\u201cThe theft committed by the employee … has had a profound effect,\u201d the judge said before citing the company directors directly: \u201cThat betrayal has left us feeling deeply disappointed… [and] anxious.<\/p>\n
\u201c…It\u2019s shaken the foundation of how we operate … to the core.\u201d<\/p>\n
Court documents state the woman had signed a contract in October last year to purchase a five-bedroom new build home for $1.35 million. A settlement date was set for November 29. <\/p>\n
Judge Anna Fitzgibbon oversaw the sentencing. Photo \/ Natalie Slade<\/p>\n
On December 2, when the payment deadline still hadn\u2019t been met, the woman created a fraudulent client statement in the company\u2019s computer system and transferred $170,000 to another law firm aiding the house sale. <\/p>\n
She conducted a similar scheme one week later, this time transferring the additional $1,206,000 needed to finalise the house sale. <\/p>\n
She would later rename the electronic file \u201cloan\u201d.<\/p>\n
It all began to unravel for the defendant in February, starting when her partner met with her bosses to raise concerns not directly related to the fraud, court documents state. <\/p>\n
Three days later, the scheme was discovered by her employers and two days after that she wrote a letter confessing and explaining the Bitcoin loss.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is no evidence that the defendant ever had any Bitcoin or any other funds that would have enabled her to lawfully complete the purchase of the property,\u201d the agreed summary of facts for the case state.<\/p>\n
The woman has continued to insist, in a police interview and again in court last week, that there was a Bitcoin-related financial crisis that prompted her irrational behaviour. <\/p>\n
In addition to the purchase price, the employee had taken an additional $26,000, which was spent on furniture for the new home, legal costs and fees for the late house purchase payment. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe factors don\u2019t point to a sophisticated ruse here,\u201d Judge Fitzgibbon said during the sentencing hearing. <\/p>\n
But there was pre-mediation and a breach of trust, she said. <\/p>\n
While the amount of money taken was high, the company said it had recovered all but $74,000 by reselling the home and through insurance payouts. <\/p>\n
The woman\u2019s lawyer said she would like to pay it all back but didn\u2019t currently have the means to do so since, for obvious reasons, she is no longer earning a steady paycheck. <\/p>\n
The judge ordered her to pay $50,000 in reparations, which she could start paying in instalments. <\/p>\n
The judge ordered a starting point of three years and four months\u2019 imprisonment, but the sentence was reduced to two years – the point at which a non-custodial alternative sentence can be considered – after factoring discounts for the woman\u2019s guilty pleas, her lack of previous convictions and her personal circumstances. <\/p>\n
Her lawyer, who used to be her boss, advocated for a non-custodial outcome. <\/p>\n
Prior to the offending, the defendant had been described by co-workers as likeable, competent, hard-working and loyal. <\/p>\n