Australian man allegedly faked cancer to scam loved ones out of over $1million
A 30-year-old Australian man has been charged after allegedly deceiving his family into thinking he had cancer and scamming them out of more than $1million.
Victoria Police allege the man spent the proceeds from the sale of the family's home in Alfredton, a suburb of Ballarat, before attempting to cover up the loss.
He allegedly told his family he used the money to fund an investment expected to return a $2m profit.
When he couldn't produce the money, he allegedly concocted a story he had been diagnosed with cancer and had been the victim of fraud.
Police allege he then deceived his family members into handing over more than $1.2m, including by creating fake email accounts and impersonating two lawyers.
He also allegedly used a fraudulent document to obtain a new car from a Horsham dealership, in western Victoria, worth $69,830.
Police arrested the 30-year-old in Ararat, in Victoria's central highlands, on July 8 last year where he was charged with 28 offences following a prolonged investigation.
Among the charges are ten counts of obtain property by deception and 13 counts of make a false document.
He is expected to appear before Horsham Magistrate's Court on June 25.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Explosive defence argument revealed about why Erin Patterson got sick before any of her lunch guests - as the prosecution case is picked apart
Erin Patterson 's early onset of illness after serving deadly beef Wellingtons to her lunch guests was brought on by her preparation of the meal, a jury has heard. On Wednesday, Patterson's barrister Colin Mandy, SC continued to outline his client's defence against claims she deliberately served poisoned pastry meals to the relatives of her estranged husband Simon Patterson. Patterson, 50, has pleaded not guilty to the murders of Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson. They died after consuming death cap mushrooms served in beef Wellingtons during lunch at her Leongatha home on July 29, 2023. Only Pastor Ian Wilkinson survived the lunch, in what Crown prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers, SC on Monday suggested had been a big mistake. The jury has previously heard Ms Patterson claimed to have become ill shortly after the fateful lunch while her guests became sick much later, around midnight. 'There's a sensible reason for that, because in the morning, several hours before the guests arrived, she was stirring and tasting the duxelle,' Mr Mandy told the jury. 'She was preparing that part of the meal. She was tasting it and that's why she added the dried mushrooms to it. So at least a few hours before anyone else ate any, she had had some.' The jury has heard prosecutors claim that Patterson was never sick from what she ate at the lunch and had simply pretended to be, so as to cover-up her alleged crime. Dr Rogers told the jury medical tests revealed Patterson had no signs of death cap poisoning, unlike her guests who suffered severe symptoms, including organ failure. She argued that Patterson fabricated symptoms, such as vomiting after eating cake, to appear sick like her guests. 'We suggest that if the accused had truly vomited ... that is a detail she would have shared with medical staff,' Dr Rogers said. 'The fact that she never made any mention of it should cause you to seriously doubt this claim and we suggest, reject ... [this claim] as a lie.' Mr Mandy said Patterson's claim that she vomited after the lunch ought be treated as truthful. The court heard Patterson claimed she had vomited shortly after the lunch ended, around 2.45pm. 'Now if that was a lie, members of the jury, to encourage you to think that the poison had all left her body, she surely would've said to you that it happened as soon as the guests left,' Mr Mandy said. Mr Mandy also suggested Patterson's evidence that she couldn't remember what was in her vomit ought also be treated as the truth. 'She can't be more precise about the contents of her stomach. If she was lying, if she was lying to you, she would say, ''oh look, when I threw up, I could clearly recognise pastry and meat and mushrooms in there. Absolutely categorically it all came up'',' Mr Mandy said. 'If she was lying, that's what she'd say. But instead she says, 'I don't know, it's vomit'. If she was lying, she would've said, ''I threw up immediately and I could clearly see everything''. She didn't say that to you.' Mr Mandy further suggested Patterson did not become as sick as her lunch guests due to a number of significant factors. He said expert evidence suggested people who consumed the same amount of toxin could react in different ways. 'People can eat the same meal, some develop a higher grade, some develop a lower grade of the severity of the illness,' Mr Mandy said. He told the jury there could have been a variation in toxicity from one person's portion to another. And some people have different reactions upon consuming toxins, he said. 'So some people have a better toxic response than others. Yes. So depending on an individual's tolerance to that particular toxin or their physiological response that may be different,' Mr Mandy said. Expert evidence further suggested the age of the individual could also play a factor as could the weight of the person. 'Obviously weight is a factor,' Mr Mandy said. 'As you know, Erin weighed over a hundred kilos. Age is a factor. She's significantly younger than the other guests.' Mr Mandy accused the prosecution of providing 'misleading impressions' to jurors during Dr Rogers' closing address. 'So Dr Rogers yesterday in her closing argument, invited you to think about what you would do in this situation if this was really just a horrible accident,' he said. 'And what the Crown was asking you to do is to engage in an exercise which might be dangerous and seductive, but it's not appropriate because it involves hindsight reasons. 'And hindsight reasoning is dangerous because it distorts how we evaluate decisions and actions that occurred in the past.' Mr Mandy further accused lone lunch guest survivor Ian Wilkinson of providing the jury incorrect evidence when he described Patterson eating her meal off a different coloured plate. 'It has to be the case that Ian Wilkinson is wrong about what he said. It makes no sense logically that you would use that method to deliver up an unpoisoned parcel, but otherwise, on all of the evidence, he's wrong; honestly mistaken,' Mr Mandy said. He also said Mr Wilkinson was wrong about the colour of Patterson's other plates, which he had described as being grey. 'Erin and Simon were far more familiar with the crockery in the house than Ian was, and so we submit to you that you would have to find, on a proper and analytical examination of that evidence, that he wasn't right about those plates. Honestly mistaken,' Mr Mandy said. Mr Mandy also claimed it would have made more sense for Patterson to simply mark the 'safe Wellington' on the pastry rather than serve it on a different coloured plate. We submit to you there is only one logical way of getting around that problem if this was your plan, and that would be to mark the unpoisoned one, it's wrapped in pastry, in some way, so that you can recognise it and differentiate it from the others,' Mr Mandy said. 'Easy to do, pastry, in which case you would not need different coloured plates.' He urged the jury to consider why his client would have 'lured' her lunch guests to lunch with a tale about a false cancer diagnosis if they did not discuss the issue until after they had all eaten the Wellingtons. 'On the Crown case, her object had already been achieved,' he said. 'The only rational conclusion … is the lie about cancer has absolutely nothing to do with the intention to kill, if there was one.'
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Sextortion scam warning to students as building society sees ‘growing trend'
Students are being warned of the risks of blackmail scams, where criminals may threaten to share explicit images or personal information they hold about their victim. One in six (17%) students who took part in a survey for Nationwide Building Society said they have shared intimate images of themselves. The society warned some people could be putting themselves at risk of 'sextortion' – a type of blackmail where criminals threaten to share sexual images. Nationwide said that over the past year, its fraud team has seen a growing trend of blackmail scams, with younger generations being targeted on social media platforms. Some 26% of students surveyed also said that they have shared private information. More than a quarter (28%) of students who took part in the survey research said have been scammed in some way and half (50%) worry about falling victim to fraud. Annya Burskys, head of fraud operations at Nationwide, said: 'Blackmail scams are often linked to romance scams and are particularly harrowing for victims. Sadly, we have seen a rise in this type of activity. 'Scammers specialise in developing relationships with their victims, often over time, making them feel comfortable and special. They often share explicit images or personal information first, so the victim feels comfortable or under pressure to reciprocate. 'Once they have the private images or information that's when they strike. 'They will suddenly switch, demand money and threaten to send the photos or information to friends, family and work colleagues. It's heartbreaking. 'It's vital you think carefully before you share anything private and report any form of blackmail or intimidation immediately to police, family, friends, or your bank or building society.' The survey also indicated that one in six students (17%) are exposed to suspect content such as scams at least once week, including fake goods being offered, fraudsters impersonating parents, money mule scams, investment scams, rogue traders and tenancy and rental deposit scams, as well as blackmail scams. Nationwide has a 'scamchecker' service encouraging people to contact it if they have doubts about a payment they are being asked to make. While students are aware of being targeted by scams, they are also concerned about their family and friends falling victim. Six in 10 (62%) worry about parents, grandparents and elderly relatives being scammed and three-quarters (75%) are concerned about vulnerable people. More than half of (52%) of students said they rely on parents and grandparents for advice on finance matters and 58% rely on university or college advice. Nationwide commissioned Censuswide to survey 2,000 students across the UK in May for the research.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
The vile reason a convicted rapist whose brutal torture of a 22-year-old woman left her permanently disfigured is appealing his SEVEN life sentences
A man who raped and tortured a woman for weeks has appealed his multiple life sentences, claiming he was not credited for his efforts to stop the victim from dying. Nicholas John Crilley was handed seven life sentences by a Queensland judge in 2020 after pleading guilty to 62 offences including grievous bodily harm, deprivation of liberty, torture and 18 counts of rape. Crilley's treatment of the woman, aged 22 at the time, in Brisbane in June 2017 left her permanently disfigured. He was arrested eight days after his offences following a dramatic pursuit through the city, during which he rammed police vehicles and carjacked an elderly woman. All three justices of the Court of Appeal on Wednesday said they had concerns about whether Crilley had genuine remorse. 'Even when he rings the ambulance, he does not say this is someone who for 23 days has been burned and abused and starved ... and she is likely to die,' Justice Thomas Bradley said. 'He said she had taken a turn for the worse and he did not know what was wrong ... to call that saving her life is a big stretch.' Justice David Boddice said there were arguments for Crilley wanting his victim to survive so she could suffer more. 'There are actual statements made by him in the course of it that he wanted to disfigure her so she was not attractive to other men,' he said. 'This was about maiming her for later in life.' Justice Bradley said Crilley's letter to the sentencing judge expressing remorse was 'disturbing' and referred to himself 28 times. Court of Appeal President Debra Mullins said the letter suggested Crilley had a personality disorder. 'A fair reading of the letter is that it is self-centred,' Justice Mullins said. Defence barrister Craig Eberhardt told the justices that his client's offences were 'horrendous' and showed 'incredible cruelty'. 'Our submissions do not change the character of the offending. We accept entirely that this remains in the worst category of this type,' he said. 'If (Crilley) had not called an ambulance, therefore saving her life, if he had not pleaded guilty and had cross-examined (the victim) at trial, if he was not remorseful, there would not be a complaint about the sentence imposed.' The justices heard Crilley acted against his own interests by not letting the victim die, which would have made it difficult to later convict him on multiple counts. Crown prosecutor Michael Lehane said there was evidence that Crilley thought the victim was so injured she would never be able to testify against him. 'She had not been conscious for three days. His thought was she could not speak,' he said. 'There was no consideration that she would be a critical prosecution witness.' Mr Lehane said the sentencing judge had considered Crilley's guilty plea. 'The nature of the offending simply overwhelmed these particular mitigating features and warranted life imprisonment,' he said. The justices reserved their judgment, which will be handed down at an undetermined date. Justice Mullins thanked Mr Eberhardt and Crilley's legal team. 'It's important that counsel take briefs that are very difficult matters, as this one was,' she said. Lifeline 13 11 14
