Police v Tevita [2010] WSSC 144 (19 July 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

SARAI FALEUPOLU TEVITA, female of Fagalii-uta.
Defendant

Counsels: Ms F. Vaai for prosecution
Ms T. Toailoa for the defendant

Sentence: 19 July 2010

SENTENCE

This is also a matter for sentence on charges of theft as a servant and it is equally tragic because the defendant in this case is a bright young 32 year old graduate who holds a bachelors degree from a university in New Zealand. At the time of these offences she held a senior position in the Information Technology section of the Samoa National Provident Fund and according to what I have read was relied on by that organization and was a diligent and loyal worker. The character references that have been submitted on her behalf are also impressive and they all speak as to her good character not only as a person but as a qualified professional. It is a matter of great regret to see someone of such talent appearing before this court and facing prison.

The facts of this matter indicate that the thefts were committed by the defendant falsifying documents and taking out loans in the name of her aunty with the National Provident Fund. She used her aunties name on fourteen different occasions over a ten-month period from September 2008 to July 2009 to effect fictitious loans and to obtain money for her own personal use. In order to give effect to that she tampered with the aunties records of contributions and entitlements in the NPF system using her qualification and expertise in IT matters for that purpose. This makes this a case of an obviously well thought out planned and meticulously executed series of thefts using her aunties account with the National Provident Fund and only when the aunt complained did an internal investigation reveal the true state of affairs. The total amount the defendant stole was $38,500 of which she has paid back $8,000 using her own NPF entitlements. She now appears for sentence on 14 counts of theft as a servant one for each occasion where she falsified "loans" from her auntys account. The "loan" amounts ranged from $1,000 to $7,000.

Again the observations this court made in its sentencing of Police v Gasegaseivao earlier today have equal application here. But this was an even more sophisticated theft because it involved substantial tampering with the aunties records in order to maintain her eligibility for loans and no doubt by the defendant in order to conceal what she was doing. Her counsel has argued that the court should follow the Police v Viliamu [2009] WSSC 52 kind of approach and not send this defendant to prison. But I cannot accept that argument for the reason that Viliamu was a case involving far less money and was a theft involving far less criminal sophistication and was a case where full restitution was made. Which is unlikely here where the only move made by the defendant to restitution is to apply monies already held by the Fund to her credit to reimburse the Fund for part of its loss.

A 5 year start point is the appropriate start point for your offending. From that you are entitled to various deductions. The first being a one-third deduction for your guilty plea, that leaves a balance of 40 months. For the fact that you are a first offender and the other factors in your favour that your counsel has pointed out and also the probation office referred to I make a deduction of 12 months leaving a balance of 28 months. A significant restitution has also been made by you for this matter and the court should make some allowance for that, I will deduct a period of 4 months leaving a balance of 24 months. The end result is the defendant will be convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison as a total sentence for these thefts.

JUSTICE NELSON