In the High Court of Kiribati
Criminal Jurisdiction
Held at Betio
Republic of Kiribati

High Court Criminal Case No. 27 of 2004

The Republic

vs

Rikee Kourataake

For the Republic: Mr Tion Nabau
For the Accused: Mr Banuera Berina

Date of Hearing: 8 September 2004

JUDGMENT

Rikee Kourataake: you have pleaded guilty to embezzling $4,500 from your employer, Solar Energy. Originally you were charged with taking $6,346 but on the morning of trial that was reduced to $4,500 and you pleaded guilty.

It took me some time to be clear on just how much money you admit taking for yourself. You were receiving moneys from North Tarawa and Marakei on behalf of your employer but you did not bank it. You say you used some to pay the directors their sitting fees, to buy things for the company and to make loans to senior officers in the company. The record of these transactions disappeared while you were on holiday. Eventually after submissions from both Mr Nabau prosecuting and Mr Berina, your lawyer, it appears that you used for yourself $4,500 of the moneys you received. I sentence on the basis that this is the amount you embezzled.

You lost your job when this was discovered. You have not been employed since.

You are 29 years old and married. You and your husband have been doing courses at USP in the last 12 months. You are studying the computer. 

All this happened between September 2000 and March 2001. Mr Berina told me you were inexperienced and received no guidance in how to carry out your duties as an accounts clerk. You confessed in writing in March 2001 to what you had done. Yet it took until April this year for you to be charged. In 2001 Solar Energy told the police they did not want to go on with the case but the Auditor General insisted. From what Mr Nabau told me the police delayed over two years before sending the papers to the Attorney General. The Attorney General then delayed another nine months before charging you. Whoever was responsible for these quite unacceptable delays you were not. Yet you had the anxiety of whether or not you would be charged hanging over you for more than three years.

In your favour is that this is your first offence, you pleaded guilty to it as soon as the amount was reduced and you have had to wait more than three years to come before the court. All these mean a substantially shorter sentence of imprisonment than otherwise.

Nevertheless what you did was dishonest, taking you employer’s money and using it for your own purposes. Even though you had not been properly instructed in your duties and the accounting system was poor, you must have known that it is dishonest to take other people’s money. The Court has said many times that a person who acts in this dishonest way must expect to go to gaol.

Mr Berina has asked that the sentence of imprisonment be suspended. Especially because of the delay I have thought about suspension but finally because of the substantial amount involved I have concluded that you should serve the sentence.

You will be imprisoned for six months.

Dated the 9th day of September 2004

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice