A Hobart teenager who stole nearly $5,000 from his retail store employer by masking payments as refunds on the payment terminal did it because he had things to pay for “all at once”, a court had heard.
Daniel James Watson, who was 18-years-old at the time, pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud for transferring money into his personal bank account between February 25, 2023 and May 27, 2023.
In a recent appearance at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Alan Blow revealed that Watson was employed as a casual customer service operator when he transferred six ‘refunds’ ranging from $499 to $999.99, totalling $4,895.98, into his account.
“On each occasion he disguised the payment as a refund transaction. On the first two occasions he did not create a refund transaction receipt. On the last four occasions he falsified refund transaction receipts,” Justice Blow said.
“[He] knew that he was not going to be rostered on for three or four weeks, and thought of falsifying refunds as a way of getting the money from his employer.”
“He acknowledged that the transactions were acts of stupidity.”
Watson was fired after other staff “identified discrepancies in the accounts” and launched an internal investigation, leading to a police interview during which he made “detailed admissions”.
Watson has since fully repaid his former employer using funds borrowed from his grandmother, who he has also paid back.
“I accept that what he did was out of character. He was unemployed for several weeks but then found a new job,” Justice Blow said.
“Because he was charged with fraud, rather than stealing or dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage, it was necessary for this case to be dealt with in the Supreme Court. That has delayed the finalisation of the proceedings, as well as having a significant impact on Mr Watson. I think he is unlikely to re-offend.”
Justice Blow determined that the “most appropriate course” was 50 hours of community service, a six-month community correction order and no criminal conviction.
“I have decided not to impose a conviction because of the scale of Mr Watson’s offending, his repayment of the money, his otherwise good character, his young age, and the likelihood that a conviction might cause him to lose his employment,” Justice Blow said.
