As to this, the Crown says … [specify the Crown case on intent to steal]. In many cases of online blackmail against young people, blackmailers start by manipulating, tricking or coercing them into sharing nude images of themselves. Charlie Antoski, 47, who had previously held high-level government contracts, was working as a contractor for an IT company when he was accidentally emailed the personal bank account details and private addresses of the firm's 1186 suppliers and other contractors as part of a data breach in November 2018.
Copyright © Judicial Commission of New South Wales 2020.
A subsequent and "lucrative" position with ANZ Bank was also terminated after it learned of his offending. No. property in the possession of or under the control of that person, and that demand is accompanied by threat or force.
Lawyers for The Age argued that naming Antoski did not threaten "the proper administration of justice". The offence of extortion or blackmail is committed when one person dishonestly makes a demand on another person for specified property in the possession of or under the control of that person, and that demand is accompanied by threat or force. Generally, it involves the threat of revealing embarrassing or damaging information about a person in order to coerce them to do something. Does the person making the demand and the person who would carry out the menaces have to be one and the same? How is a person’s intention established in a court of law? … [read indictment to jury]. But if you are so satisfied, then you go on to consider the second element. That is what I meant by saying that the matter is to be determined objectively, by your assessment of the reaction
This is not a necessary requirement under the Act. He has three months to pay his $40,000 fine. Antoski did not receive any blackmail payment from the IT company, but has since paid $50,000 towards its legal costs, the court heard.
Section 21 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 gives the following directions: “A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief –, (a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and, (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.”. The court heard Antoski was an accomplished IT specialist who had been dux of his year 12 class before graduating from Swinburne University with honours. The offence of extortion or blackmail is committed when one person dishonestly makes a demand on another person for specified
Antoski did not receive any blackmail payment from the IT company, but has since paid $50,000 towards its legal costs, the court heard.
For example, they might pretend they have hacked their webcams or computer history and have sexual images or embarrassing information. The first element to be proved by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt is that [the accused] made a demand on [the victim] for the property which is set out in the indictment. Most recently she was a police reporter at the Geelong Advertiser. The demand need not be communicated to the “target”, but there must be an intention to communicate it to the “target”, and
Charlie Antoski, 47, arriving at the County Court on Wednesday. One of these cases involved a victim receiving threats from an anonymous source, whereby private and intimate information was to be “withheld” by an anonymous blackmailer, providing the victim made regular cash payments … Blackmail is covered by Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968.
[The accused] is charged with an offence which lawyers generally refer to as “extortion”, but which most non-lawyers would term “blackmail” Save
Menaces may include a threat to expose a secret of some kind.
He said the threat of disclosing the data breach to others had the real potential to damage the company's reputation and cause it financial harm.
On the other hand, [the accused] says that … [specify the defence case on intent to steal]. Antoski – a married father of two – had lost a five-year senior government contract as a director of strategic decision-making as a result of being charged, the court heard. A demand could be implied and this may be sufficient evidence of blackmail for the sake of the Act.
[The accused] says that … [specify defence case as to demand].