Republic v Neeti [2003] KIHC 80; Criminal Case 10 of 2003 (17 June 2003)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

Criminal Case No. 10 of 2003

THE REPUBLIC

vs

BIREA NEETI

For the Republic: Ms Melissa Kent
For the Accused: Mr Banuera Berina

Date of Hearing: 12 June 2003

SENTENCE

Nei Birea Neeti: you have pleaded guilty to one count of embezzlement and one count of forgery in February 1994. The amount of the embezzlement was $1603.31. These two charges are representative of many other similar offences between 20 August 1992 and 28 June 1996. You have admitted them all. The total amount of money which you took from the Bank you admit to have been $58,648.45: a huge amount.

What you had been doing was detected in October 1996. On 18 February 1997 you wrote a letter to the Bank confirming what you had already admitted to management on 1 November 1996. In part you wrote:

During my employment with the Bank of Kiribati as the EDP Officer I admit to using both my knowledge and position to wrongfully and fraudulently transfer funds to my and my relatives bank accounts for my own gain.

Starting in August 1992 I began transferring funds from one of the Bank's suspense accounts (Suspense re; Government Pays) to either my cheque account or one of my relatives accounts. To avoid being caught, and so that the suspense account would reconcile, I would then re-credit the amount transferred from one of the Bank's Interest Expense accounts.

Despite the full confession you were not charged until March of this year and only served with the indictment in May. The Bank itself and the Police seem to have both been responsible for most of the delay. Whoever was responsible the delay is quite inexcusable. And it was quite unnecessary. Once the Bank was satisfied of the total and you had acknowledged it no further investigations were necessary. You could have been charged in the first half of 1997.

You are 48 years old, married with a 17-year old child. Your husband is a seaman. You had been employed by the Bank since early in 1975. You were in a position of trust. You say that you gave the money to relatives and you used very little of it yourself. None has been repaid but Mr Berina tells me you have over $37,000 in your KPF account. You now have written a letter to the Bank acknowledging that you owe $58,000. I am assured this will allow the KPF to pay out to the Bank your entitlement once the Bank has a judgment against you. Otherwise it would be some years before you could draw the entitlement. Your KPF entitlement will be restitution to the Bank of well over half the amount you took.

These are your first offences. As soon as the Bank found out what you were doing, you admitted it. It has taken six years longer than it should have taken for you to be brought to Court. I accept what Mr Berina wrote in his submissions:

14. The prisoner is a gentle and kind woman. It was very foolish of her to commit the offence in order to assist those who sought assistance from her. She did not make any financial gain herself. She could have lived a comfortable life as her husband was also employed and they only have one child to support.
    
15. She is remorseful. In fact her regret for what she did cannot be adequately expressed.
    
15. Even before the Police carried out an investigation she already admitted committing the offence. She has always been willing to use her KPF to pay back the money but she was not able to withdraw any of the funds, as she had not yet met the requirements.
    
16. That she had already suffered goes without saying.
    
17. She has lost her job.
    
18. Her family (her father, brothers and sisters) feels let down, as she has brought shame on the family. She has been more than ashamed herself. The offence is the most shameful offence one can commit.
    

Yet I cannot overlook what you did, over nearly four years. You stole in a series of complex transactions $58,6458.45. There were 49 instances of embezzlement and 25 instances of forgery. You were in a position of trust and you abused it. This must mean imprisonment for quite a long time. For the embezzlement you are sentenced to three years' imprisonment: for the forgery you are sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The sentences are to be served concurrently.

Mr Berina finished his submissions by asking that the imprisonment be suspended.

If it were not for the delay which was as unnecessary as it was inexcusable I would not even have considered suspension. Remembering that you have had the thought of being brought before the Court and going to gaol hanging over you for over 6½ years and the anxiety, misery and distress this must have caused you I shall suspend the sentences of imprisonment if you will undertake to be of good behaviour for the next two years. The only reason I am suspending the sentences is because of the delay. As a rule a person who does what you did can expect to serve a good long time in gaol. Suspension means that if you do not commit any further offence in the next two years, then you will not have to go to gaol but if you are convicted in that time of anything else then you will be punished for that and liable to serve these sentences as well.

Do you understand?
Do you agree?

Dated the 17^th day of June 2003

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
CHIEF JUSTICE