NDIS Fraud Laws, Offences And Penalties In Australia

Recently, content creators Pete Zogoulas and Drew Pavlou posted footage, which went viral, from their visit to a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provider known as Sunny Days Care in Fairfield, Sydney. The footage is part of their independent investigation into alleged NDIS fraud in Sydney and can be viewed here.

Since the video was posted on 10 March 2026 it has attracted significant public attention, including commentary in Parliament, television and radio.

What is NDIS?

NDIS means National Disability Insurance Scheme. This scheme is a Government funded scheme that provides funding to eligible people with disability in order to provide greater independence, access to skills, employment, enhanced quality of life, and greater capacity to spend time with family and friends. The Scheme also provides connections to community services, doctors, community groups, sporting clubs, support groups, libraries and schools for each state and territory of Australia.

The NDIS scheme in Australia supports over half a million Australians with disability to access essential services and support required. This includes about 80,000 children with developmental delay to ensure that early support is provided.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) represents a significant component of Commonwealth expenditure. Allegations of fraud within the scheme have therefore attracted increasing regulatory and public scrutiny.

Some of the NDIS providers captured in Zogoulas and Pavlou’s vigilante documentary have retained the services of a Western Australian law firm. While the law firm’s letter was largely redacted before being added to Zogoulas and Pavlou’s social media, some of the breaches of the law alleged against the pair are still visible.

Over the last decade, the prevalence of independent journalism has increased significantly, due to the availability of video based social media platforms. In the United States, content creator Nick Shirley similarly set out to publish comparable content, which has also generated public interest.

This article covers the criminal offences that apply to fraud against the Commonwealth, including NDIS fraud. We also provide a high level summary of some independent journalism activities that could carry criminal or civil liability, and the potential impact of that illegality on any criminal prosecution of anyone charged with fraud against the Commonwealth of Australia.

What is NDIS Fraud?

NDIS fraud is the intentional dishonest obtaining of funds from the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Examples of NDIS fraud conduct includes NDIS businesses issuing fake invoices, overcharging or creating fake customers as the means to issue fake invoices to the Government. Many people have been caught committing NDIS fraud by such means stealing millions which have led to arrests and imprisonment penalties, including the seizure of assets by police.

NDIS Fraud Reporting, Investigations and Prosecutions

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) prosecutes Commonwealth fraud offences in Australia.

The following offences can be laid for fraud of various kinds, including National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) benefit fraud, Medicare fraud, Centrelink fraud, Commonwealth Child Care Subsidy Scheme (CCSS) fraud, identity fraud, disaster payment fraud, and others.

As set out on the CDPP website there is significant overlap between the different charges that can be laid to prosecute instances of fraud against the Commonwealth.

The Federal Police or State Police can investigate suspicious NDIS fraud activities based on community tips. They will gather relevant evidence before determining whether or not there is adequate evidence to prove an NDIS offence before formally charging the suspect. The commonwealth DPP for commonwealth fraud offences will then get involved to prosecute the accused person in criminal proceedings. 

Definitions of “Deception”, “Dishonesty” and “Obtaining”

Some important definitions for the purposes of understanding the different charges available to the prosecution are as follows:

“Obtaining” means any one of the following:

• You received ownership, possession or control of it for yourself or another person; or
• You enabled ownership, possession or control to be retained by yourself; or
• You induced a third person to pass ownership, possession or control to another person, or
• You induced a third person to enable another to retain ownership, possession or control of it

“Deception” can be intentional or reckless, it can be through words or conduct, and whether as to fact or law, and includes:

• A deception as to your intentions or that of another person, and
• Conduct that causes a computer, machine or electronic device to make a response you are not authorised to cause

“Dishonesty” means dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people and known to the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.

Where offences involving ‘obtaining’ property or a financial advantage are available, alongside general dishonesty offences, the prosecution will generally prefer the former.

This is consistent with the CDPP policy which stipulates that the more serious charge disclosed by the evidence should be laid. However, this is not always the case, and the selection of charges depends on the facts of the allegation and the practicality of prosecuting the matter.

Common Examples of NDIS Fraud Offences and Penalties

The most commonly laid Commonwealth fraud offences are set out below.

Obtaining Property by Deception

The offence of obtaining property by deception is contained in section 134.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995(Cth).

To sustain a conviction, the Prosecution must prove each of the following beyond reasonable doubt:

• You “dishonestly” “obtained” property belonging to another; and
• You did so by a “deception”; and
• You intended to permanently deprive the other of the property; and
• The property belonged to a Commonwealth entity.

The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment. You can also be ordered to repay whole or part of the debt under an order for restitution.

Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception

 The offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception is contained in section 134.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

In order to sustain a conviction, the Prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt:

• The defendant “dishonestly” “obtained” a financial advantage; and
• The defendant was “deceptive” in doing so; and
• The financial advantage belonged to a Commonwealth entity.

The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment. You can also be ordered to repay all or part of the debt under an order for restitution.

There is an alternative version of the charge of obtaining a financial advantage contained in section 135.2 the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). This alternative does not have dishonesty or deception as an element, which makes it significantly easier for the prosecution to establish the charge. For this offence to be made out, the Prosecution must prove:

• You engaged in conduct; and
• As a result of that conduct you obtained an advantage for yourself or someone else; and
• You knew or believed that you were not eligible to receive that financial advantage; and
• The advantage was gained from a Commonwealth entity.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 12 months’ imprisonment.

General Dishonesty Offences

The general dishonesty offences are contained in section 135.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). These offences include obtaining a gain or causing a loss.

To sustain a conviction for the offence of obtaining a gain, the prosecution must prove:

• You did anything with the intention of dishonestly obtaining a gain from another person; and
• The other person is a Commonwealth entity.

The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment

To sustain a conviction for the offence of causing a loss, the prosecution must prove

• You did anything with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to another person; and
• The other person is a Commonwealth entity

The charge will be made out if you dishonestly caused a loss, or dishonestly caused a risk of loss to another person, and if you knew or believed that the loss will either occur or that there was a substantial risk of the loss occurring.

The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.

Recent examples of Prosecutions of Commonwealth Fraud

In 2019, members of a syndicate found to be defrauding the Commonwealth Childcare Subsidy Scheme through a centre known as Red Roses Day Care were charged and found guilty.

The ring leaders Alee Farman and his wife Lubna Hashimy, who reportedly pocketed $30,000 per fortnight, were sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment. None of the money was recovered.

Liability of Independent Journalists

The following section of this article covers some of the criminal offences and civil suits that may apply to the conduct of independent journalists under the current law. The applicability of these breaches of the law will depend on all of the circumstances.

Trespass Offence in New South Wales

Trespass can lead to civil suits and/or criminal charges in NSW. Trespass is a trivial criminal offence, punishable by a fine only of an on the spot fine of 5 penalty units ($550). The more aggravated trespass offence carries up to 20 penalty units ($2,200) concerning prescribed premises under the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW).

What is the meaning of Inclosed Lands? The Inclosed Lands Act 1901 (NSW) defines “inclosed lands” as any of the following:

• a government school or a registered non-government school
• achildcare service,
• ahospital,
• a nursing home
• any land, either public or private, inclosed or surrounded partly or wholly by a fence, a wall or other erection, or partly by a fence, or some natural feature (such as a canal, river or cliff) so that its boundaries may be known or recognised. This includes the whole or part of any building or structure, including any land that the building is situated on.

Section 4 of the Inclosed Lands Act 1901 (NSW) contains one of the offences for trespass. To sustain a conviction, the prosecution must prove that you did each of the following things:

• You entered onto an “inclosed land” without the consent of the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge
• You had no lawful excuse (noting that the proof of lawful excuse lies on the person entering the land); and
• You remained on a remain on the “inclosed lands” after being requested by the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands to leave

The maximum penalty for a breach of section 4 is (noting 1 penalty unit = $110):

• 10 penalty units if you enter and stay ona government school or a registered non-government school, a childcare service, a hospital, or a nursing home
• 5 penalty units in any other case.

Section 4B makes it a more serious offence to, amongst other things, breach section 4 and simultaneously interfere with (including an attempt or intention to interfere with), the conduct of a business or undertaking, or to do anything that gives rise to serious risk to the safety of a person. The maximum penalty increases to a fine of 50 penalty units for a breach of section 4B.

Whether conduct amounts to trespass will depend heavily on the factual circumstances, including the nature of the premises and whether consent (express or implied) can be established.

Recording Without Consent Laws

The law on recording someone without consent in NSW is found in section 7 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) which prohibits using a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation, unless amongst other things, it is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interest of that principal party, for example, due to threats or abuse.

Whether the recording is reasonably necessary depends on the circumstances of each case. If a person could have easily approached police for the police to obtain a warrant under the law to conduct the secret recording then this weighs against it being considered reasonably necessary.

A conversation is not considered private if, in all the circumstances, the parties involved should reasonably expect that the conversation could be overheard by someone else.

Examples of situations that amount to “reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests” of the person making the recording include the following:

• Where there was no alternative practicable approach to the secretly recording, for example, via approaching police for assistance who may go about this the lawful way via a warrant.
• Recording made in context of a serious dispute that will be given great weight in court.
• Recording was made to refute false accusations of fabrication or concerning serious criminal allegations or child safety concerns.

Section 8 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) prohibits the use of an optical surveillance device to record or observe a private activity without the consent of the parties involved.

Importantly, not all video recording will fall within this prohibition. Recording that takes place in public, or in circumstances where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, will generally not constitute a “private activity” for the purposes of the Act.

Whether the use of a device contravenes the Act is highly fact-dependent, particularly in determining whether a ‘private conversation’ or “private activity” existed in the circumstances.

The law imposes a 5 years imprisonment sentence and/or $11,000 fine to an individual if that person publishes or communicates to any person, a private conversation or a record of the carrying on of an activity, or a report of a private conversation or carrying on of an activity, that has come into the person’s knowledge as a direct or indirect result of the use of a listening device, an optical surveillance device or a tracking device in contravention of Part 2 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), pursuant to section 11 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW).

Further to this, the same penalties apply to a person who possesses a record of a private conversation or the carrying on of an activity knowing that it has been obtained by the use of a listening device, optical surveillance device or tracking device in breach of these laws.

Defamation Laws

Defamation may arise where material published identifies an individual or entity and conveys imputations that harm their reputation. Even where allegations of fraud are made in good faith, liability may arise if those allegations cannot be substantiated.

Potential defences are set out in Part 4 Division 2 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

Some of the defamation defences include:

• Truth – section 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW),
• Honest opinion – section 31 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW),
• Publication of matter concerning issue of public interest – section 29A of the Defamation Act 2005(NSW),

Whether such defences are available will depend on the steps taken to verify the information and the manner in which it is presented.

Impact on Prosecution

Section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) provides that evidence obtained improperly or in contravention of an Australian law is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in that way.

This means that even where evidence is obtained in a manner that may contravene the law, this does not necessarily prevent its use in criminal proceedings. Rather, the Court has the discretion to exclude evidence pursuant to section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) which has been obtained improperly.

In determining this balance, a court may consider factors including:

• The probative value of the evidence
• The nature of the contravention of the law
• Whether the contravention was deliberate or reckless
• The seriousness of the offence being investigated

The activities of independent content creators in investigating alleged fraud raise overlapping legal issues, including potential criminal liability, civil exposure, and evidentiary considerations. The application of legal protections which apply outside of established media organisations remains legally and factually complex.

On one hand, the conduct of independent journalism may assist in identifying and publicising alleged wrongdoing. On another, the methods used to obtain that material may themselves give rise to legal consequences.

As the prevalence of non-traditional journalism continues to increase, these issues are likely to remain an area of ongoing legal and public debate.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.