Last November we reported that Magistrate T. Keady made a finding that Mr. Edward Kang was found guilty of multiple fraud charges relating to false claims associated with visa sponsorship and offers of employment where in some cases there was no business operating. Yesterday at the Parramatta Local court in Sydney, Mr. Kang was sentenced to 12 months in jail. The sentence stipulated that 9 months would be served without parole and then, if a successful application was made, the remaining 3 months could be served on parole.
At the start of the hearing Mr. Kang made an application for an adjournment claiming his counsel have applied to the Supreme Court to question a matter of law. This argument was quickly dismissed by Magistrate Keady who stated that the trial had been already lengthy, complicated and with lots of interruptions.
The defence argued against a custodial sentence on the basis on the remorse that Mr. Kang has demonstrated and lack of prior conviction and recommended an Intensive Correction Order (ICOs) that would include a compensatory payment plan and extensive community service. They also argued that Kang was renting a property and had a wife and two children to support.
On the other hand, the Department of Fair Trading argued that the degree of criminality shown by Mr. Kang required a custodial sentence. They argued that the: length of time, amount of money, motive, and degree of sophistication and breach of trust shown by Mr. Kang would lead way to a custodial sentence. They addressed the arguments made by the Defence and said that the nature of the crime and the purpose of sentencing would mean that an ICO would not have much value in this case.
In coming to his decision later in the afternoon, Magistrate Keady considered the aggravating factors presented by the prosecution as well as the purposes of punishment. Magistrate Keady commented that he was satisfied as to the fact that the conduct was being undertaken over an extensive period of time, the high degree of sophistication and that a relationship of trust existed between Mr. Kang and the victims. He emphasized the notion of general deterrence and the idea of 'protecting the system', that is to protect the public's perception of the immigration program. He rejected the defence council's argument that Mr. Kang showed remorse, commenting
that no effort had been made to compensate his victims.
During the sentencing Mr. Kang remained stone faced and showed no emotion to the jail time sentence being delivered. His family were not in court to say goodbye to him before he was escorted away by police from the court room to the cells late in the afternoon.
However Mr. Kang later appealed the Magistrates decision and was released on bail until the 21st April where the appeal will be heard before the District Court.
