LAWYERS will be given an opportunity to thrash out legal issues in a $3.4 million fraud case involving a former south-west woman.
Kylie Renee Lynd, 35, who is charged with 61 offences, appeared in Warrnambool Magistrates Court yesterday via a video link with a women’s prison for a committal mention hearing.
Magistrate Jonathan Klestadt adjourned the matter to a committal case conference to be held in Geelong on October 10.
He said if the case could not be resolved on that date it would return to Warrnambool court in mid-November.
The legal issues relate to the wording of charges.
Office of Public Prosecutions solicitor Raeleene Maxwell previously alleged that Ms Lynd wrote out cheques for up to $625,000, then used them to open accounts at financial institutions into which she deposited the cheques and obtained cash advances.
When the original cheques were dishonoured, Ms Lynd then went through the same process again using other financial institutions.
It is alleged Ms Lynd received cash, goods and services valued up to $200,000.
Detective Senior Constable Roger McClure, of Hamilton police, previously said Ms Lynd owed $25,000 to 18 businesses in Warrnambool, Hamilton, Macarthur and Casterton.
Ms Lynd has been held in custody since being extradited from NSW in May.
Yesterday, Ms Lynd’s solicitor Jonathan Makary said the defence did not take issue with the factual scenario but there were issues about the cheques she deposited and what Ms Lynd could actually obtain.
He said Ms Lynd had only obtained relatively small amounts and although the cheques added up to $3.4 million she had walked away with only about $27,000 from four main victims — a bank, two credit unions and Landmark.
Mr Makary said the defence wanted to cross-examine witnesses from each of the institutions about how much they would have realistically advanced on the deposited cheques.
He said the defence disputed that a lot more money could have been obtained by Ms Lynd, which was a key issue.
Ms Maxwell said a case conference would allow the defence and prosecution to get together to “nut out” the issues.
For example, she said charge No. 24 was attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception relating to a Commonwealth Bank cheque for $550,000.
The solicitor said the defence wanted the charge to be to make or use a false document. She said that when the cheque was lodged with a financial institution, Ms Lynd’s account was credited with $550,000, subject to the cheque being cleared, although everyone agreed Ms Lynd could not access all that money.