Regina v Bobongi [2015] SBHC 86; HCSI-CRC 519 of 2010 (10 August 2015)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Maina, J)
Criminal Jurisdiction

Criminal Case No: 519 of 2010

REGINA

V

PHILIP BOBONGI

Date of Sentence: 10th August 2015

For Prosecution: R. Talasasa & Mr. Hauirae
For Accused: Sevuloni Valenitabua & Mr Ghemu

SENTENCE

Maina J:

You, Philip Bobongi have been convicted of the offences on 2 counts of Larceny and Embezzlement and 37 counts of Money Laundering after a long trial on 11th June 2015.

These offences of Larceny and Embezzlement and Money Laundering are serious offences in the criminal law in Solomon Islands; and the seriousness of these offences are reflected in the maximum sentence of Larceny and Embezzlement of 14 years imprisonment and fine not exceeding 500,000 units or imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or both – Section 17 Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act (Amendment 2010) that can be imposed on conviction.

The seriousness also by the fact that a dishonest to the financial system of this country – Central Bank of Solomon Islands (CBSI).

Between 19th February 2001 and 30th April 2009 you committed or stole and embezzled $1.7 million of old muted notes from CBSI.

And between 8th March 2007 and 31st March 2009 Bobongi made deposits $866,150.00 or parts of these stolen monies into his and wife's respective accounts at BSP and ANZ Banks.

On the facts before me, the accused committed the offence in Count 1 at various time and Count 2 was also committed between 19th February 2001 and 30th April 2009 the same period or within time as in Count 1.

Any person who is found guilty of an offence be sentenced according to the law and receive an appropriate sentence for that offence. Appropriate sentence depend on the consideration of each case's circumstances, the offence, offender and the presence of aggravating and or mitigating factors. And each case is to be considered on its own merits to arrive at an appropriate sentence.

I concur with Judge Pallaras when said in the case of Regina – v Bosamate HC – CRC 227 of 2012.

".......the sentencing process is a living organism – it grows, develop and adapt to community needs and expectation. It may well be that in the current times it is opportune for the Court to re-assess whether the relatives low sentencing ranges referred to adequately reflect both the attitude of the legislature and the needs of the community."

On the mitigation I take into account that Bobongi has family and they rely on him for their needs and support. He is a first offender and his age is 45 years old.

Counsel for Bobongi submitted to the Court that if long imprisonment is imposed on him it will be detrimental to him as human being and to his family, he lost his employment at the CBSI and will not find employment again where money is involved and trust is required.

On this, it is a bit difficult for me to accept this kind of mitigation or plea for leniency in the sentence on the fact or taking into account the period of offending i.e. between 19th February 2001 and 30th April 2009 or the repetitious nature of offending which resulted to the stealing and embezzling of $1.7 million. At least he (himself) should had given a thought on these long period of his offending or any consequences if he is catch but no evidence seemed to suggest that even a remorse at the trial.

On that mitigation factors I reluctantly take into account and for sure noted that he is a human being.

The aggravating features in the case is stealing and embezzling from CBSI and the repetitious nature of offending which resulted to the stealing and embezzling of $1.7 million and the impact of offending in the financial system of the country.

CBSI is the heart of the financial system of Solomon Islands as provided in section 4 of the Central Bank of Solomon Islands Act:

Section 4

"The Principal objects of the Central Bank shall be-

(a) to regulate the issue, supply, availability and international exchange of money;
(b) to advise the Government on banking and monetary matters;
(c) to promote monetary stability;
(d) to supervise and regulate banking business;
(e) to promote a sound financial structure; and
(f) to foster financial conditions conducive to the orderly and balanced economic development of Solomon Islands".

The CBSI is charged with responsibilities of handling the financial systems of this country. As such any person who works in the Central Bank from the Governor, and officers or employees demands the highest standard of trust and honesty in managing the financial system of this country. It is so as if anything gets wrong it may affect the financial abilities or situations and would hinder some aspect of economy of the country.

You were given that opportunity to work at the CBSI with responsibility to supervise a department in the heart of the financial system in country, the CBSI. But you decided to breach that trust when you committed the offences with the muted notes. And I seem to think that, your act may have caused some obscurity in the financial system when you put back in circulation the money with already made of no legal value or being muted notes of $1.7 million.

DPP submits that sentencing of the offenders for this type of offences requires general deterrence as to protect the society, appropriate retribution and punish the offender for the offence and consider the prospect of rehabilitation.

Now the fact is clear that you have tampered or meddled to the financial system of this country by used and circulated the muted notes.

I take note of the guidelines in the case Barrick [1985] 81Cr.App.R, 78 and Solomon Islands High Court cases presented by the Defence counsels. These cases assist in the consideration of appropriate sentence for offender.

I adopt the guidelines in the Barrick [1985] 8iCr.App.R, 78 and Solomon Islands High Court cases presented by the Defence counsels.

The Barrick case on sentence in breach of trust as to the matters on the quality and degree of trust reposed in the offender including his rank, the period of fraud or the theft have perpetrated, the use to which the money or property dishonestly was put, the impact of the offences on the public and public confidence, the effect upon employees or partners, effect on the offender himself, his own history and those matters of mitigation as illness etc. These cases assist in the consideration of appropriate sentence for Philip Bobongi.

But in relation to the amount involved and preferable period of imprisonment to that Barrick case which the Defence counsel urged the court to adopt, it cannot be so on the fact the ranges of sentences so far passed in this jurisdiction is differ by reflecting on the circumstances and the feeling of the local situation in Solomon Islands. In the case R v Kobi, the amount allegedly stolen was $65,519.66 and Palmer J (as he was then) sentenced was 2 and half years imprisonment. And the case Tioti v R, the accused was convicted for breach of trust with $2,000.00 the sentence was 5 months imprisonment.

The circumstances or situation of the offender is more serious on the fact that he was working at or had access to the engine room of the financial system of this country, that of severe aggravating factor. And any sentence to be imposed on him must clearly reflect this meddling to the engine room of the financial system of this country.

This is the first type of offending in this country the offender had tampered and meddled with the engine room or heart of the financial system and the sentence to impose must deter him, the offender and also others, politicians, public servants, managers and work people in financial institutions or people possession of monies that if you are found guilty by the court, you would expect a heavy imprisonment sentences.

The case involves a breach of trust placed on Philip Bobongi in a position which on him demand highest standard of trust and honesty. He decided to breach the trust placed on him by committing the offences which the court has found him guilty and convicted on the offences. As always reiterated in similar cases of breach of trust the appropriate sentence is always a custodial sentence.

With Counts 3 to 39, you deposited the muted notes in your accounts and wife's account with BSP and ANZ banks and used some to acquire or possession of properties.

Counsels for Defence submit that you should not be sentenced for counts 1 and 2 was an error overlooked by the court, prosecutor and the counsel for this case. The court convicted the offender of these offences and a defence counsel to raise such argument in the defence submission does fall well on the court otherwise such a matter for appeal. The conviction is based on the evidence before the court and section 2 of the Penal Code cannot apply as act of depositing is a different act although involves the same money. At juncture, it is for the court to decide whether any sentences if imposed are suspended or run concurrent.

Taking into account the circumstance or situation in this case, aggravating and mitigating factors and the need of deterrence, Philip Bobongi is sentenced as follows:

Count 1: Nine (9) years imprisonment

With Count 2 which was also found guilty on the evidence before the court there is not exact dates of the two counts runs parallel or the offences committed within the same period. If a sentence is imposed on this count 2, to my view will be a double jeopardy or punishment. Therefore no sentence is imposed.

With all Counts 3 to 39 the offender is sentenced to three years imprisonment.

Period already spent in custody to be deducted from the sentence to be served.

Taking into account the totality of the sentence of 12 years imprisonment, the sentence of 3 years imprisonment for counts 3 to 37 to run concurrent to Count 1.

THE COURT

Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge