Dan Croke was a disadvantaged young man living in relative poverty in his formative years. This led Dan Croke to become a giver to others, not a taker. In a wide ranging interview Dan Croke explains that coming from a background of “living hand to mouth” in his early years, led to a lifetime of trying to build sustainable wealth for his own family and to give back to people he felt had been left behind.
Dan Croke is now a successful property investor, helping others to achieve financial freedom through investing. This Brisbane man, Dan Croke, who grew up in Warwick, Qld, moved to Brisbane and went on to become a wealthy property investor, having so far acquired almost 200 properties, some of which are individually worth as much as $5M and $10M. He has silently and anonymously helped scores of people over the years
You can find more at the Dan Croke website or by watching “A Current Affair” on Channel 9 from the 28th January 2021 about the secret philanthropist: Dan Croke.
Next Dan Croke
1 COURT OF APPEAL [1997] QCA 135 MACROSSAN CJ FITZGERALD P McPHERSON JA CA No 72 of 1997 THE QUEEN v. DANIEL JOHN CROKE BRISBANE ..DATE 08/05/97 JUDGMENT 080597 D.1 T13/SB M/T COA86/97 JUDGMENT 2 THE PRESIDENT: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence that was imposed in the District Court at Brisbane on 6 March 1997. On 20 January 1997 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of stealing and two counts of stealing with a circumstance of aggravation, the circumstance of aggravation in each count relating to the amount stolen. The offences were committed between 13 November 1992 and 15 April 1993. The applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently with a recommendation that he be eligible for parole after 12 months’ imprisonment. The applicant is 38 years of age born on 15 July 1958. He is married, has two children and has a minor criminal history which comprises three offences, a minor drug offence and driving offences. The offences, the subject of this application for leave to appeal, were committed by the applicant in his capacity as an agent for the Australian Mutual Providence Society, the AMP Society. The applicant was given funds from three clients to invest with the AMP. Count 1 concerned a cheque for $2,000 which was deposited directly into the applicant’s bank account. In relation to counts 2 and 3, the applicant received two cheques, one for $30,000 and one for $40,000 and deposited the cheques with the AMP and subsequently arranged for the amounts to be withdrawn in favour of the complainants. 080597 D.1 T13/SB M/T COA86/97 JUDGMENT 3 The cheque for $30,000 was mailed to the applicant’s home address and the cheque for $40,000 to a post office box which was registered to the applicant’s wife. The applicant fraudulently endorsed the cheques and the funds were deposited into his wife’s account. The applicant then invested the money in what were described as blue chip shares, obviously hoping to profit from doing so. The applicant’s deception was not discovered until about two years after the offences were committed and after he became aware of police investigations he sent cheques to the complainants which covered the original amounts together with interest. It seems that there was an attempted deception in what was done at that time in that the cheques were accompanied by letters which referred to the money as repayment of a loan agreement and in one of the letters there was an accusation by the applicant of the complainant that the loan agreement had been entered into for an improper purpose. I should mention that at an earlier point during the two year period one of the complainants had asked for some of her money back and the applicant had complied with that request. There was a lengthy committal hearing involving more charges of a different more serious nature and the indictment proposed likewise referred to additional charges. Negotiations with the prosecution were commenced one week prior to the trial date and resulted in the charges being altered to those to which the applicant pleaded guilty on the morning of 080597 D.1 T13/SB M/T COA86/97 JUDGMENT 4 his trial. The sentencing Judge said that he took into account the applicant’s plea of guilty and referred to the substantial saving of public money as a consequence of the applicant’s plea. The trial had been estimated to take three weeks. His Honour also referred to the applicant’s role as a father, his payment of restitution, his minor criminal history and the personal references tendered at the sentence. However, he said that the offences involved a substantial amount of money and were aggravated by what he described as the serious abuse of trust involved. The applicant continued to represent himself as an agent of AMP even after the agency had been terminated, further he maintained his innocence after the police became involved and the sentencing Judge considered that initially at least, the applicant showed no remorse. His Honour referred to the difficulty and expense involved in the detection of white collar crime and the need for general deterrence. The prosecution supports the sentence imposed. It submits that the appropriate range was a head sentence of two and a half to three and a half years imprisonment and that in the circumstances no or little allowance should be made for cooperation or an early plea. It was further submitted that the applicant cannot rely upon delays as a mitigating feature. The theft was successfully hidden by his active on-going deception. Further, as it was 080597 D.1 T13/SB M/T COA86/97 JUDGMENT 5 put, the payment of compensation should not enable the applicant to pay his way out of gaol. In the prosecution’s submission the offences involve large amounts of money and the applicant risked that money for personal gain. The respondent submitted that the sentencing Judge gave due weight to all relevant matters and that it cannot be said that the sentencing discretion miscarried. On the other hand, the applicant submits that in all the circumstances the sentence is manifestly excessive. In his submission the appropriate range is a wholly suspended sentence or a custodial sentence with a recommendation for eligibility for parole or suspension either immediately or after a period of imprisonment of between three and six months. Reliance was placed upon the applicant’s plea of guilty and it was claimed that because of his negotiations with the prosecution, it should be concluded that a plea of guilty was entered at the first available opportunity. Reliance was also placed upon the payment of full restitution immediately. The motivation for the commission of the offences, although I do not understand how it assists the applicant, was stated to be perceived financial necessity and it was submitted that he is unlikely to re-offend. The scheme involved the use of the complainant’s money to fund the applicant’s own investment with the intention of repaying the complainants. Another mitigating feature referred to was 080597 D.1 T13/SB M/T COA86/97 JUDGMENT 6 the lost career opportunities of the applicant as a valuer and probably as a licensed real estate agent or an insurance agent.
Nor, it was submitted, would he be able to be a director or manager of a corporation at least for a period. Reference was also made to the applicant’s gainful employment and freedom from criminal activity in the period since the offences were committed and to his personal obligations as a parent to children who have physical afflictions of a serious nature. It was submitted that the sentencing Judge erred in principle in not expressly referring to the benefits which the applicant brought to the family circle and reference was made to Bartorillo CA 161 and 163 of 1996. However, in my opinion, Bartorillo laid down no general principle that a sentencing Judge must always refer to family circumstances and did not demonstrate that the sentencing Judge erred in principle in failing to refer to the matters complained of by the applicant. Reliance was also placed on Powell CA 61 of 1994 which was an application by the Attorney-General. That case provides only limited assistance on this occasion for a number of reasons including the circumstance that the position adopted by the Attorney-General in his appeal against sentence demonstrably influenced the Court in its decision. 080597 D.1 T13/SB M/T COA86/97 JUDGMENT 7 I can find nothing wrong in the approach adopted by the sentencing Judge or in the sentences which he imposed and I would refuse the application. THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I agree. McPHERSON JA: I also agree. —–