State v Pari [2026] PGNC 23; N11718 (20 February 2026)

N11718

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR (FC) NO 34 OF 2025

BETWEEN:
THE STATE

AND:
KAYLA PARI

GOROKA: WAWUN-KUVI J
21 OCTOBER 2025; 16, 20 FEBRUARY 2026

CRIMINAL LAW-GUILTY PLEA-SENTENCE-Misappropriation, s383A (1)(2)(d)-Guilty Plea- Offender colluded with others to defraud their employer- sophisticated fraud involving falsifying the Daily Banking Summary-Over the course of several months K141, 475.81 was misappropriated-4 years’ imprisonment.

Cases cited

Kaya v State [2020] SC2026
Mikoro v State [2015] SC1424
Tiensten v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2014] SC1468
Allan Peter Utieng v The State (2000) SCR No 15 of 2000
Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 496
State v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
The Public Prosecutor v Vangu’u Ame [1983] PNGLR 424
Goli Golu v The State [1970] PNGLR 653
State v Peter Kovanii (2025) CR (FC) 157 of 2022 delivered on 24 July 2025
State v Mathew [2024] PGNC 292; N10965
State v Pole [2023] PGNC 16; N10109
State v Paraka [2023] N1048
State v Ralewa (No 2) [2022] N9803
State v Jarick [2021] PGNC 329; N9000
State v Emil [2021] PGNC 88; N8789
State v Leva [2021] PGNC 34; N8801

State v Karnhick (2020) N8341

State v Tomande [2019] PGNC 439; N8153

State v Warur [2018] N7545
State v Peni (No. 2) [2014] N5932
State v Stanley Haru (2014) N5660

State v Emba [2011] PGNC 297; N5012

State v Kom [2009] N6199

State v Jimmy Kendi (No. 2) (2007) N3131

Counsel
L Maru for the State
V Move for the offenders

DECISION ON SENTENCE

1. WAWUN-KUVI J: Kayla Pari, the offender, pleaded guilty to misappropriating her employer’s money. She was employed as an accounts clerk with Bridgestone Tyres (PNG) Limited, based in Goroka. Her accomplices Susie Kirori and Esther Ewi also worked in the Accounts Receivable section in Lae. The offender had known both of her accomplices because she had previously worked in the Lae branch before moving to Goroka. In the ordinary course of business, when a customer paid for an item, the offender would raise an invoice and stamp it with a "paid" stamp. She would then keep the cash in the till and hand the invoice to the storeman, who would collect the item and give it to the customer. The cash is recorded in the Sales Summary Journal and is taken to the Branch Manager to reconcile with the Daily Banking Summary. Once the banking summary is signed off, the offender would take the cash and deposit it.
   
2. The offender and her accomplices then colluded to defraud their employer, where cash would be given; the offender would then use the same invoice and receipt number but would manipulate the Daily Banking Summary, indicating that a customer had collected an item but had not paid. It would be reflected as a debt to the company. The offender would keep her share and send the rest to her accomplices in Lae. Between 19 July and 19 November 2021, the offender and her accomplices misappropriated K141,475.81.
   
3. These are the facts in which the offender has pleaded guilty to. My task now is to decide her penalty.
   

Penalty

4. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. The maximum is reserved for the worst case: see Goli Golu v The State [1970] PNGLR 653.

Guidelines

5. Sentencing guidelines are important to ensure parity in sentencing but they do not curtail sentencing discretion. It is the peculiar circumstances of each case that is the deciding factor.
   
6. In applying the guidelines in Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 496 and Kaya v State [2020] PGSC 145; SC2026 the amount taken by the offender would attract a sentence between the range of 5 and 7 years imprisonment.

Comparable cases

7. Counsel for the State submits a sentence between the range of 3 and 5 years' imprisonment. However, the cases submitted by the State are of amounts in the hundreds of thousands and millions and attract penalties higher than the submitted range.The cases are Kaya v State [2020] SC2026, Tiensten v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2014] SC1468, State v Paraka [2023]N10484, State v Ralewa (No 2) [2022] N9803, State v Warur [2018] N7545, The State v Stanley Haru (2014) N5660, State v Peni (No. 2) [2014] N5932, State v Kom [2009] N6199 and State v Jimmy Kendi (No. 2), (2007) N3131.
   
8. Counsel for the offender submits a range of 2 to 5 years imprisonment. She submits the following comparable cases:
   
   • (i) State v Peter Kovanii (2025) CR (FC) 157 of 2022 delivered on 24 July 2025, Kaumi J: The Offender misappropriated K131, 000.00 of money belonging to the Lanehazuha clan of Kotuni Village, Goroka, Eastern Highlands. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
     
   • (ii) State v Ralewa (No 2) [2022] N9803, Wawun-Kuvi J: The offender was the Chief Executive Officer of an insurance company and at the same time he owned his own company. He opened an internet facility for the company with BSP and thereafter commenced transferring insurance premiums into his company’s account. He misappropriated K931, 800.00 He was convicted after a trial and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
     
   • (iii) State v Warur [2018] N7545, Berrigan J: The offender pleaded guilty to misappropriating K811,969.53. The offender was a Sergeant in the Correctional Services. He was the Communications Officer. The offender incorporated a company and placed fictional orders on behalf of Correctional Services. No goods were supplied to the Correctional Services, and the offender used the money for his own personal benefit. The fraud was perpetrated over a period of almost 4 years. The offender was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
     
9. Other than the case of State v Peter Koavani (supra), the other cases involve larger amounts.
   
10. More recent and comparable cases involving guilty pleas and amounts of a close range are.
    
    • (i) State v Mathew [2024] PGNC 292; N10965, Wawun-Kuvi: The offender pleaded guilty to misappropriating K78, 960. The offender was the assistant general secretary for the PNG Maritime and Transport Union. Over three years, he emailed union members directing payment of fees. He provided accounts that were not union accounts. He withdrew monies from those other accounts and used them. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
      
    • (ii) State v Pole [2023] PGNC 16; N10109, Berrigan J: The offender pleaded guilty to misappropriating K182, 081. She also pleaded guilty to forgery. The offender worked as a cash officer. She made cheques payable to herself, which she obtained as cash or were paid into her account. The court sentenced her to 5 years imprisonment, which was wholly suspended.
      
    • (iii) State v Jarick [2021] PGNC 329; N9000, Berrigan J: Dorothy Jarick, Wilma Dongo, and Terry Laka pleaded guilty to misappropriating funds while working as cashiers at Air Nuigini. They implemented a scheme to divert cash from ticket sales for personal use, manipulated reconciliation sheets, and delayed banking to conceal shortfalls. Over the period of several months, Dorothy misappropriated a total of K230,000, Wilma misappropriated K230, 000, and Terry misappropriated K96,956.90. Dorothy and Wilma were sentenced to 5 years imprisonment while Terry was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. 18 months from each of their sentences were suspended on conditions.
      
    • (iv) State v Emil [2021] PGNC 88; N8789, Berrigan J: The offender pleaded guilty to misappropriating K117,788.87 while working as an accounts clerk. She was seconded to work as a sub-consultant. Under the guise of paying service providers, she processed 21 transactions. She entered the details of legitimate service providers into the banking system but diverted the funds to her bank account. The fraudulent activity went undetected for several months. The court sentenced the offender to 4 years imprisonment. The sentence was partially suspended with conditions.
      
    • (v) State v Leva [2021] PGNC 34; N8801, Berrigan J: The offender is co-accused in the matter of State v Tuvi(supra). He was employed by the Bank of South Pacific and benefited K290, 199.00. He was convicted following a trial and was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
      
    • (vi) State v Karnhick (2020) N8341, Berrigan J: the offender pleaded guilty. He was employed as a Mortgage Specialist Officer with Australia and New Zealand Bank Limited (ANZ). He assisted the Kuabini Landowners to deposit money into his company account. He applied K300, 000 for his own use without the authority of the association. He was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment.
      
    • (vii) State v Tomande [2019] PGNC 439; N8153, Berrigan J: The offender pleaded guilty during trial to misappropriating K300,933.71 from her employer, BSP. K40,000 was recovered by the bank. She was employed as a Home Loan Officer. Over several months she falsified 14 loan applications which had previously been declined by the bank and altered them to manipulate the system into approving the loans. The monies were then transferred by the offender to accounts belonging to her relatives and other bank customers. The monies were also credited back to the loan accounts to fund repayments and avoid detection. She was sentenced to 5 and a half years of imprisonment.
      
    • (viii) State v Emba [2011] PGNC 297; N5012, Kawi J: The offender pleaded guilty in the middle of the trial to misappropriating K286,491.71. She was employed as a cashier with Air Niugini and was responsible for collecting cash monies from the sale of airline tickets. She received monies and destroyed the ticket coupons. She was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. The sentence was wholly suspended on conditions including restitution.
      
11. The more recent comparable cases show that for amounts between K70,000.00 and K300,000.00, the sentence range has been between 4 and 6 years' imprisonment, consistent with the guidelines in Kaya v State [2020] (supra).

Personal Antecedent

12. The offender is 34 years old and hails from Baluan, Lorengau, Manus Province. She is the only child. Her parents are presently residing with her in Nalepa, Eastern Highlands Province. Her father is from Baluan in Manus Province, and her mother is of mixed parentage from Nalepa and East Sepik Province.
    
13. She has a diploma in accounting from the International Training Institute.
    
14. She is a member of the Christian Life Centre Church.
    
15. She is married with three children aged 2, 5 and 8.
    
16. She was employed with Bridgestone from 2016 to 2021 and was terminated because of the offence. She later secured employment with the Medical Research Institute, where she now works as a data entry officer. Her husband is employed as a stores and procurement officer with the University of Goroka.

Allocutus

17. I have heard the offender on allocutus and while she expresses some regret for her actions, she continues to blame her coworkers for influencing her to commit the offence. This same attitude is demonstrated in her Record of Interview and her interview with the Probation Officers. Her concerns are primarily for her family. However given that she has apologised, her cooperation with the police and her early guilty plea I am prepared to give her the benefit and accept that she is remorseful.

Culpability

18. I consider the factors in Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 496 in the determination of the offender’s culpability.
    
19. The offender has a diploma in accounting. Not only did it enable her to commit the fraud, but it is also indicative of a mind that fully appreciates and comprehends that the actions taken were unlawful. She was placed in a position of trust by her employer, and her role was significant, as she was trusted with the receipting, balancing, and banking of cash. While she blames her accomplices in Lae, she was the person in Goroka taking the monies and manipulating the books. The amount taken was significant and was taken over the course of 5 months, indicating planning. It was not a one-off incident. The offender has many opportunities to report the fraud to her superiors. It is illogical that she continued to commit the fraud because she was afraid of being reported by her accomplices. She does not explain what she used the money for or her reasons for committing the offence. The circumstances of the case and the foregoing matters indicate a sophisticated fraud committed by an educated person in a position of trust. Her level of culpability is higher, placing her case at the higher end of the sentencing range.

Victims Views

20. Again, applying the principles in Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-1989] (supra), I proceed to consider the effect upon the victim.
    
21. The Victim Company has provided a victim impact statement. The Finance Manager, Mr Timothy Baiyo, indicated that the company has suffered significant financial loss. That the offender had ample time to make restitution but did not. The company seeks imprisonment to punish the offender and serve as a deterrent to other like-minded employees.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

22. In mitigation is the offender’s guilty plea, that she is a first-time offender, that she made admissions and cooperated with the police and her expression of remorse in her allocutus.
    
23. In aggravation is that a significant amount of money was taken, which caused financial loss to the victim company; she was in a position of trust; the offence occurred over a period of 5 months; she had acted with others, and her role was significant because she was the person taking the money and manipulating the records; and the offence is very prevalent.

Other factors

24. Applying other factors discussed in Wellington Belawa, the offender has lost her employment with the victim company; however, she was able to secure another job. The prospects of her continued employment and any future employment may be affected if her employer learns of her conviction for fraud. That is a consequence of each of her own decisions.
25. It is important to note that as Papua New Guinea is grey listed, the continuation of these types of frauds affects investor confidence in our country. Investors will not want to do business in a country where employee fraud is a serious issue.

Consideration

26. We are now at the stage where the country is grey listed. While this is a national issue for key government agencies to tackle, at its essence every citizen employee is responsible to ensure that they conduct themselves in an ethical and honest manner. Key government agencies do not need to tackle a problem if it does not exist. As I have said in many similar cases, fraud by employees is a very prevalent offence. Employers in this country are losing millions of kina every year. Strong deterrent sentences are called for.
    
27. The offender, here, had every opportunity to stop or report the fraud. Instead, she continued to commit it and was only stopped when the fraud was discovered. As I have said while she attempts to shift the blame to her accomplices, the fraud was perpetrated in Goroka, she manipulated the books and she dealt with the cash. Her role was significan. In applying my mind to all the factors discussed in this decision and matters that are peculiar to the circumstances of the offender’s case, I find that a sentence of 4 years imprisonment is appropriate and so impose it.
    
28. The offender was in custody for 1 month and 2 weeks and 5 days. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, that period is deducted and the offender shall serve 3 years, 10 months, 1 week and 2 days.
    
29. The next issue for determination is whether the sentence should be suspended.
    
30. I have considered the principles in State v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91.
    
31. The offender is unable to meet restitution. The amount is significant. She is healthy and imprisonment will not cause her any hardship. The final consideration is whether the interest of rehabilitation and reintegration will be served.
    
32. The Probation Officer has spoken to David Sauri, a Community Leader, Brian Ilo, an elder with the Christian Life Centre Church and Joseph Bina, a Village Court Magistrate. They all speak favourably of the offender and her involvement in the church and community.
33. Her husband also was interviewed and pleads for mercy for his wife. While the offender and her husband have raised concerns for their families, family suffering is a consequence of the offender’s conduct and is rarely a consideration in sentencing: see Mikoro v State [2015] SC1424, Allan Peter Utieng v The State (2000) SCR No 15 of 2000 and The Public Prosecutor v Vangu’u Ame [1983] PNGLR 424.
    
34. Kapi DCJin Prosecutor v Vangu’u Ame [1983] supra said:
    

“Indirect effects of a man going to gaol, although proper considerations, must not be over-emphasized nor allowed to cloud the fact a person has committed a most serious offence. Justice, it has been said, must of course be tempered by mercy, but in my view not to the extent of allowing a person who has committed a very serious offence to, in fact, go fee.

...If a court is weakly merciful and does not impose a sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the crime, it fails in its duty to see that the sentences are such as to operate as a powerful factor to prevent the commission of such offences.” (Citations removed).

35. I must balance these factors with the victims’ views and that of the greater society. A wholly suspended sentence will not act as a personal and general deterrent. And as said fraud is a very prevalent offence and when punitive sentences are not imposed, it will continue to flourish.
    
36. A partially suspended sentence is appropriate given these circumstances. A year of her sentence will be suspended, and she will be placed on a good behaviour bond with a surety of K1000 to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. K1000 from her bail is converted to the surety. On successful completion of her bond she can apply to this Court for the refund of the K1000.00.
    
37. In addition, to the sentence of imprisonment and pursuant to s 19(1)(b) of the Criminal Code she shall pay a fine of K1000. The balance of the cash bail of K1000 is converted to payment of the fine.
    
38. The offender shall serve 2 year, 10 months, 1 week and 2 days at Bihute Correctional Institution.

Orders

39. The Orders of the Court are:
    1. The offender is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment at the Bihute Correctional Institution in light labour.
    2. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, the period of 1 month, 2 weeks and 5 days is deducted and the offender shall serve 3 years, 10 months, 1 week and 2 days.
    3. Pursuant to s 19((1)(d)(i) of the Criminal Code one year of the offender’s sentence is suspended on condition that she enter into a surety of K1000 to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for one year.
    4. K1000 from her cash bail is converted to the surety.
    5. The offender shall serve the balance of 2 years, 10 months, 1 week and 2 days at Bihute Correctional Institution.
    6. Pursuant to s 19(1)(b) of the Criminal Code in addition to her sentence of imprisonment, she shall pay K1000 as a fine to the State.
    7. The balance of her cash bail of K1000 is converted to payment of the fine.
    8. The CR(FC) file and bail file are closed.

________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Acting Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offender: Public Solicitor