Anderton advertised items for sale using different online accounts and bank accounts.
He even changed his mother's TradeMe password and fraudulently traded from her account.
Each time, he got money but provided no goods to buyers.
District Court Judge Ingram described the offending as "a pretty determined and reasonably sophisticated effort to hoodwink people and take their money" and said declined home detention given the nature of the offending and because Anderton continued to defraud while on bail.
On March 14 Anderton appealed the judge's decision. Judge Ingram declined to order home detention given the nature of the offending and because Anderton continued to defraud while on bail.
His lawyer Glen Prentice argued that the court made an error of law by not properly considering whether the purposes and principles of sentencing might be met by home detention.
He said the judge focused entirely on the need to denounce Anderton's offending because he had offended on bail and did not consider other factors. Anderton had not been jailed before and did not have relevant previous convictions, Prentice said.
At the appeal, Judge Toogood said jail was the only appropriate sentence and declined Anderton's appeal.
"It is a serious aggravating factor that this second set of offending occurred while on bail," he said. "In my view, people who cynically use the opportunity on bail to continue to offend in the same way cannot look to the courts for a sentence of home detention."
Judge Toogood said he took into account Anderson's age, his guilty plea, and offer to pay reparation, but also had to consider the harm his offending caused, the trust he abused and "the vulnerability of the victims to your predatory behaviour".
"[Judge Ingram] made no error in his approach; but if he did, then the error was not one which gave rise to a miscarriage of justice because plainly this was a case which called for a term of imprisonment."
