The jury in the marathon trial of those accused of one of Australia's largest ever tax frauds has retired to consider verdicts after almost nine months in court.
Justice Anthony Payne told jurors on Wednesday to use their common sense and judgment as they deliberate on the large volume of evidence before them in the NSW Supreme Court case.
The judge has spent several days summing up the trial of Adam Cranston, Lauren Cranston, Dev Menon, Jason Onley and Patrick Willmott over their alleged roles in the Plutus Payroll scandal.
The court has been told the financial services group was behind a scheme to withhold more than $105 million from the tax office over three years, using a number of second-tier companies.
The unpaid taxes allegedly funded lavish lifestyles featuring fast cars, planes and properties.
The trial began in April 2022 with members of the group facing charges including conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth and dealing with the proceeds of crime.
Justice Payne directed the jury to consider whether the unpaid tax was the result of a sophisticated fraud or a mistake when deciding verdicts.
"The critical question is whether, in the circumstances, failure to pay (tax) was dishonest," the judge told jurors.
Lawyers for several accused conspirators have argued the decision to purchase Plutus Payroll was made on the basis it was thought to be a profitable company.
They did not realise it was not until later, when they also discovered the unpaid taxes and began attempting to pay them back, lawyers submitted.
Justice Payne finished summing up the trial with the submissions of Lauren Cranston's lawyer Troy Anderson SC, who told the court she genuinely believed taxes were being paid.
She had also been advised she had done nothing wrong by company solicitor Dev Menon, who the Crown has submitted primarily provided advice about how to avoid the alleged scheme's detection rather than making sure it complied with the law.
Mr Anderson submitted Cranston was in her early 20s when the alleged offending occurred and took instructions from her older brother.
Adam Cranston was experienced in business, while she had worked at a supermarket for six months, Justice Payne said, citing Mr Anderson's submissions.
Mr Anderson had told the court the younger Cranston was at the bottom of any criminal hierarchy, a junior employee who followed orders.
One witness called her "the payments girl" who did not appear to care very much about the business.
Others said they had not dealt with her and did not know what her role was.
She was paid about $180,000 in wages and bonuses over three years, Mr Anderson submitted, and had argued with her brother about buying a Hyundai when he wanted to buy her a Porsche, the court heard.
The judge reminded the jury not to rush verdicts as its first hours of deliberation drew to a close.
"We're near the end of a long journey together," Justice Payne told the jurors on Wednesday afternoon.