Simone Selkirk appeals ruling after being found guilty of David Jones scam

A once high-flying lawyer and consultant found guilty of using a fake name and receipts to swindle David Jones stores out of thousands of dollars has taken her case to the NSW Supreme Court.

Simone Olivia Selkirk’s sentencing for multiple counts of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception has been delayed as a result.

In a decision at Sydney’s Downing Centre Local Court in December, the Darling Point woman was found to have raked in $16,000 in refunds for clothes and bedding she returned to several David Jones outlets between July 2016 and August 2018.

The court previously heard the 45-year-old produced fake online receipts, under the name of “Samantha Ellison”, in the form of emails to dupe staff at David Jones stores in Elizabeth St, Barangaroo, Bondi Junction and Chatswood.

She returned goods including Country Road clothes and expensive bed sheets, with refunds being made to her personal credit card.

Where the items originated from remains a mystery, with the court hearing last year there were no records of the clothes and bedding ever being bought from the department stores.

But before her first slated sentence date in February, Selkirk lodged an appeal over Magistrate Lisa Viney’s decision in the NSW Supreme Court.

She did not appear before the Downing Centre on Monday, which heard the matter would be adjourned until August 3 to allow time for her appeal heard on June 11 to be decided.

Justice Stephen Campbell has reserved his judgment.

Selkirk is the former director of consulting firm Marc1 and ran her own style and lifestyle blog as editor of MARC Fashion.

The eastern suburbs woman was arrested in October 2018 and was later charged with dozens of offences, including 34 counts of dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception.

She was also hit with 15 counts of dealing with the proceeds of crime, which were later withdrawn.

Selkirk entered a late guilty plea to four counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception before reneging and unsuccessfully defending the charges at hearing.



Source link

Leave a comment

Sign Up Now

Become a member of our online community and get tickets to upcoming matches or sports events faster!