Police v Esera [2011] WSSC 100 (18 July 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

NATASHA ESERA female of Lalovaea.
Defendant

Counsels: Ms T Toailoa and F E Niumata for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented.

Sentence: 18 July 2011

SENTENCE

The summary of facts which the defendant admitted states that she is a 33 year old female of Lalovaea, married with seven children and is currently unemployed. She appears for sentence on six counts of theft as a servant, fifteen counts of forgery and ten counts of theft. These offences were committed by the defendants use of credit card numbers to steal not only from her employer but also from two local supermarkets. I find it incredible that the defendant was able to do what she did so easily and I hope the media and the press gives this extensive coverage because this case shows how vulnerable credit card details are to criminal activity. People who own credit cards should pay attention to this sentencing.

The defendant at the time of the offences was employed at the Samoan Outrigger Hotel and her duties included receiving payments from hotel guests. This gave her easy access to the credit card details of the hotel guests. Something that is not uncommon in this town. What the defendant did was when guests made cash payments she kept this for her own purposes and in order to make up the deficit she would charge it to their credit card. She would not use the credit card number of a current guest but she would use the credit card number of a previous guest who had used his credit card to pay for his hotel bill and other hotel expenses.

In order to do that she did not need the actual credit card as she had explained to the court. She only needed to punch in to the eftpos machine the number of the relevant credit card and then forge the persons signature on the receipt issued by the eftpos machine. This was no doubt easy for her to do as an employee of the Samoan Outrigger Hotel as she had access to the eftpos machine and all the necessary credit card information. And of course there was no one there to verify the signature that she forged on the eftpos machine. Using this system the summary relates that she stole a total amount of $424.70 from her then employer. She stole this in varying amounts and effected this on six occasions thus leading to the six counts of theft as a servant.

Not content with that the defendant then proceeded to expand her activities to two supermarkets in Apia. She did this firstly by visiting Chan Mow Supermarket. On according to the summary three separate occasions stealing in total an amount of $733.30. And what she would do is that after shopping at the supermarket she would go to the eftpos machine at the check out counter and again without the relevant credit card punch in the credit card numbers of guests who had stayed at the hotel where she worked. She would then proceed to forge the signature of the credit card owner on the eftpos machine receipt.

She did the same thing at another supermarket in Apia namely Farmer Joes and that supermarket she visited seven times and stole goods to the value of $1,719.60. Again she used the same system of manually punching in to the eftpos machine the credit card numbers of a guest who had stayed where she worked and then falsely signing the eftpos machine receipt. The thing that I find incredible is that at neither of these supermarkets was she asked to provide any form of identification to verify that she was the owner of such a credit card neither was she asked to produce the particular credit card for inspection. All she needed to carry out these activities was the credit card number. And no doubt some story to the person behind the counter as to why the credit card could not be produced and was lost or missing. This theft only goes to highlight how important it is for members of the public who have credit cards to make sure that their details are not divulged to unauthorized people. And how easy it is in Apia to steal from your credit card if someone has your number.

The degree of criminality involved in this offending is high. The offences are multiple and not just one. The defendant appears for sentence on a total of 31 counts of offences of dishonesty. The other aggravating factors of this offending is well summarized in the prosecution memorandum namely the breach of trust involved because of the defendants access to such credit information and the premeditation and planning in carrying out this offending. As mentioned the defendant used this credit information to steal not only from her employer at the time but also from two local supermarkets.

The degree of dishonesty is quite high. We live in an age of credit cards use and common use of eftpos cards. The confidentiality of the details of such materials should be accorded some protection. The defendants activities has resulted in losses not only to her then employer but also the two supermarkets in question, losses for which there has been no restitution made. The pre-sentence probation office report also indicates that no apology or reconciliation was tendered by the defendant to the victims.

Theft as a servant carries a maximum penalty of 7 years in prison. I note you are a first offender and that you have pleaded guilty Natasha and that goes to your credit. In respect of the charges of theft as a servant, you will be convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison but I am reducing that to 2½ years because of your co-operation with the court.

In respect of the charges of forgery and theft they both carry the penalties of a maximum 5 years. In respect of those charges you will convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison but all terms are to be served concurrently so that the defendant will serve for these offences 2½ years in prison. All prison terms in respect of all charges counsel are concurrent.

JUSTICE NELSON