The fraud trial of former Australian Football League (AFL) player Nick Stevens has entered its critical phase in Victoria’s County Court, with the prosecution and defense presenting starkly contrasting narratives about the athlete-turned-businessman’s intentions. Stevens, who played 231 games for Port Adelaide and Carlton, faces 13 charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception and one count of using a false document related to his pool installation business operations in Mildura.
According to prosecutors, Stevens systematically defrauded six clients totaling $171,000 in 2017 by accepting payments for swimming pool installations that he never intended to complete to legal standards. The court heard that projects were abandoned in various states of completion, with none having received proper permits from the Mildura council before Stevens relocated to Melbourne and ceased communication with clients. Several customers were left with unfinished excavations or poorly installed pools in their backyards.
Defense barrister Jim Stavris presented an alternative account, arguing that Stevens genuinely intended to fulfill all contracts but encountered unforeseen financial difficulties and permit processing issues. Stavris emphasized that the crucial legal question revolves around Stevens’ state of mind when entering into agreements with customers, not the eventual outcome of the projects.
The trial revealed complex business relationships at the heart of the case. Stevens initially operated as a distributor for Leisure Pools under the supervision of registered builder Brian McDonnell, who received $1,500 per project to arrange permits. Prosecutors allege Stevens deliberately operated without proper registration after this arrangement, while the defense maintains that Stevens believed his working relationship with McDonnell continued throughout the period in question.
Key testimony highlighted disputes between Stevens and both Leisure Pools and a transportation company that allegedly prevented pool deliveries. Stavris characterized his client as a businessman whose back was ‘against the wall’ by late 2017 rather than a deliberate fraudster. The prosecution countered that documentary evidence and customer testimony contradict Stevens’ version of events, with most clients denying having signed permit applications that Stevens claims were submitted.
The jury must now determine whether Stevens’ actions constituted deliberate deception or represented a business failure without criminal intent. The outcome hinges on interpreting complex contractual relationships and assessing the credibility of conflicting accounts about permit applications and business arrangements.