iscoverAn office manager’s appeal to overturn an 18-month prison sentence has failed after she stole $178,252 from the small construction company she worked for.
Office manager lands 18-month prison sentence after stealing $178,252
25 September 2025
•
9 minute read
On 30 January 2025, a former office manager was sentenced to 18 months in prison with a 12-month non-parole period after she stole $178,252 from the small, family-owned construction company she worked for.
On Monday (22 September 2025), her appeal against the sentence failed as the Supreme Court of Victoria found no error in the original judgment, and little evidence of remorse.
You’re out of free articles for this month
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
The office manager, who had been formally employed by the company since 2009, was in charge of checking bank statements and cash flow, managing and banking all cheque and cash payments, as well as checking building permits acquired, payments entered and quotations made by the business.
She had access to the company’s bank accounts and managed two of its company credit cards, an arrangement the court said had been based on trust. This access was used to pay suppliers’ invoices, manage funds coming into the businesses and pay staff wages, including her own.
However, in 2015 and 2016, her employer noticed anomalies in the company’s monthly timber purchase orders. Alongside the usual payment of roughly $35,000, there were several smaller transfers of $1,000 and $2,000 made to the supplier.
He initially accepted the officer manager’s explanation regarding the payments. However, in July 2019, he noticed the anomalous smaller payments appearing more frequently than usual.
On 25 July, the owner enlisted the help of an accountant to get to the bottom of it, but the office manager said she was unable to log into the account when requested by the accountant.
Later, on 30 July, the owner asked the office manager to accompany him to the bank. The teller informed the owner that the ‘suspicious’ smaller transactions had been transferred into the office manager’s joint account with her partner.
The office manager suggested that this was impossible as the joint account had been closed ‘a long time ago.’ However, it was revealed that the joint account had been active until the day prior, when the remaining money was withdrawn and the account was closed by her partner.
Initially, the office manager denied having stolen the money and blamed her partner for accessing the account and taking the money. She also denied closing the account and offered to show the solicitor her text history as evidence.
The texts showed her telling her partner that she needed to close the account, to which he responded ‘Ok.’
After a meeting on 31 July 2019, the officer manager’s employment was terminated and the matter was reported to the police on 21 August.
She was interviewed by police in August 2022, pleaded guilty on 6 December 2024 and was sentenced on 30 January 2025.
On Monday (22 September), the judge refused her appeal due to the nature of her offending, including the "significant breach of trust” and “significant theft.”
“[The business] was a small, family-owned business that had reposed significant trust in the applicant for 10 years and had given her access to the bank accounts, including for the purpose of paying her own salary and the salaries of other employees,” the judge noted.
The judge also found that the amount stolen – almost $200,000 – was a significant proportion of the revenue of a small business. They added that the officer manager had stolen the money ‘for more than just need,’ as some of the funds had been stolen while she was holidaying in Bali.
The court found that the breach of trust had been a relevant part of the offending during sentencing, and emphasised the importance of deterring such behaviour.
“Where there has been a significant breach of trust involved in the offending, general deterrence and denunciation are of paramount importance in sentencing,” court documents read.
“Online banking is a fundamental part of modern business. Whilst efficient, it is relatively simple for vulnerable people, including those who place their trust in their employees, to fall victim to theft and fraud.
“For that reason, it is important that it is made plain to others who are tempted to supplement their funds by helping themselves to their employer’s funds that they will face stern punishment.”
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!
