In December 2020, Sara Daizli, who worked as an employee of St George Bank in the western suburbs of Sydney, was arrested and charged with more than 100 fraud offences after she allegedly masterminded a complex fraud to steal close to $600,000 belonging to unsuspecting bank clients, including an elderly woman whose whole retirement savings were stolen without her knowledge.
The case of Sara Daizli stands out as a sobering lesson to Australian consumers: even reputable employees at the bank may use their access to customer accounts to perpetrate their white-collar fraud and ruin their lives. Since Sara Daizli is standing trial after committing her supposed crimes, it is important to know how her supposed fraud worked, the victims of the crime, and the fact that the Australian consumers did not have many legal tools to help them when they fell prey to the scam, demonstrating that there are serious loopholes in the financial security system in Australia.
Who is Sara Daizli?
Arrested in December 2020, Sara Daizli (or Sara Diaz Sukkar), a 29-year-old, is a worker at St George Bank in Sydney. She was placed in a role that gave her approved access to the customer account and banking systems, authority that prosecutors claim she used methodically in plotting one of the largest insider fraud schemes in Australian history.
Police define Daizli as the mastermind behind a grand fraud ring, and that others helped her in carrying out her scheme. Daizli was reportedly a glamorous lady of Sydney social life when she was arrested; she could be seen in the photos posing in the most expensive restaurants as well as regularly travelling abroad. The government accuses her of the opulent lifestyle that she funded exclusively with the stolen money of customers.
The Alleged Fraud Scheme: How It Worked
Between February 2016 and December 2018, Sara Daizli also supposedly organised a multi-layered, sophisticated fraud scheme using her insider position in St George Bank.
Creating Fictitious Accounts
Daizli reportedly employed her credit card access to open online banking accounts in the names of non-real individuals through her bank’s systems. To accommodate these imagined identities, she developed forged driver’s licenses, which served as a kind of vehicle where the stolen money could be channelled and stored until it could be accessed and moved on.
Unauthorised Fund Transfers from Real Customers
The crux of her so-called scheme was that she would debit legitimate customer accounts without their knowledge or authorisation and credit the debit into the so-called fictitious accounts where she was in control. Between February 2016 and October 2017, she is said to have transferred 82 fraudulent transactions worth more than $146,000. Daizli is also said to have tracked the movement of accounts and erased the transaction records to cover her offences.
Targeting an Elderly Victim
Targeting vulnerable and elderly customers is one of the most concerning features of the alleged scheme. According to the police, Daizli spotted an elderly person in their 80s and gradually emptied about $350,000 of their retirement and personal savings. The customer, not familiar with using the internet to conduct financial transactions, was not aware that his or her life savings were being stolen.
Fraudulent Loan Applications and Co-Worker Coercion
Daizli supposedly filed loan applications in the ANZ Bank and St George Bank falsely in unidentified names, where he was seeking a loan in the tune of about $62,000. She also allegedly pressured other employees of the St George Bank to withdraw money from customer accounts and transfer them to her controlled accounts, turning them into unwitting accomplices.
Criminal Charges and Legal Defence
In January 2025, Sara Daizli was charged with 116 to 120 counts of fraud, which made her case one of the largest insider fraud cases in the history of Australian banking.
Some of the charges encompass obtaining a financial benefit through deception, having false or forged documents, dealing with the proceeds of crime and controlling a criminal organisation.
Daizli was caught in a Pitt Street beauty salon in Sydney, 16 December 2020. She was refused bail and was set free in October 2021 under very stringent conditions that included a surety of $550,000, reporting daily to the police, and no contact with witnesses. The barrister of Daizli stated that she would not be guilty of any charges as she can prove all the money in her accounts as legitimate earnings. She is to be put on trial, which is expected to last for approximately four months, as of January 2025.
Understanding Financial Fraud Under Australian Law
In order to understand how serious the alleged crimes of Daizli are, the Australians must realise that the fact that one “gained a financial benefit through dishonesty” by misrepresenting or concealing must be proved to the court by the prosecutors that the accused gained a financial advantage through misrepresentation or concealment.
Embezzlement in the criminal law of the State of NSW would attract a maximum penalty of up to 10 years. Since the alleged offences of Daizli include 116+ charges and about $600,000 of alleged fraud, it would be expected that a lengthy prison term would be imposed in the event of conviction.
Sentencing frauds are generally characterised by long sentences in prison as a result of betraying trust, consecutive sentences when numerous charges apply at a time, and aggravation, such as defrauding vulnerable participants, the sophistication of the plan and the misuse of a position of trust.
Bank Refunds for Scammed Customers: What Are Australians’ Rights?
As the victims of the alleged fraud committed by Daizli, it is important to know whether they can get back the stolen money. Regrettably, Australian laws do not offer much protection, and the majority of scam victims do not get any reimbursement from the banks.
The Australian Banking Industry Position
Under the Australian credit contract legislation, banks do not usually have to repay the amount of money stolen by a scammer or a fraudster, even in cases when the bank staff is to blame. This is very much different in the UK law, where banks are obliged to reimburse victims of authorised push payment frauds within five days, unless the victim of the fraud was grossly negligent.
Less than 5 per cent of scam victims have Australian banks reimbursing them.
Limited Circumstances Where Banks Are Liable
The Australian law acknowledges only limited cases where banks could be liable for fraud losses: in case they were warned of a fraud and could not take any measures, in case suspicious transactions were made, and employees should have inquired about the issues, or when banks could not block compromised cards or handle the security breach.
Proposed Australian Reforms
In February 2025, Australia enacted the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025, which applies a maximum of financial fines of up to $50 million to banks, telecommunications, and digital platforms that do not implement sufficient measures to prevent fraud. Most importantly, the fines are paid to the government, but not directly to the victims. Civil litigation may be used to incur damages to victims in case entities did not do as required, but this is unlike the case in the U.S., where reimbursement is obligatory.
Protecting Yourself from Bank Fraud
As an Australian customer, you may do some things to secure yourself:
- Check your accounts on a regular basis using both online and paper statements, as well as making sure that you are aware of all transactions.
- Two-factor authentication (2FA) should be activated on online banking to provide extra protection.
- Immediately report suspicious activity to your bank fraud team, which is available 24/7.
- Consult a lawyer in case of contacting Financial Counselling Australia or Consumer Action Law Centre.
The Sara Daizli case highlights an alarming fact: the weak members of the population, specifically the elderly Australians, are preyed upon by the people whom they have trusted. Her purported offences underline the significance of sound internal controls and surveillance of the employees in the financial institutions. Though the issues of fraudsters are a moral and legal issue, banks also have a role to play in ensuring that they develop systems that prevent employees from accessing and misusing customer data.
