The appellants were convicted of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in relation to a high yield investment scam.
On appeal, they argued the trial judge erred in admitting expert profiling evidence, giving confusing jury instructions on conspiracy, and admitting preliminary inquiry evidence.
The Court of Appeal found the expert evidence was properly admitted and the preliminary inquiry evidence met the statutory requirements.
However, the trial judge erred in his conspiracy instructions by presenting it as an 'all or nothing' proposition and failing to properly explain the Carter stages.
The conspiracy convictions were set aside.
The court also reduced one appellant's restitution order by two-thirds to reflect the shared responsibility of all three co-accused.
