District Court: Sharon Nitschke stole $250K from Riverland wine body to fund luxury items

A woman who stole more than $250,000 from the Riverland Vine Improvement Committee over almost five years spent the money on luxury items, holidays and "unnecessary expenses". A court heard how she now aims to repay the money.

Sharon Nitschke outside the Adelaide Magistrates Court last August.

• Sharon Tracey Nitschke pleads guilty to stealing

A woman who stole more than $250,000 from the Riverland Vine Improvement Committee over almost five years spent the money on luxury items, holidays and "unnecessary expenses", a court has heard.

Sharon Tracey Nitschke, 53, of Barmera pleaded guilty in the District Court to stealing $251,350.21 from the committee which produces Cirami Estate wines between 18 February 2013 and 11 December 2017.

Hilda Kinuthia, prosecuting, told the court Nitschke’s “systemic” offending was a “significant breach of trust” and “stems from greed”.

“She was using the money for luxury items such as holidays and those sorts of unnecessary expenses and the offending only really ceased when it was detected in 2017,” she said.

The committee, based at Monash, aims to generate interest in different grape varieties across the Riverland, as well as supply improved vine material to meet growing trends in the industry.

The court heard Nitschke, a mother of three adult sons, had stolen about $7000 in the first year of her offending and had paid some of that money back while continuing to offend.

In the final year, before her offending was detected in, she stole $100,000.

Ted Sinoch, for Nitschke, said his client had paid back more than $35,000 and had listed her home for sale for $395,000. He said about $50,000 in proceeds was expected from its eventual sale, which would be used to repay the debt.

Barmera woman Sharon Nitschke has pleaded guilty of stealing more than $250,000 from the Riverland Vine Improvement Committee to fund her own lifestyle.

“It does pale somewhat by comparison to the sum taken illegally,” he said.

“It does represent a very real and significant effort by my client to have made the repayments that she has.”

Mr Sinoch said Nitschke “had not sat on her fingers” and last year gained employment in unskilled and low paying jobs. He said she would use 20 per cent of her net income to pay back the money she had stolen.

He told the court the money Nitschke had already repaid “does reflect quite a sacrifice on her part” and intended to repay the money she stole in full.

He said Nitschke had written a letter of apology to her former employer.

“She is genuinely embarrassed and understands the sense of wrong that she had perpetrated on the victim company,” Mr Sinoch said.

He said it was “quite surprising” that at the time of her arrest she “was not financially flush”, but living “pay check to pay check”.

The court heard Nitschke’s husband, who was the committee’s operations manager, had also lost his job as a result of his wife’s offending.

Ms Kinuthia urged the court not give much weight to Mr Sinoch’s submission that Ms Nitschke would repay all the money back.

“These things sometimes come undone,” she said.

She opposed the court imposing either a suspended sentence or serving any sentence on home detention due to the seriousness of the offence which she said was “not insignificant”.

“A home detention order would undermine the principles of general deterrence when it comes to this sort of offending,” she said.

Nitschke, who faces a maximum prison term of 10 years, will be sentenced in July.