First Home Owner Grant and Other Prosecutions (updated to
the 1st July 2014)
The State Revenue Office has prosecuted a number of First Home Owner Grant applicants
for making false declarations in a FHOG application or in connection with a FHOG
application.
Since November 2010, 71 FHOG applicants have been successfully prosecuted under the
First Home Owner Grant Act 2000.
Some examples of those prosecuted include –
Identity fraud
A man was charged under the FHOG Act for providing false and misleading information in
obtaining a FHOG. He had multiple identities in other States, 7 previous properties and had
obtained 3 prior FHOGs. He had numerous previous convictions for deception, dishonesty,
theft and other offences. He repaid the grant of $7,000 prior to his court appearance,
pleaded guilty and was convicted in the Magistrates Court. He was fined $5,000 as well as
ordered to pay costs of $3,110.55. He was also ordered to repay the SRO $7,520.26 being
unpaid penalty and interest.
A man was charged under the FHOG Act for giving false information in writing and falsifying
his identity to obtain a FHOG. The man had several prior criminal convictions of a dishonest
nature. Prior to the court hearing he had repaid $8,000 of the $14,000 owing. The man
pleaded guilty at his court hearing and was sentenced with conviction to an aggregate fine
of $2,000 and $68.10 costs.
A lawyer that created various fictitious identities and transfers of land to facilitate a
concession in stamp duty for a property he had purchased. He was charged under the
Taxation Administration Act with various charges the most serious being a charge of tax
evasion. The now ex-lawyer pleaded guilty to four charges including the one of the tax
evasion. On the tax evasion charge he was convicted and sentenced to a period of 4 months
imprisonment wholly suspended for 12 months. On the other charges he was sentenced
with conviction to an aggregate fine of $5000, costs of $2048.10 were also ordered to be
paid to the SRO. The Magistrate indicated that but not for the plea of guilty an immediate
custodial term would have been imposed.
Did not meet residential obligations of FHOG
A man was charged under the FHOG Act for providing false and misleading information in
obtaining a FHOG as well not residing in a property for which a FHOG had been obtained. He
had 15 previous convictions for dishonesty and assault. He repaid the grant of $10,000 prior
to his court appearance, pleaded guilty to 2 charges and was convicted in the Magistrates
Court. He was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay costs of $1,211.10.
A man was charged under the FHOG Act for providing false and misleading information in
obtaining a FHOG, Boost and Bonus of $17,000 as well as making a false report to a tax
officer. The man had never resided in the property and instead used it to grow a hydroponic
marijuana crop. He also obtained a Principal Place of Residence (PPR) duty concession which
he was not entitled to. He pleaded guilty to 3 charges in the County Court and was
convicted and fined $550 and ordered to repay the SRO the grant and any concessions
totalling $25,000 within 60 days.
A man was charged under the FHOG Act for failing to notify the Commissioner that he did
not meet the residence requirement and failed to repay the grant. The man had leased his
property and never resided in it. He repaid the grant of $10,000 prior to his court
appearance, pleaded guilty to one charge and no conviction was recorded. The Magistrate
fined him $1000 and ordered $700 in costs be paid to the SRO.
A man was charged under the FHOG Act for providing false and misleading information in
obtaining a FHOG of $7,000 as well as making a false report to a tax officer. The man had
never resided in the property and instead used it to grow a hydroponic marijuana crop. He
also obtained a Principal Place of Residence (PPR) duty concession which he was not entitled
to. He pleaded guilty to 3 charges and was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of
imprisonment of 54 days and to pay the SRO costs.
Failure to disclose prior interest in property and receipt of a FHOG
A woman was charged under the FHOG Act for providing false and misleading information in
obtaining a FHOG and Bonus of $12,000. She falsely declared that her spouse had not
received an earlier FHOG and also falsely declared that she had not resided in a property in
which she and/or her spouse had a relevant interest. She had 12 other aliases but no
previous convictions and pleaded guilty to 2 charges in the Magistrates Court. She was
convicted and received a 12 month good behaviour bond on the condition that she repay
$12,000 to the SRO within 30 days as well as $674.51 in costs and disbursements to the
SRO.
Individuals failing to disclose partner/spouse
A woman was charged under the FHOG Act for providing false and misleading information in
obtaining a FHOG. This woman had obtained a FHOG and bonus of $12,000 by falsely
declaring that she did not have a spouse and that her and her spouse had not resided in a
property for 6 months in which her or her spouse had obtained an interest. She was
convicted and fined $1,000 and ordered to pay costs and disbursements to the SRO.
A man was charged under the FHOG Act for providing false and misleading information in
obtaining a FHOG, Bonus, Boost and Regional Bonus totalling $29,000. He did not declare on
a FHOG application that he had a spouse or that his spouse at the time of the application
had a prior interest in 3 properties. He had no previous convictions and pleaded guilty to 3
charges in the Magistrates Court. He was convicted and received a 12 month good
behaviour bond and ordered to pay $41,000 compensation together with costs and
disbursements to the SRO.
A man was charged under the FHOG Act for providing false and misleading information in
obtaining a FHOG and also not meeting the residential requirements. This man had obtained
a FHOG in the amount of $26,000. The man failed to disclose his partner who had previously
received a FHOG and the man also did not live in his property. The man had no previous
convictions and pleaded guilty to the charges. The man was sentenced without conviction to
a Community Correction Order for a period of 12 months requiring the completion of 200
hours of unpaid community work and $5000 donation to the Royal Children’s Hospital and
that the costs of the SRO be paid.
A woman was charged under the FHOG Act for providing false and misleading information in
obtaining a FHOG. This woman had obtained a FHOG in the amount of $12,000 by falsely
declaring that she did not have a spouse. The woman had no prior convictions and pleaded
guilty to the charges. The woman was sentenced without conviction to a Community
Correction Order for a period of 12 months requiring the completion of 100 hours of unpaid
community work. The woman was also required to pay the SRO’s costs.
Detection of false and misleading information prior to approval
A woman declared in a FHOG application that she had no prior interest in property and also
presented a forged gas account to the SRO to support her application. Fraud was detected
prior to the grant being paid. She had no previous convictions and pleaded guilty to 2
charges in the Magistrates Court. She was not convicted but received a 12 month good
behaviour bond and was ordered to contribute $1,000 to the Court fund. She was also
ordered to pay costs and disbursements to the SRO.
A couple were charged under the FHOG Act for providing false and misleading information
to obtain a FHOG. The application was detected before a grant was paid to the couple. One
partner had previously owned property and obtained a FHOG. The spouse had obtained a
FHOG but had not disclosed her partner’s previous interest in property or previous FHOG.
Despite this the spouse signed the FHOG declaration supporting her partner’s false answers.
They pleaded guilty to 1 charge each and while no conviction was recorded the partner
received a good behaviour bond for 12 months, ordered to pay $500 to the Victorian Flood
Appeal and ordered to pay costs and a disbursement to the SRO. His spouse received no
conviction, but a good behaviour bond for 12 months and ordered to pay costs to the SRO.
A couple were charged under the FHOG Act for providing false and misleading information
in attempting to obtain a FHOG. The application was detected before a grant was paid to
them. The couple both declared in a FHOG application that they did not have a prior
relevant interest in property. Each person signed the FHOG declaration supporting the
other’s false answers. They had no previous convictions and pleaded guilty to 1 charge each
in the Magistrates Court. Both were not convicted but each were fined $2,500 and ordered
to pay costs and disbursements to the SRO of $127.50 each by 18 July 2011. The Magistrate
commented on how unimpressed he was that 2 well educated people had appeared on such
charges given that one had previously owned 2 properties.