissed

O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors are able to pursue your possible claim anywhere in Australia. Please don’t hesitate to contact us today on 02 9261 4281 or by email at

Call Now Button Scroll to Top