A travel agent from Sydney who was convicted of defrauding people out of their money in thousands of dollars has avoided further time in prison after the court ruled that further time would be a formality considering the time he had already spent.
The offender was due to appear in a court in Sydney this week to make a decision regarding a case of sentencing for multiple counts of fraud after the offender was previously convicted for the case.
Which caused people to be financially disappointed as their planned vacations did not come to pass because the flights were not taken or were canceled without the customers receiving the money back.
In arriving at a ruling, the judge recognized the gravity of the offense alongside the financial loss to the victim who had conserved to take a holiday that he would only take once in a lifetime.
Despite the gravity of the offense the court failed to increase the jail time citing the doctrine of proportionality where a sentencing effect would have been over bearing.
The travel agent has indeed been serving his sentence and will continue to be under strict monitoring and requirements imposed in relation to payment.
The judge explained that although there has been a breach of trust considering the nature of the travel industry there has been very little evidence pointing to an improvement in the community and victims if he were subjected to further imprisonment.
The victims were told that the perpetrator was still liable for restitution through existing court orders and civil procedures.
The judge was quoted as saying that accountability did not stop with the decision in the case and that financial restitution would still be pursued where possible.
Renewed debates surround consumer protection in the travel industry especially with travel bookings involving large pre payments.
There have been repeated suggestions and reminders to customers to seek the services of accredited travel agents and the advantages of credit cards that provide protection against non completion of services.
Advocates for consumers say the ruling puts into sharp relief the discrepancy between prison time and restitution.
Though prison time may correctly reflect the seriousness of fraud they say victims more often value recovering some money than having offenders put in prison longer.
The court underscored that it should not be construed as minimizing the injury.
In this regard, the fraud offenses against vulnerable consumers undermine market confidence and call for strong condemnation even when sentencing choices are confined by the time already served and individual circumstances of the fraudster.
The decision brings a measure of closure to the criminal proceedings for the affected customers while many are mindful that true recoveries will be a much longer process.
The court confirmed that the existing orders stay in force, enforcement continues through appropriate channels of the law.
