R v Seke [2018] SBHC 119; HCSI-CRC 91 of 2016 (9 May 2018)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Case name:	R v Seke

Citation:

Date of decision:	9 May 2018

Parties:	Regina v Kingston Seke and Walter Nawon Junia

Date of hearing:	4 May 2018

Court file number(s):	91 of 2016

Jurisdiction:	Criminal

Place of delivery:	High Court of Solomon Islands, Honiara Court Room 1

Judge(s):	Palmer CJ

On appeal from:

Order:	Kingston Seke: Enter conviction for the offences of forgery and money laundering and impose sentences as follows: (i) Count 1: Impose sentence of 3 years for the offence of forgery. (ii) Count 2: Impose sentence of 3 years for the offence of forgery. (iii) Count 3: Impose sentence of 2 years of the offence of money laundering. (iv) Order that the sentences imposed under counts (2) and (3) are to run concurrent to the sentence of 3 years imposed under count 1. (v) Direct that the period spent in custody is to be deducted from the sentence of 3 years imposed herewith. Walter Nawon Junia: Enter conviction for the offence of money laundering and impose sentence of 2 years. 2. Direct that the period spent in custody is to be deducted from the sentence of 2 years imposed herewith. 3. The defendant having spent a substantial part of the sentence in pre-trial custody he is to be released at the rising of the Court.

Representation:	Ms. M Suifa’asia for the Crown Mr. G Gray for Kingston Seke Mr. J Marusich for Walter Nawon Junia

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:	Penal Code, s336 (1) (c), Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (No.5 of 2002), s18 (1)

Cases cited:

Ms. M Suifa’asia for Crown
G. Gray for Kingston Seke
J. Marusich for Walter Nawon Junia.

Palmer CJ: There are two accused’s, Kingston Seke (“Seke”) and Walter Nawon Junia (“Junia”), who have entered guilty pleas to charges of forgery and money laundering contrary to section 336 (1)(c) of the Penal Code and section 18(1) of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (No. 5 of 2002).

Seke has been charged separately for two counts of forgery and one count of money laundering, while Junia has been charged with only one count of money laundering, both charges relate to the same offence or circumstances of offending.

The offences relate to the theft of two cheque leaves of Tongs Corporation Limited, which were forged with two separate amounts of $96,742.00 and $146,200.00 respectively and deposited into the business account of SI Cement Builders, a business name which the two defendants had set up earlier for their illegal purpose. The cheques were paid into the account using false names and later withdrawn and shared by them.

The theft was discovered when the company accountant did a bank reconciliation of the cheques. The matter was reported to police and the two defendants arrested and charged.

The seriousness of the offence of forgery is reflected in the maximum sentence of life imprisonment which the court can impose in extreme cases of seriousness, depending on the circumstances of each case and the presence of aggravating and mitigating features.

Similarly, the seriousness of the offence of money laundering is reflected in the maximum penalty which can be imposed, of a fine in the sum of $100,000 or to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or both.

I note the following aggravating features in this case. The first being the breach of trust between employer and employee. Secondly, the element of planning and forethought demonstrated in the commission of the offences. This included the theft of the cheques, formation and registration of a business name and the use of fictitious names or persons to legitimize operations.

Thirdly, this was not a one off thing, but was repeated on two occasions and entailed a substantial sum of money, totaling $242,200.00.

Fourthly, only a small amount of money was recovered in the sum of $9,500.00, leaving the business with a substantial loss of money in the sum of $232,700.00.

On the other hand, I note the following mitigating factors in relation to the two defendants. For Seke, I note he entered a guilty plea early on 7^th November 2017 and has been awaiting sentencing since. I give due credit for this.

I note his family circumstances, that he is a young man with very young children who rely on him, including his aged parents. As a result of his incarceration in prison on remand, his marriage has been affected leaving his parents to look after his children, the older one is 4 years old and the youngest 2 years.

I note prospects of rehabilitation are promising provided he learns from his mistakes and lives an honest life, does not re-offend and works hard to earn a living, not to steal from others. Nothing comes easily and that life is about labour and work and enjoying the fruits of one’s labour.

I thank counsels for referring me to a number of comparative cases on forgery and money laundering. Balancing all things and noting in particular the element of deterrence in this case, I am satisfied a sentence of 3 years on each count of forgery is appropriate in his case.

For the money laundering charge, I am satisfied a sentence of 2 years is appropriate in the circumstances.

I am also satisfied the sentences imposed are to be made concurrent to each other as they relate to the same transactions.

I am also satisfied the period spent in pre-trial custody is to be deducted from the sentence imposed.

In relation to Junia, I note matters raised in his mitigation by Counsel Marusich, giving credit for his early guilty plea, that this is his first time to appear in court.

I accept submissions from Counsel he played a lesser role, was not the instigator and or, master mind of the crime and was more the follower than the principal, although his culpability comes from his willingness to participate in assisting Seke when he could have resisted the offers and stayed clear.

I accept there are good prospects of rehabilitation in his case as well, he is a young man, is remorseful, indicated by his early guilty plea and has indicated a strong desire to set his life on the right path and continue with his education. He has family support who are keen to provide that much needed assistance to set him back on the right ways.

I am satisfied the sentence imposed should reflect that lower level of culpability. He is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. I note he has been in custody since 28 July 2016, a period of some 1 year and 9 months, and forming the view that the period spent in custody is to be deducted from his sentence, I am also satisfied he can be released from custody with immediate effect at the rising of the Court and I so order.

High Court of Solomon Islands

R v Seke [2018] SBHC 119; HCSI-CRC 91 of 2016 (9 May 2018)