In 2020, Mr Kotsifas plead guilty to five charges of theft and 18 charges of deficiency in a trust account without reasonable excuse or authorisation. Late last year, he appealed the decision on the grounds that the sentences on the theft charges, the total effective sentence and the non-parole period were manifestly excessive.

He also argued that the sentencing judge made the decision on the incorrect sum of $372,000, which referred to traces on all unauthorised transactions from the trust account but included an amount that did not fall under the charges.

Although the amount of money involved in the actual offending was lower, the Supreme Court did not consider that a lesser sentence should be imposed given that Mr Kotsifas’ conduct was “extremely serious” and his moral culpability was high.

“He took funds which had been entrusted to him for the purpose of providing legal services to his clients and used them to acquire and renovate, apparently on a grand scale, the house or houses in which he proposed to reside.

“The thefts and the trust account breaches were calculated, and the conduct was repeated a number of times over a significant period. Mr Kotsifas may have been primarily motivated by a need to accommodate his wife’s aspirations, but he of course benefited himself,” the Supreme Court found in the recent judgment.

Over a period of three years, Mr Kotsifas misappropriated the trust funds “as a result of his second wife’s expectations that he provide a lifestyle that was beyond his means”. The funds were used to pay rent and carry out major construction on two properties that he eventually lost due to a failure to service and complete settlement.

The sentencing judge set out six victim impact statements, which described the “significant emotional and financial toll” that Mr Kotsifas’ conduct had on them. It was clear from the statements that the offending caused them “great stress and anxiety”, and some of them had “lost faith in the legal profession as a whole”.

VIEW ALL

The sentencing judge found Mr Kotsifas had “engaged in significant and sustained acts of betrayal of trust and dishonesty”. His position as a solicitor and as a confidant meant that he was often on “friendly terms with some of [his clients] while [he] stole their money or manipulated their money across bank accounts” for personal use.

“In his honour’s view, this made [Mr Kotsifas’] conduct all the more reprehensible and increased his moral culpability. The fact that he had applied some of the stolen funds for his own personal benefit further increased his culpability for the offending was high. He was unable to discern any redeeming explanation,” the court found.

The entire judgment can be found on AustLII and JADE: Kotsifas v The Queen [2021] VSCA 368 (22 December 2021).