Used Someone Else’s Card, Bank Details or Online Account? In NSW, That Can Become a Fraud Charge Fast

A lot of fraud clients do not think of themselves as fraudsters.

They think: “It was only one transaction.” “It was my partner’s card.” “They gave me the login before.” “I was going to pay it back.” “It was just a tap-and-go.” or “I only used the account because I was desperate.”

Then police lay a charge under section 192E of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and suddenly what felt like a messy personal situation is being described as deception, dishonesty, and financial advantage.

If that sounds dramatic, it is because NSW fraud law is broad – and right now, fraud and identity-related offending are everywhere. The ABS reported on 12 March 2026 that 3.2 million Australians – about 1 in 7 people – experienced personal fraud in 2024-25. Of those, 2.3 million experienced card fraud, 596,600 experienced a scam, 220,400 experienced identity theft, and 500,000 experienced online impersonation.

That data is about victimisation, not guilt. But it helps explain why police, banks, insurers and courts are now treating card use, account access, identity misuse and online deception as major criminal issues rather than minor side matters.

What is the actual offence?

The main NSW fraud provision is section 192E of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The Judicial Commission’s Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book summarises it clearly: a person commits fraud if, by any deception, they dishonestly obtain property belonging to another, obtain a financial advantage, or cause a financial disadvantage. The Bench Book also stresses a crucial point: “deception” and “dishonestly” are separate elements and the prosecution must prove both.

That matters enormously for defence work.

Why? Because many fraud matters are not really about whether money moved. Money often did move. The fight is about how it moved, what was represented, what authority existed, what the accused believed, and whether the prosecution can truly prove dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt.

What are the penalties?

Fraud under s 192E is serious. The offence can carry up to 10 years’ imprisonment when dealt with on indictment. Even where a matter stays in the Local Court, exposure remains significant. That is one reason the Judicial Commission’s Sentencing Bench Book treats fraud as an important offence category and directs courts to factors such as the amount involved, planning, breach of trust, repetition, sophistication and impact on the victim.

So when someone says “it was only a few transactions,” that is not necessarily the end of the analysis. Courts will look at whether this was one impulsive misuse or a course of deceptive conduct over time.

What counts as “deception” in real life?

This is where the law becomes very practical very fast.

Using another person’s card at an ATM.
Using saved card details online after permission ended.
Accessing a former partner’s account.
Pretending to be the account holder.
Using identification information to get goods, services or money.
Making false online representations to obtain payment.
Using an online marketplace, dating platform or fake identity to induce transfers.

Those are all situations that can slide into fraud territory depending on the facts.

National Criminal Lawyers® already has internal content that is related:

• Obtain Benefit by Deception | Fraud
• The Lure of Romance Scams — which references a client charged with numerous deception and identification-information offences
• Cybercrimes, What Are They? — useful for identity theft, phishing, hacking and fake-profile scenarios
• ANZ Email Scam Allowing Criminals To Steal All Your Life Savings — useful where the blog wants to bridge online scam conduct and NSW fraud law under s 192E

Why these cases are increasing in practical importance

Because fraud is no longer just a white-collar problem.

The ABS fraud release shows how widespread card fraud, scams and identity misuse have become. NSW Police publicly warn that fraud now ranges from romance scams to card skimming to identity theft. ID Support NSW also announced last week that Cybercrime Squad detectives charged a man over an alleged $5 million crypto investment scam targeting vulnerable Australians. And police in Wagga Wagga announced a separate fraud arrest just four days ago.

For a criminal defence firm, that wider context matters. It explains why police may come into what a defendant sees as a private dispute and treat it as part of a much broader fraud enforcement environment.

“But I was going to pay it back” – does that save you?

Not necessarily.

One of the most useful points from the statute and the Judicial Commission is that willingness to repay is not the same as absence of dishonesty. Section 192E itself states that obtaining property may still be dishonest even if the person is willing to pay for it. That is a devastating point for defendants who assume later repayment solves the earlier deception.

Repayment can still matter. It may matter greatly on sentence, in negotiations, or in how the overall conduct is characterised. But it does not automatically erase criminal liability.

What does the Judicial Commission say about how courts sentence fraud?

The Sentencing Bench Book is useful here because it gets away from vague moralising and into the factors that actually move outcomes.

The Judicial Commission identifies amount, duration, planning, sophistication, breach of trust, role, and victim impact as key seriousness factors in fraud offending. It also recognises that state fraud offences sit alongside identity-crime offences and forgery offences, which often means a single factual situation can generate multiple charges. Courts then also consider the usual subjective matters – remorse, mental health, prior record, restitution, rehabilitation, and plea timing.

That is why proper defence work matters. In a good case, the legal fight may be about whether there was deception at all. In another case, it may be about reducing the alleged course of conduct, limiting the amount, resisting identity-crime add-ons, or presenting strong subjective material so the matter does not become career-ending.

How these cases often go wrong for defendants

Usually in one of three ways.

First, they underestimate how much digital evidence exists.
Second, they talk too much in interview.
Third, they assume a personal relationship means there could not have been deception.

All three assumptions are dangerous.

Phones, bank records, logins, IP history, text chains, screenshots, emails and messages can all be used to build a prosecution narrative. And once police phrase the case as “you pretended to be someone else” or “you used access you no longer had permission to use,” the matter can sound much worse than the accused expected.

That is why NCL’s Police Interviews – What Should You Do? Page is especially relevant and useful for these matters. In fraud matters, a rushed explanation often becomes one of the prosecution’s strongest pieces of evidence.

Contact Us

If you have been accused of fraud in NSW, obtaining a financial advantage by deception, using someone else’s card or bank details, identity-related offending, or an online deception allegation, do not assume you can “explain it away” later. Fraud matters often look simple to police on paper and far more complex in real life. The earlier you get legal advice, the better your chance of controlling the facts, protecting your position, and avoiding a result that follows you for years.

At National Criminal Lawyers®, we defend fraud, deception and cyber-related allegations across Sydney and NSW. We know how these cases are charged, how digital evidence is used, and how to build the kind of legal response that can genuinely change the outcome.

Call us at 1800 CRIM LAW for a free consultation. Help us help you understand your situation and get you the best outcome possible.