|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Samoa |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINU'U
BETWEEN:
POLICE
Prosecution
AND:
SIAOSI SEMU male of Saleapaga, Lepa
Accused
Counsel: T Toailoa for prosecution
Accused in person
Hearing: 29, 30 March 2011
Judgment: 20 May 2011
Delivered: 31 May 2011 (as the accused did not appear on 20 May 2011)
JUDGMENT OF SAPOLU CJ
Introduction
The charges
3. The accused is charged with theft as a servant in seven separate informations as follows
(a) Information S1841/10 charges that on 23 August 2010, the accused, being a servant of the National Bank of Samoa, did steal $1300 in money, being the property of his employer.
(b) Information S1831/10 charges that on 27 August 2010, the accused, being a servant of the National Bank of Samoa, did steal $495 in money, being the property of his employer.
(c) Information S1857/10 charges that on 9 September 2010, the accused, being a servant of the National Bank of Samoa, did steal $500 in money, being the property of his employer.
(d) Information S1858/10 charges that on 9 September 2010, the accused, being a servant of the national Bank of Samoa, did steal $500 in money, being the property of his employer.
(e) Information S1859/10 charges that on the 10 September 2010, the accused, being a servant of the National Bank of Samoa, did steal $500 in money, being the property of his employer.
(f) Information S1860/10 charges that on 13 September 2010, the accused, being a servant of the National Bank of Samoa, did steal $360 in money, being the property of his employer.
(g) Information S1825/10 charges that on 16 September 2010, the accused, being a servant of the National Bank of Samoa, did steal $3,100 in money, being the property of his employer. This is the one charge to which the accused pleaded guilty.
(a) Information S1861/10 charges that on 9 September 2010, the accused made a false document, namely, a National Bank of Samoa withdrawal slip, by writing the amount of $500 in words and in figures and by signing the name of Uesele Pele knowing it to be false, with the intent that it shall be acted upon as genuine, thereby committing the crime of forgery.
(b) Information S1862/10 charges that on 9 September 2010, the accused made a false document, namely, a National Bank of Samoa withdrawal slip, by writing the amount of $500 in words and in figures and by signing the name Uesele Pele knowing it to be false, with the intent that it shall be acted upon as genuine, thereby committing the crime of forgery.
(c) Information S1863/10 charges that on 10 September 2010, the accused made a false document, namely, a National Bank of Samoa withdrawal slip, by writing the amount of $500 in words and in figures and by signing the name of Uesele Pele knowing it to be false, with the intent that it shall be acted upon as genuine, thereby committing the crime of forgery.
(d) Information S1864/10 charges that on 13 September 2010, the accused made a false document, namely, a National Bank of Samoa withdrawal slip, by writing the amount of $360 in words and in figures and by signing the name of Uesele Pele knowing it to be false, with the intent that it shall be acted upon as genuine, thereby committing the crime of forgery.
5. I have decided to amend informations S1857/10, S1858/10, S1859/10 and 1860/10 charging the accused with theft as a servant by substituting the words "the property of Uesele Pele male of Lepa" with the words "the property of his employer" This is to reflect the true intent of S.86 (1) (g) of the Crimes Ordinance 1961 which is one of the two provisions cited in the said informations and to accurately reflect the evidence and the law relating to banking.
6. It is also evident that the forgeries charged in informations S1861/10, S1862/10, S1863/10
and S1864/10 are alleged to have been committed in connection with the thefts as a servant
charged in informations S1857/10, S1858/10, S1859/10 and S1860/10.
7. I turn now to consider each of the seven charges of theft as a servant in chronological order as set out above in paras 3 and 4. Where it is relevant, I will also consider each of the four forgery charges together with the charge of theft as a servant to which it relates.
Charge 3(a) – Information S1841/10 – 23 August 2010
8. By way of background facts, at all material times, the accused was employed as a teller in the main branch of the National Bank of Samoa (NBS) in Apia. Each teller in the main branch of the NBS has a date stamp and one teller cannot use another teller's stamp. Each stamp has a different number, for example, T1, T2 or T3, according to the designated number for each teller. Each stamp also has on it the letters "NBS" and the word "MAIN". The relevant number, the letters NBS, and the word MAIN would show the particular teller at the main branch of the NBS who used the date stamp when it is impressed onto a document. The stamp would also show the relevant date. The teller would then initial on the stamp imprint on the document. As the accused was the number one teller at the main branch of the NBS, his date stamp had the following number, letters and word: "NBS MAIN – T1"
9. The NBS also has a mobile banking system. According to the evidence of the witness Aialii Anapu, a senior supervisor of the NBS, the mobile banking system provides a special banking service to major businesses who are clients of the bank. Instead of these clients bringing their bankings to the NBS, the NBS would send a teller together with an assistant to the business premises of the client and do the client's bankings there. The procedure which is involved is that the client would prepare its own banking by counting its money and putting it in appropriate bundles and filling in the appropriate deposit slips. This is done by writing onto each deposit slip the appropriate number for each account the client has at the bank and the appropriate amount in words and figures to be deposited into each account. When the NBS teller and his assistant arrive, they will check the money already counted and the deposit slips already filled in by the client by re-counting the money to make sure it corresponds with the amounts and the account numbers already entered in the deposit slips. Large business clients normally keep more than one account at the bank.
10. After the money is checked against the deposit slips by the teller and his assistant, the teller will then fill in a document called a cashpad or "tellers transactions" by entering in it the number of each of the client's accounts and the corresponding amount to be deposited into each account. The teller will also stamp the cashpad with his date stamp to show the date, the number of the teller, and that the teller is from the main branch of the NBS.
11. In relation to information S1841/10, the NBS has a major business client named G & M Bakery Ltd to which it provides a mobile banking service. On 23 August 2010, in the afternoon, the accused and an assistant named Malia Samau went to the premises of G & M Bakery to do its banking. They took with them the accused's date stamp as teller and a cashpad or teller's transactions document. They re-counted the money which had already been counted by G&M Bakery and checked it against the deposit slips which had been filled in by the client. This was done in the presence of the witness Pasami Elisaia, an employee of G & M Bakery. The cashpad should then have been filled in by the accused as that was his duty as teller. He also stamped the cashpad with his date stamp which shows "NBS 23 August 2010 MAIN –T1". The "T1" means that it was teller number one who handled the banking, the word "MAIN" means that it was teller number one at the main branch of the NBS, and "23 August 2010" was the date on which the mobile banking service was provided to G&M Bakery. The accused was the teller number one at the main branch of the NBS at that time.
12. According to the evidence of the witness Aialii Anapu, the NBS senior supervisor, the cashpad for the mobile banking by G & M Bakery should have been filled in by the accused as that was his duty as teller. However, it is not clear from the evidence whether it was the accused or his assistant Malia Samau who filled in the cashpad. The evidence is equivocal on this point notwithstanding that the date stamp which appears on the cashpad was that of the accused. The significance of this is that the next day after the mobile banking was done for G&M Bakery, a banking of $1,300 made by G&M Bakery into one of its accounts did not appear on that account. The relevant cashpad now shows that that banking was not entered in it. Malia Samau has left for the United States and could not be called as a witness by the prosecution or the accused.
13. During cross-examination of the witness Aialii Anapu, the accused said in one of his leading questions that most of the amounts entered in the cashpad were received by Malia Samau and entered by her in the cashpad. He also said in another leading question that he did not check the banking at the premises of G&M Bakery or when he and Malia arrived back at the bank. This suggests that it was Malia who checked the banking and entered most of the entries in the cashpad in relation to the banking by G&M Bakery. The accused's evidence also suggests that it was Malia who carried the money from the premises of G&M Bakery to the bank. Whether the accused was telling the truth here or not, Malia Samau could not be called as a witness to testify as to the truth or otherwise of what the accused was saying.
14. In the oral testimony given by the accused, he said that he did not know anything about the missing $1,300 until he and Malia were informed by the bank that there was an amount of $1,300 missing from the banking by G&M Bakery as a result of a query from that client. I am very suspicious of the accused and his evidence. However, given the absence of any evidence from Malia Samau who has left for the United States, I am left with a reasonable doubt whether it was the accused who did steal the said sum of $1,300. Information S1841/10 with which the accused is charged that on 23 August 2010 he did steal the sum of $1,300 being the property of his employer the NBS is therefore dismissed.
Charge 3(b) – Information S1831/10 – 27 August 2010
15. As background facts to information S1831/10 charging the accused that on 27 August 2010 he did steal $495 being the property of his employer the NBS, the said witness Aialii Anapu testified that at the material time he had been the supervisor of the accused as teller for about two years. In respect of savings accounts, Aialii testified that no such account can be overdrawn without authorisation from a bank manager. Furthermore, no withdrawl can be made from a savings account with a zero balance unless further credit goes into such an account.
16. There was a savings account in the bank under the name Mose Hurrell. That account had a zero balance on 29 September 2007. On 31 March 2008, one sene went into the account from interest so that the account showed a balance of one sene. That balance soon disappeared because of bank fees so that the account again had a zero balance. There was no further deposit into or withdrawal from that account. So the account was closed. Then on 27 August 2010 there was a withdrawal of $450 from the account. Thus the account which was supposed to have been closed became overdrawn by $450.
17. When the irregularity was discovered the next day, 28 August 2010, Aialii Anapu conducted an investigation. He discovered the withdrawal slip that was used to withdraw $495 from the closed account in the name of Mose Hurrell. Aialii Anapu testified that the handwriting that filled in the withdrawal slip is that of the accused. The date stamp on the withdrawal slip was also that of the accused as teller number one in the main branch of the bank. The initials on the stamp are also those of the accused.
18. When Aialii Anapu confronted the accused with the withdrawal slip, the accused admitted that the stamp on the withdrawal slip is his stamp and the initials on the stamp are his initials. Aialii Anapu did not question the accused about the handwriting on the withdrawal slip but he testified that he had been the accused's supervisor for about two years and he is familiar with the accused's handwriting. He confirmed that the handwriting which filled in the withdrawal slip is the accused's handwriting.
19. The witness Aialii Anapu further testified that during his questioning of the accused, the latter told him that further credits had been entered in the Enquiries Section of the bank into the account in the name of Mose Hurrell. That was why the amount of $450 was withdrawn from the account. However, the investigation revealed that no such credits were entered at the Enquiries Section in the Mose Hurrell account.
20. The three bank managers at the relevant time were all called as witnesses by the prosecution to testify whether any of them had authorised the amount of $450 to be withdrawn from the account in the name of Mose Hurrell. They all testified that none of them did authorise such withdrawal.
21. The witness AialiiAnapu also testified that when he questioned the accused about this person Mose Hurrell, the accused said he lives at Faleula. The bank then tried to contact Mose Hurrell at Faleula but could not find such a person. However, about four and a half months later on 10 December 2010, there appeared on the bank's system from an unknown source the sum of $450 to cover the $450 that had been withdrawn from the Mose Hurrell account.
22. When the accused gave evidence it was clear from his answers to questions from counsel for the prosecution and from the Court that it was him who prepared the withdrawal slip and withdrew $450 from the Mose Hurrell account even though that account had a zero balance for a long time. It was also clear from the accused's answers that he had no authority from Mose Hurrell whoever he is or from any bank manager to withdraw any money from the Mose Hurrell account. The accused was most evasive in his answers.
23. After giving careful consideration to all of this evidence, I conclude that it was the accused himself who had withdrawn the sum of $450, using the account in the name of Mose Hurrell, without any authorisation. He must have used that money himself with the intention to deprive his employer of it permanently. When the matter was discovered and an investigation was carried out, the accused paid back the money, though belatedly, on 10 December 2010. Where he got that money from is unknown.
24. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved the charge of theft as a servant in information S1831/10 beyond reasonable doubt.
Charge 3(c) – Information S1857/10 – 9 September 2010
25. As background facts to information S1857/10 charging the accused that on 9 September 2010 he did steal $500 being the property of his employer the NBS, the witness Aialii Anapu testified that the NBS has clients who are seafarers employed by the Samoa Shipping Services Ltd on board vessels in other countries. These clients keep savings accounts with the NBS to which they make fortnightly or monthly remittances. When such a client wants to withdraw money from his savings account for his parents, wife, children, or other family members in Samoa, the conditions to be fulfilled are as follows.
26. The client will write to the bank requesting a specific amount to be withdrawn from his account giving the number of his passbook. He will also provide an ID of the person in Samoa who will withdraw the money. He will also have to sign his letter of request in the same way as his specimen signature kept by the bank. Such a letter of request is also to be accompanied by a letter from the Samoa Shipping Services Ltd to confirm that the client is an employee of the Samoa Shipping Services Ltd working on board an overseas vessel, and giving the name of the person in Samoa authorised by the client to withdraw the money from his/her account and the amount to be withdrawn.
27. In a withdrawal slip, there is a space in which a client is to sign before a paying officer or teller at the bank. Because a client who is a seafarer working overseas is not present to sign the withdrawal slip before a paying officer, the words "Refer to Attached" are written into that space by the paying officer or the person making the withdrawal. The letter from the client showing his signature and the letter of confirmation from the Samoa Shipping Services Ltd would then be attached to the withdrawal slip. At the back of the withdrawal slip would appear the signature and name of the person in Samoa who withdraws the money and any identification details like passport details and phone number.
28. In relation to information S1857/10, the NBS has a client named Uesele Pele who is employed as a seafarer on board a vessel in Italy. A bank statement of the savings account by Uesele Pele was produced by the witness Aialii Anapu. It shows that an amount of $500 was withdrawn from that account on 9 September 2010. A withdrawal slip dated 9 September 2010 was also produced by the same witness. It shows an amount of $500 being withdrawn from the account of Uesele Pele. The date stamp on this withdrawal slip was that of the accused as teller number one at the main branch of the NBS. It also bears the initials of the accused. However, the signature at the space for the client's signature is not that of Uesele Pele. This signature is quite different from the specimen signature of Uesele Pele kept by the bank. It is also quite different from the signature of Uesele Pele in one of his letters to the bank for a withdrawal and which letter was produced by the prosecution as an exhibit. It was also impossible for Uesele Pele to have signed the withdrawal slip before the accused as the bank's paying officer because he was not in Samoa at the time as confirmed by the evidence of members of his family.
29. As earlier mentioned, each teller at the main branch has his/her own date stamp. One teller cannot use another teller's stamp. This is because each stamp has a different and distinctive number such as T1, T2, T3 and so on. The number on the stamp corresponds to the designated number for each teller. As the accused was the number one teller, his stamp bears the imprint T1. The number of the stamp on the withdrawal slip which is the subject of the information S1857/10 was T1 and was initialed by the accused. This shows that it was the accused who processed that withdrawal slip.
30. Three other similar withdrawals were made from the account of Uesele Pele. Those withdrawals are the subject of three other separate charges of theft as a servant in this case. This matter did not surface until the sister and brother of Uesele Pele lodged a complaint with the bank in October 2010 that monies were being withdrawn from the account of Uesele Pele without his authority.
31. Insofar as relevant to the present charge, that is information S1857/10, the witness Karen Niumata who is the sister of Uesele Pele testified that during a visit of her brother to Samoa in 2010 he told her that she would be the person he would authorise to make withdrawals from his savings account at the NBS if their family needed any money. Her brother's passbook was then left with her. Karen Niumata also testified that at no time did she sign the name of her brother on a withdrawal slip when he authorises her to make a withdrawal. She further testified there was one occasion when she needed money and she went with her other brother Esau Niumata and his wife Tania and talked to the accused at the bank. On that occasion there was no written authorisation from her brother Uesele Pele to make a withdrawal. However, after talking to the accused, the accused agreed that she may make a withdrawal and she was asked to sign her name in the space on the withdrawal slip which is to be signed by a client before a paying officer. So she signed her name in the presence of the accused as paying officer and that of her brother Esau Niumata and his wife Tania. It was clear from the evidence of Karen Niumata that that was not on 9 September 2010 as she was overseas from 7 to the 27 September 2010 and her passport confirms that.
32. Esau Niumata was also called as a witness by the prosecution. He testified that he had made only two withdrawals of $500 and $200 from the account of his brother Uesele Pele on 3 September 2010. What happened was that he had an unexpected fa'alavelave. So his sister who was leaving for overseas on 7 September 2010 contacted the accused. He then went to the accused at the bank. That was how he obtained two withdrawals even though there was no written authorisation from Uesele Pele who owns the account. Counsel for the prosecution showed this witness the passbook for Uesele Pele's account and asked him to point out in the passbook the two withdrawals he had made. They did not include the amounts with which the accused is now charged with theft as a servant.
33. The accused's evidence in chief in relation to the subject matter of information S1857/10 was quite brief and somewhat unclear. Essentially, he said that the witnesses Karen Niumata and her brother Esau Niumata used to come to him to withdraw monies from the account of their brother Uesele Pele without a passbook or letter of authorisation from Uesele Pele. He would allow the withdrawals they requested because he knows both Karen and Esau as they are from the same village. He also said that he asked a bank supervisor who told him that if he knows a person and trusts that person then allows the withdrawal. The accused did not mention which bank supervisor he got that advice from. But he said that was the reason why he allowed the witness Esau Niumata to make two withdrawals from the account of Uesele Pele.
34. Under cross-examination by counsel for the prosecution who conducted this prosecution in a very able manner, the accused admitted that the date stamp on the relevant withdrawal slip for $500 was his stamp. He also admitted that the initials on the stamp imprint on the withdrawal slip were his initials. Counsel for the prosecution then referred to the passbook and pointed out that the two withdrawals made by Esau Niumata were made on 3 September 2010 and the accused also agreed. These are the same withdrawals that Esau Niumata pointed out in his evidence he had made on 3 September 2010. When it was drawn to the accused's attention that the relevant withdrawal slip is dated 9 September 2010 and Esau Niumata had testified that the two withdrawals he made were on 3 September 2010, the accused was in some difficulties.
35. Counsel for the prosecution also asked the accused as to whose signature appears in the space on the withdrawal slip where a client is required to sign before a bank paying officer when making a withdrawal. The accused replied it is not his signature. When counsel pointed out that that could not have been the signature of Karen Niumata or Esau Niumata because neither of them is the owner of the account, the accused agree. The question then is who signed in the space on the withdrawal slip dated 9 September 2010 where a client is required to sign before a paying officer when making a withdrawal. The obvious answer to my mind as that it must have been the accused who processed the withdrawal slip in the absence of Karen Niumata and Esau Niumata
36. To recap on the essential evidence, the witness Esau Niumata made two withdrawals for $500 and $200 on 3 September 2010 from the savings account of his brother Uesele Pele after his sister Karen Niumata had contacted the accused. Karen Niumata was overseas from 7 September 2010 to 27 September 2010. Someone filled out the withdrawal slip dated 9 September 2010 and withdrew $500 from the savings account of Uesele Pele. Someone had also signed in the space on the said withdrawal slip where the owner of the account is to sign before a bank paying officer when he/she makes a withdrawal. Esau denied it was him who signed on the withdrawal slip as the only withdrawals he made were on 3 September 2010. Karen Niumata could not have signed the withdrawal slip as she had left for overseas on 7 September 2010. Likewise Uesele Pele, the owner of the account, could not have signed the withdrawal slip as he was still working overseas at that time.
37. The date stamp on the said withdrawal slip was that of the accused. It was initialed by the accused. This suggests that the withdrawal was processed by the accused which he admitted. However, he denied he signed the withdrawal slip.
38. In these circumstances, I have no difficulty in concluding that it was the accused who processed the withdrawal, wrote out the withdrawal slip, signed the name of Uesele Pele on the withdrawal slip, and stamped it with his teller's stamp. He then withdrew the $500 and took it for himself with the intention to deprive his employer permanently of the money.
39. It follows that I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved the charge of theft as a servant in information S1857/10 beyond reasonable doubt.
Charge 4(a) – Information S1861/10 – 9 September 2010
40. Information S1861/10 charges the accused with the forgery of the withdrawal slip that he prepared to withdraw the sum of $500 from the savings account of Uesele Pele for which he is charged with theft as a servant in information S1857/10.
41. I need not repeat the relevant facts which are already set out in my discussion in relation to information S1857/10. I am satisfied that the withdrawal slip prepared by the accused was a false document and that the accused knew that it was a false document. He nonetheless prepared that false withdrawal slip with the intent that it shall be acted upon as genuine.
42. It follows that I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved the charge of forgery in information S1861/10 beyond reasonable doubt.
Charge 3(d) – Information S1858/10 – 9 September 2010
43. Information S1858/10 charges that on 9 September 2010 the accused did steal $500 being the property of his employer the NBS. This charge relates to another withdrawal slip dated 9 September 2010 which was filled out and used bythe accused to withdraw another $500 from the savings account of Uesele Pele without authorisation from the owner of the account or the knowledge of his sister Karen Niumata or his brother Esau Niumata or any other member of his family.
44. The evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove this charge is substantially the same as the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the charge of theft as a servant in information S1857/10 I do not need to repeat that evidence. I am satisfied from that evidence that on 9 September 2010 the accused did fill out another withdrawal slip, stamped it with his teller's stamp, and used it to withdraw another $500 from the savings account of Uesele Pele without any authority to do so.
45. I find that the prosecution has also proved the charge of theft as a servant in information S1858/10 beyond reasonable doubt.
Charge 4(b) – Information S1862/10 – 9 September 2010
46. Information S1862/10 charges the accused with the forgery of the withdrawal slip that he prepared on 9 September 2010 to withdraw the sum of $500 from the savings account of Uesele Pele for which he is charged with theft as a servant in information S1858/10.
47. I am satisfied from the evidence that the withdrawal slip prepared by the accused on 9 September 2010 was a false document and that the accused knew that it was a false document. He nonetheless prepared that false withdrawal slip with the intent that it shall be acted upon as genuine.
48. It follows that I am also satisfied that the prosecution has proved the charge of forgery in information S1862/10 beyond reasonable doubt.
Charge 3(e) – Information S1859/10 – 10 September 2010
49. Information S1859/10 charges that 10 September 2010 the accused did steal $500 being the property of his employer the NBS. This charge relates to another withdrawal slip dated 10 September 2010 which was filled out and used by the accused to withdraw another $500 from the savings account of Uesele Pele without any lawful authorisation.
50. The evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove this charge is substantially the same as the evidence adduced to prove the charges of theft as a servant in informations S1857/10 and S1858/10. Again, I do not need to repeat that evidence. I am satisfied from that evidence that on 10 September 2010 the accused did fraudulently fill out another withdrawal slip, stamped it with his teller's stamp, and used it to withdraw another $500 from the savings account of Uesele Pele without any authority to do so.
51. I find that the prosecution has also proved the charge of theft as a servant in information S1859/10 beyond reasonable doubt.
Charge 4(c) – Information S1863/10 – 10 September 2010
52. Information S1863/10 charges the accused with the forgery of the withdrawal slip that he prepared on 10 September 2010 to withdraw $500 from the savings account of Uesele Pele for which he is charged with theft as a servant in information S1859/10.
53. I am satisfied from the evidence that the withdrawal slip dated 10 September 2010 was prepared by the accused and that it was a false document. The accused also knew that it was a false document but he used it with the intent that it shall be acted upon as genuine.
54. It follows that I am also satisfied that the prosecution has proved the charge of forgery in information S1863/10 beyond reasonable doubt.
Charge 3(f) – Information S1860/10 – 13 September 2010
55. Information S1860/10 charges that on 13 September 2010 the accused did steal $360 being the property of his employer the NBS. This charge relates to a withdrawal slip dated 13 September 2010 which was filled out and used by the accused to withdraw $360 from the savings account of Uesele Pele without any lawful authorisation.
56. The evidence called by the prosecution to prove this charge is much the same as the evidence to prove the other theft as a servant charges I have already dealt with. Repetition of that evidence is unnecessary. Suffice to say that on that evidence, I am satisfied that on 13 September 2010 the accused did fraudulently fill out another withdrawal slip, stamped it with his teller's stamp, and used it to withdraw $360 from the savings account of Uesele Pele without any authority to do so.
57. I find that the prosecution has also proved the charge of theft as a servant in information S1860/10 beyond reasonable doubt.
Charge 4(d) – Information S1864/10 – 13 September 2010
58. Information S1864/10 charges the accused with the forgery of the withdrawal slip that he prepared on 13 September 2010 to withdraw $360 from the savings account of Uesele Pele for which he is charged with theft as a servant in information S1860/10.
59. I am satisfied from the evidence that the accused prepared the withdrawal slip dated 13 September 2010 knowing that it was a false document with the intention that it shall be acted upon as genuine.
60. It follows that I am also satisfied that the prosecution has proved the charge of forgery in information S1864/10 beyond reasonable doubt.
Charge 3(g) – Information S1825/10 – 16 September 2010
61. Information S1825/10 charges that on 16 September 2010 the accused did steal $3,100 being the property of his employer the NBS. The accused pleaded guilty to this charge and it therefore needs no discussion.
Conclusions
-------------------------------
CHIEF JUSTICE
Solicitor
Attorney General's Office, for prosecution
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSSC/2011/46.html