Police v Ah Far [2015] WSSC 215 (19 February 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Ah Far [2015] WSSC 215

Case name:	Police v Ah Far
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 215
Decision date:	19 February 2015
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) DARYL AH FAR, male of Tanugamanono. (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	-
File number(s):	S1992/14, S1844/14
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	On the charge S1992/14 convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison. In relation to the other charge S1844/14 involving theft of the $7,000.00 making similar deductions convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison, concurrent term. Total term then for these two matters would be 3 years in prison.
Representation:	O Tagaloa for prosecution D Roma for defendant
Catchwords:	-
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

DARYL AH FAR, male of Tanugamanono.
Defendant

Counsel: O Tagaloa for prosecution
D Roma for defendant

Sentence: 19 February 2015

SENTENCE

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges. Firstly that between the 01^st of July and the 31^st of August 2013 being a servant of the ANZ Bank he did steal $7,000.00 in money the property of the said ANZ Bank. Second charge is that between the 24^th of October and the 9^th of November in the same year 2013 being a person in possession or control of $100,000.00 of money belonging to his employer did fail to account for said money and thereby commit theft.
2. The amended summary of facts from the police dated 29 January 2015 has been accepted by the defendant through his counsel. That notes that he is a 26 year old male of Tanugamanono married with children. He was at the relevant time employed as a Bulk Teller by the Bank in its Apia branch. As one of the bulk tellers he was responsible for holding large cash amounts and therefore had access to the bank vault where all monies including foreign currencies are kept. Part of his duties included overseeing the transfer of monies in and out of the vault and the checking of documents to verify amounts.
3. In about July 2013 the defendant and accomplices conspired to conceal some $100,000.00 from the banks cash holdings. I do not propose to repeat in detail the lengthy summary of facts but essentially what it shows is this $100,000.00 was kept in cash in a courier bag by the defendant and his accomplices. They would move this cash around from ATMs to the vault and other areas of the bank and falsify documents in order to conceal what they were doing. The defendant and his accomplices then used this money as their own private stash of funds to draw upon when desired. For the relevant period the defendant took $7,000.00 from this money.
4. The activities of the group were only caught by a surprise cash count conducted by a suspicious employer. The police summary of facts shows the total loss to the bank as a result of these thefts was some $51,950.00. This led to the charges against the defendant of theft of the $7,000.00 and failing to properly account for the $100,000.00.
5. As theft goes this was obviously a well organized deception. It extended to falsifying documents and records in order for the group to cover their activities. It was sophisticated well planned and executed by people with a high degree of responsibility and trust. The documents before the court indicate the employer was required to fly in specialist investigators and auditors from overseas in an attempt to determine what was happening. This theft was more than “a bad decision by the defendant” as argued by his counsel. It was a deliberate organized and systematic fraud carried out by employees who used their knowledge and positions for personal gain.
6. The charge you have pleaded guilty to Mr Ah Far of theft by a person in a special relationship involving $100,000.00 carries a 10 year maximum penalty. The same maximum applies to the other charge that you have pleaded guilty to of stealing $7,000.00.
7. In relation to the first charge S1992/1 I accept the prosecution submission that in all the circumstances the appropriate start point for sentence would be 5 years in prison. But there are deductions to be made from the start point as your counsel has correctly identified. For your guilty plea which has saved the courts time and resources a deduction of one-quarter of sentence will be made. That is a period of 15 months leaves a balance of 45 months. You have a good pre-sentence report shows service to your family and community, you have a clean criminal record and there are references filed that speak well of your character. To take account of those matters I deduct 6 months leaves a balance of 39 months.
8. An apology has been made to your former employer and that was confirmed to the probation office by its chief operating officer Ms Rasmussen. They have through the probation office sought some leniency on your behalf. But it is therein noted that none of the lost money was recovered. I deduct for the apology and their plea a further 3 months from your sentence leaves a balance of 36 months.
9. Your counsel tells me you will be testifying against the accomplices alleged to be involved in this matter. However that has not yet occurred as their trial is set for later this year. I cannot give you credit for something that has not yet happened.
10. No other deductions can be made from your sentence. On the charge S1992/14 convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison.
11. In relation to the other charge S1844/14 involving theft of the $7,000.00 making similar deductions convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison, concurrent term. Total term then for these two matters would be 3 years in prison.
    

JUSTICE NELSON