Fraud Offences in Victoria: What Are Your Rights When Police Want to Interview You?

Being contacted by police about a fraud allegation, whether by phone, letter, or in person, requires a careful and informed response. The decisions made before and during any police questioning can significantly affect the outcome of any subsequent criminal proceedings. This article explains the key rights and considerations for anyone in that position in Victoria. It is general information only and does not constitute legal advice.

Do you have to answer police questions about a fraud allegation?

No. The right to silence is a fundamental protection under both Victorian and Commonwealth law. A person suspected of a fraud offence is not required to answer police questions, whether they are approached for a voluntary interview or have been arrested. In Victorian criminal proceedings, no adverse inference is drawn at trial from a person's silence at the investigative stage. The jury is not told that the accused declined to speak to police, and the prosecution cannot use silence as evidence of guilt.

A voluntary interview is one the person agrees to attend without having been arrested. Police may invite a person under investigation to attend a station or speak with investigators informally. There is no obligation to attend. If a person does attend voluntarily and is not under arrest, they may leave at any time. The risk of participating in a voluntary interview without legal advice is that anything said can be admitted as evidence at trial, including as a prior inconsistent statement if the accused later gives evidence that differs from what was said to police.

If a person is arrested, they must be told the reason for the arrest and cautioned that they do not have to say anything but that anything they do say may be used in evidence. They have the right to communicate with a lawyer before and during questioning and to have a lawyer present during the interview if one is available. Under Victorian law, an arrested person must be brought before a bail justice or Magistrates Court within a reasonable time, and courts can exclude interview evidence obtained after an unreasonably long period of detention.

What happens during a recorded police interview in a fraud matter?

Interviews with suspects in serious matters must be electronically recorded where practicable. The recording preserves everything said, including partial answers, corrections, and demeanour, and it is typically played to the jury at trial. In fraud matters, investigators are focused on establishing the accused's knowledge and intent. Questions will target what the accused knew about the transactions in question, what authority or access they had, whether they believed documents or representations were genuine, and what they understood about the financial consequences of the conduct.

A common approach in complex fraud matters is for a suspect to attend an interview with a prepared written statement setting out their position, provide it to police, and then decline to answer further questions. This puts the accused's account on the record without the risks of open-ended questioning. The statement must be carefully prepared by the defence lawyer before the interview, as it becomes part of the evidentiary record and must be consistent with the documentary material the prosecution holds. This approach is not suitable in every case and requires legal advice specific to the circumstances.

How is the police interview used at trial?

In a contested fraud trial, the recorded police interview is typically played to the jury in full or in material parts. The jury hears the accused's answers alongside the documentary evidence the prosecution relies on. Where the accused made admissions at interview, the defence must have a clear and prepared response to those admissions before trial. Where the accused declined to answer, no adverse comment may be made about that silence and the jury is directed accordingly.

Under ss.84 and 85 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), admissions made during questioning may be excluded where the circumstances rendered them unreliable, or where the questioning breached procedural requirements such as the right to communicate with a lawyer or the caution obligation. Applications to exclude the record of interview are made at a pretrial voir dire hearing. An experienced fraud defence lawyer will assess at the outset of the matter whether any basis for exclusion applies.

What if ASIC or the ATO wants to examine you rather than police?

Regulatory bodies including the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Taxation Office have compulsory examination powers that operate differently from ordinary police interviews. Under s.19 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), ASIC can compel a person to appear and answer questions. The ordinary right to silence does not apply in that context. However, a person may claim privilege before answering a question, and any answer given after privilege is claimed cannot be used against that person as evidence in a subsequent criminal proceeding. Any answer given without claiming privilege can be used in evidence. The decision about whether and how to claim privilege in a compulsory examination requires specific legal advice before the examination takes place.

Compulsory examinations before IBAC under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 (Vic), or before the Australian Federal Police under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), each operate under their own statutory regimes with their own rules about the obligation to answer, privilege, and use immunity. These are distinct from an ordinary police interview and require separate legal advice specific to the examination type.

What should you do if police contact you about a fraud matter?

The most important step is to engage a criminal defence lawyer before responding to police in any way. This applies whether the contact is by phone, letter, or in person. Anything said to police before a lawyer is engaged can be used as evidence. The right to decline to speak without a lawyer present is most valuable at the earliest stage of an investigation, before the prosecution has formed its theory of the case around any admissions made.

Early engagement of a lawyer also allows the defence to assess the scope of the investigation, issue disclosure requests at the appropriate time, advise on whether to attend any interview and on what basis, and in some matters engage with investigators before any decision to charge is made. For matters of this kind, firms such as Doogue + George Defence Lawyers act in fraud and dishonesty matters at all stages from pre-charge investigation through to trial and appeal.