Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

State v Bole [2005] FJHC 470; HAC0038S.2005S (4 October 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Crim. Case No: HAC0038 of 2005S

STATE

v.

SAKIUSA BOLE

Hearing: 19th September 2005 – 3rd October 2005
Sentence: 4th October 2005

Counsel: Mr. D. Goundar and Ms Tabete for State
Mr. N. Vere for Accused

SENTENCE

Sakiusa Bole, you have been convicted on five counts of fraudulent falsification of accounts. On each count you signed false invoices in the name of Repina Wholesalers, which invoices purported to show that items were delivered by certain vehicles to farmers in Naitasiri, and which invoices were false in fact. You signed the invoices knowing them to be false and with intent to defraud the Fiji Government of $35,882.74.

In the course of this trial, evidence was led to show that the Agriculture Scheme, also known as the Farming Assistance Affirmative Action Programme, was riddled with abuses of office, mismanagement of funds and lack of accountability. In the midst of this gross abuse of public funds, you falsified these invoices, intending to benefit Repina Wholesalers which was paid for goods which were never supplied to farmers and in doing so, you defrauded your own employer. This was a case of an employee who took advantage of a chaotic financial system, for his own benefit and that of Repina Wholesalers.

The maximum sentence for offences under section 307 of the Penal Code is 7 years imprisonment. However, the tariff for breach of trust sentence ranges from 18 months to 3½ years imprisonment. Higher terms are imposed where there is a serious breach of trust, committed over a long period of time, there has been no attempt at restitution and no remorse expressed nor a guilty plea.

A comparable case to this one is State v. Isimeli Drodroveivali HAC0007.2002S, in which Singh J imposed a 3 year term of imprisonment on 5 counts of fraudulent conversion which involved a total of $36,858. In that case the accused was a bank officer who committed the fraud over a period of 10 months. In breach of trust cases, comparably less weight is put on good character, because only people of good character are given positions of trust and responsibility. It is the breach of trust which is the harm done in these offences.

As it is in your case. You were employed in the Ministry for 40 years. You were put in a position of trust in the Affirmative Action Scheme. You breached that trust and defrauded the Government of $35,882.74.

In the circumstances I pick as my starting point 3 years imprisonment. I give you credit for your age and for many years of service to the community at Naitasiri. I take into account the evidence of Meli Tokaibai of the Education Ministry that you have helped others in that district. I also take into account the age of the offences and the fact that the charges were only laid this year. I scale your sentence down to 2 years.

The aggravating factors were the fact that you continued to sign invoices to the benefit of a person from whom you were borrowing or taking money, and the fact that you deliberately took advantage of a loose accounting system. You cannot blame the system or politicians for your own dishonesty. No matter how dishonest, or negligent your colleagues or superiors may have been, you yourself had a moral and legal duty to follow procedure and act honestly at all times. You failed in that duty. I arrive at a sentence of 3 years imprisonment.

Given the scale of the offending and the level of your culpability, a non-custodial sentence is not an option.

You are sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently with each other.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
4^th October 2005