State v Kasiman [2024] PGNC 307; N10990 (11 September 2024)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

BOSTON KASIMAN, EDNA OAI, ANNIE SMEREWAI,
TABITHA MALKEN, GLORIA FRANCESCA SALIKA
& GREGORY JAMES SHEPPARD

Waigani: Cannings J
2023: 18^th October, 3^rd, 6^th, 8^th, 9^th, 10^th, 13^th, 14^th, 16^th, 17^th, 20^th, 21^st, 22^nd, 23^rd, 24^th November, 14^th, 15^th December
2024: 18^th, 19^th, 20^th June, 23^rd August, 11^th September

CRIMINAL LAW – offences – misappropriation – Criminal Code, s 383A – elements of offence – whether money applied by a person was property belonging to another person – whether accused acted dishonestly.

Six accused were charged with misappropriation under s 383A(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. The indictment by which they were charged contained two counts. Count 1 charged each of them with misappropriation of K52 million the property of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, and alleged that it was dishonestly applied to the use of a law firm of which the fourth and fifth accused were employees and the sixth accused was managing partner. Count 2 charged the first, second and third accused, who are directors of a company, with misappropriation of K216 million the property of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, and alleged that it was dishonestly applied to the use of the company of which they were directors. The State’s case was that the money that was the subject of the two counts was trust money owned by the State and subject to a strict condition that it be used only for development projects to support customary landowners affected by the operations of a mining company in which the State was a shareholder.

Counsel
H Roalakona & T Aihi, for the State
I Molloy for the First, Second & Third Accused
E Sasingian, for the Fourth & Fifth Accused
R J Webb SC & L Painap, for the Sixth Accused

1. CANNINGS J: The six accused are charged with misappropriation under s 383A(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. They are:

2. The indictment by which they are charged contains two counts. Count 1 charges each of them with misappropriation of K52 million the property of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, and alleges that it was dishonestly applied to the use of Young & Williams Lawyers, from August 2018 to December 2020. Count 1 states:

Boston Kasiman ..., Edna Oai ..., Annie Smerewai ..., Tabitha Malken ..., Gloria Francesca Salika ... and Gregory James Sheppard ... stand charged that they ... between 1 August 2018 and 30 December 2020 in Port Moresby ... and Kiunga and Daru ... dishonestly applied to the use of Young and Williams Lawyers monies in the sum of fifty-two million Kina ... the property of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea contrary to s 383A(1)(a), (1A) and (2)(c) of the Criminal Code.

3. Count 2 charges the first, second and third accused with misappropriation of K216 million the property of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, and alleges that it was dishonestly applied to the use of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd, from September 2018 to February 2020. Count 2 states:

Boston Kasiman ..., Edna Oai ... and Annie Smerewai ... stand charged that they ... between 1 September 2018 and 30 February [sic] 2020 in Port Moresby ... and Kiunga and Daru ... dishonestly applied to the use of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd monies in the sum of two hundred and sixteen million Kina ... the property of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea contrary to s 383A(1)(a), (1A) and (2)(c) of the Criminal Code.

4. The first, second and third accused are directors of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd, a company established in 2016. The first and second accused have been directors since 23 September 2016. The third accused has been a director since 10 July 2019.

5. The fourth, fifth and sixth accused were at the relevant time connected with Young and Williams Lawyers. The fourth accused was and still is a legal secretary with the firm. The fifth accused was a lawyer. The sixth accused was and still is the managing partner.

6. It is alleged that the money misappropriated (K52 million + K216 million, a total of K268 million) was the property of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea by reason of it being held over a long period in a trust account called the Western Province Mine Continuation Agreement Regions Peoples Dividend Trust Account held at the ANZ Bank, account No 12767475. That account contained funds paid into it by Ok Tedi Mining Ltd as dividends due to the Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a shareholder of Ok Tedi Mining Ltd. A trust instrument executed in 2007 by the then Minister for Finance, Hon John Hickey MP, required that the funds be applied to development projects in the ‘Community Mine Continuation Agreement Regions’. The trustees of the account were from the time of its establishment until 2018 various departmental heads.

7. On 3 August 2018 the National Court (Koeget J) made an interim order, in proceedings described as OS 75 of 2018, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd v James Marape MP, Minister for Finance & Others, that the then trustees be substituted by Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd. The order relevantly stated:

8. On 5 September 2018 his Honour made a permanent order in the following terms:

Terms 2 and 3 of the orders of the Court made on 3 August 2018 are made permanent such that: (a) the Plaintiff is substituted forthwith for the existing Trustees of the Western Province Community Mine Continuation Agreement Region People’s Dividend Trust Account (“WPPDT-CMCA”) established pursuant to the instrument executed on 12 June 2007 by Honourable Mr John Hickey and amended by Honourable Mr James Marape on 9 April 2014, and Dr Ken Ngangan dated 30 October 2017; (b) The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (PNG) Ltd (“ANZ”) shall only operate the bank account comprising the Trust Property, that is account no. 12767475, on the exclusive authority and direction of the proper officer of the Plaintiff and no other person or entity.
.
9. An appeal against those orders was eventually discontinued. Koeget J’s orders remain in force.

10. Five payments that were made out of the ANZ Bank account No 12767475 from August 2018 to February 2020 are the subject of the two counts on the indictment. The following table summarises the date, amount, the bank account into which each payment was made and the count on the indictment to which the payment relates.

Date	Amount	Account into which payment made	Count
17 Aug 18	K15 million	Young & Williams trust account	1
4 Sep 18	K 5 million	Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd at Bank South Pacific	2
23 Dec 19	K37 million	Young & Williams trust account	1
23 Dec 19	K21 million	Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd at Bank South Pacific	2
21 Feb 20	K190 million	Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd at Westpac Bank	2

11. The State’s case is, in count 1, that the two payments of K15 million and K37 million totalling K52 million made into the Young & Williams trust account were not applied to development projects in the CMCA regions but were applied to the use of Young & Williams Lawyers and that each of the six accused participated in the decision to apply the funds in that unlawful manner and that they each acted dishonestly.

12. The State’s case is, in count 2, that the three payments (K5 million and K21 million to Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd’s BSP account and K190 million to Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd’s Westpac account) totalling K216 million were not applied to development projects in the CMCA regions, but were applied to the use of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd and that the first, second and third accused participated in the decisions to apply the funds in that unlawful manner and that they each acted dishonestly.

13. The offence with which the accused are charged is in s 383A (misappropriation of property) of the Criminal Code, which states:

(1) A person who dishonestly applies to his own use or to the use of another person—

(b) property belonging to him which is in his possession or control (either solely or conjointly with another person) subject to a trust, direction or condition or on account of any other person,

(1A) Notwithstanding Subsection (2), an offender guilty of the crime of misappropriation shall be sentenced —

(a) to imprisonment for a term of 50 years without remission and without parole, if the property misappropriated is of a value of K1 million or upwards, but does not exceed K10 million; and

(b) to life imprisonment if the property misappropriated is of a value of K10 million or upwards.

(2) An offender guilty of the crime of misappropriation of property is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years except in any of the following cases when he is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years:—

(a) where the offender is a director of a company and the property dishonestly applied is company property; or

(b) where the offender is an employee and the property dishonestly applied is the property of his employer; or

(c) where the property dishonestly applied was subject to a trust, direction or condition; or

(d) where the property dishonestly applied is of a value of K2,000.00 or upwards.

(a) property includes money and all other property real or personal, legal or equitable, including things in action and other intangible property; and

(b) a person's application of property may be dishonest even although he is willing to pay for the property or he intends to restore the property afterwards or to make restitution to the person to whom it belongs or to fulfil his obligations afterwards in respect of the property; and

(c) a person's application of property shall be taken not to be dishonest, except where the property came into his possession or control as trustee or personal representative, if when he applies the property he does not know to whom the property belongs and believes on reasonable grounds that such person cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps; and

(d) persons to whom property belongs include the owner, any part owner, any person having a legal or equitable interest in or claim to the property and any person who, immediately before the offender's application of the property, had control of it.

A person who dishonestly applies to his own use or to the use of another person ... property belonging to another ... is guilty of the crime of misappropriation of property.

15. The other provisions of s 383A that are pleaded in the indictment, ss (1A) and (2)(c), are properly regarded as circumstances of aggravation, which will become relevant to the maximum penalties in the event that any of the accused are found guilty of counts 1 and/or 2.

16. The elements of the offence under s 383A(1)(a), as stated by the Supreme Court in Kavo v The State [2015] 2 PNGLR 232, are that the accused has:

17. Mr Kasiman was a director and present at two board meetings of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd on 3 August 2018 and 13 August 2019, which resolved to make payments of K15 million and K37 million to the Young & Williams trust account, which were made on 17 August 2018 and 23 December 2019 respectively.

18. As for the five elements of the offence, I find that (i) and (iii) have been proven. The accused “applied” “property” in that (i) he participated in the decision to transfer money to the Young & Williams trust account (he therefore applied it) and (iii) the money transferred was property.

19. I also find that element (ii) – to the use of another person – has been proven. As to who the other person was, I reject the State’s submission that the K52 million was applied for the use of Young & Williams Lawyers or its partners. The money was applied to the use of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd, which was Young & Williams’ client, and could only be used on its instructions.

20. I find that element (iv) – that the property belonged to another person – has not been proven. The decision to transfer the property of K52 million to the Young & Williams trust account was a decision to transfer the property to its owner: Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd, which held it in trust for the peoples of the CMCA regions of Western Province. I reject the State’s submission, in support of count 1, that the property still belonged to the Independent State of Papua New Guinea.

21. I appreciate that the source of the money in the ANZ account was dividends received by the State derived from its shares in Ok Tedi Mining Ltd. However, the effect of the orders of the National Court of 3 August and 5 September 2018, particularly the parts of the orders that required ANZ Bank to “only operate the bank account comprising the Trust Property, that is account no. 12767475, on the exclusive authority and direction of the proper officer of the plaintiff [Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd] and no other person or entity”, was to transfer ownership of the account from the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, and as is commonly understood the money in the account, to Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd.

22. I appreciate the theory of the State’s case that the money in the ANZ account was to be applied only to development projects for peoples of the CMCA regions of Western Province who were the beneficial owners of the money, and that the transfers to the Young & Williams trust account were not for development projects and were therefore unlawful. If I were to accept that proposition, I would find, on the basis of the principles developed by the Supreme Court in Lawi v The State [1987] PNGLR 183, that the fourth element of the offence was proven.

23. However, consideration must be given to the minutes of the board meetings of 3 August 2018 and 13 August 2019, which set out the reasons for making the transfers to the Young & Williams trust account.

All directors present approved and resolved that K15 million out of the South Fly CMCA region’s K45 million held by the ANZ Bank out of the WPPDT-CMA account 12767475 shall be paid to Young & Williams trust account to cover costs of further legal actions against Ok Tedi Mining Ltd, Ok Tedi Development Foundation Ltd, PNG Sustainable Development Foundation Ltd, Mineral Resources Development Program Ltd, Mineral Resources Ok Tedi No 2 Ltd, Independent State of Papua New Guinea and all other entities who have benefited illegally from the WPPDT-CMA trust funds to recover all owing, outstanding and misappropriated trust funds, recover assets, take necessary legal action against any parties concerned and pay for all other professional, auditors and experts and consultants’ costs, and repay loans plus interest to individuals and companies who loaned funds to assist with all current litigation and all other necessary costs associated to assist CMCA people to date on their compensation funds.

In accordance with the National Court orders of 5 September 2018 the Board approved, authorised and direct ... ANZ to transfer K37 million from the Western Province Community Mine Continuation Agreement Region People’s Trust Account (“WPPDT-CMA”) account No 12767475 to Young & Williams Lawyers trust account ... to cover the necessary legal costs of the various court cases in Singapore, Australia and PNG and to pay for all other related and necessary fees to experts , consultants, scientists, forensic accountants and auditors and others ... where appropriate and required.

26. I find that the documented reasons for making the transfers totalling K52 million to the Young & Williams trust account were sufficiently connected with the advancement of the interests of the people of the CMCA regions to rebut the argument that the transfers were not for development projects or compensation and were unlawful or improper or unauthorised.

27. As for the fifth element – that the accused acted dishonestly – the following principles, conveniently summarised by Berrigan J in The State v Paraka (2023) N10273, are to be applied:

A person is not criminally responsible, as for an offence relating to property, for an act done or omitted to be done by him with respect to any property in the exercise of an honest claim of right and without intention to defraud.

28. I find that there is no evidence that Mr Kasiman participated in the decisions to transfer K52 million to the Young & Williams trust account other than as a member of the board of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd for proper, discrete and well-documented purposes. The State asserts that there is evidence that Mr Kasiman received in the period from 23 August 2018 to 30 September 2019 K109,845.66 from Mundi No 1 Ltd and that Mundi No 1 Ltd sourced that money from funds transferred to it from the Young & Williams trust account.

29. Mundi No 1 Ltd is a separate entity owned and controlled by Samson Jubi, who was, soon after 5 August 2018 (when Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd became the owner of the ANZ account by virtue of the orders of the National Court) a signatory on the ANZ account, in his capacity as the then CEO and company secretary of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd.

30. I consider that the payment of substantial sums – nearly K15 million – from the Young & Williams trust account to Mundi No 1 Ltd is somewhat curious and perhaps suspicious. However, there is evidence from the fifth accused, Gloria Francesca Salika, then a lawyer with Young & Williams, that each of the payments was authorised by Mr Jubi in his capacity as the company secretary and signatory to the account of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd. I accept the defence’s contention that Ms Salika was obliged to implement the instructions to arrange those transfers as she, as a lawyer, was obliged to implement the client’s instructions, and the client was Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd and that its instructions were conveyed by its company secretary.

31. As for the K109,845.66 Mr Kasiman allegedly received from Mundi No 1 Ltd, evidence in support of this allegation is said to be in the forensic accounting report of State witness Andy Pape. However, I prefer the more accurate summary of Mr Pape’s evidence in the submission of Mr Molloy, for Mr Kasiman, which is that the period covered by Mr Pape’s report is actually 20 months and that the total amount received by Mr Kasiman was K65,500.00, an average of K2,519.00 per month. I also uphold Mr Molloy’s submission that there is evidence that Mr Kasiman received a total of K18,920.00 from Mundi No 1 Ltd in the period from 20 July 2017 to 23 August 2018, an average of K1,445.00 per month.

32. There is no evidence that Mr Kasiman had any involvement in the decision to disburse any part of the K52 million paid into the Young & Williams trust account.

33. It cannot be reasonably inferred from that evidence that there was a dishonest intention on the part of Mr Kasiman in his participation in the decisions to transfer K52 million to the Young & Williams trust account. The State has not proven that that those transfers were unlawful. Nor has it proven that Mr Kasiman would or should have known that it was unlawful or wrong or that he agreed to the transfers for personal gain, in the prospect of receiving money from Mundi No 1 Ltd to which he was not entitled. I find the fifth element has not been proven.

34. In summary, the State has proven the first three elements of the offence charged in count 1 against the first accused. It has not proven either the fourth or fifth elements. The first accused is not guilty of count 1.

35. I find the second accused, Edna Oai, not guilty of count 1 for the same reasons the first accused is not guilty. The prosecution has proven the first three elements of the offence but not proven the fourth element (that the K52 million transferred to the Young & Williams trust account was applied to the use of Young & Williams) or the fifth element (dishonesty).

36. Mr Pape’s evidence reveals that Ms Oai received K80,000.00 from Mundi No 1 Ltd in 36 transactions from 30 August 2018 to 27 July 2020. Even if it is presumed that this money was drawn from the K52 million transferred to the Young & Williams trust account, there is no evidence that Ms Oai knew or should have known the source of the funds or that the source was dubious. No reasonable inference can be drawn from the proven facts that she acted dishonestly.

37. I find the third accused, Annie Smerewai, not guilty of count 1 for a reason additional to the reasons for finding the first and second accused not guilty.

38. Ms Smerewai was not a director of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd at the time of the board meeting of 3 August 2018 that authorised the first payment of K15 million, to the Young & Williams trust account. Though she was a director at the time of the board meeting of 13 August 2019 that authorised the second payment of K37 million, to the Young & Williams trust account, she was not present at the meeting and only an apology for her non-attendance is recorded in the minutes. There is no evidence that she participated in the decision to authorise that payment. It has not been proven therefore that she “applied” the money the subject of count 1.

39. Ms Malken was a legal secretary in Young & Williams who under the supervision and control of Ms Salika (the fifth accused), was responsible for acting on directions given to her by Ms Salika concerning communication with the ANZ Bank regarding instructions from the firm’s client, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd. She conveyed to ANZ Bank the instructions of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd to make the payments of K15 million and K37 million to the Young & Williams trust account.

40. There is evidence that on 6 September 2018 K10,000.00 was paid into her bank account by Mundi No 1 Ltd. The prosecution asserts that that payment bespeaks dishonesty on the part of Ms Malken as the money had its source in the payment of K15 million into the Young & Williams trust account, which was made on 17 August 2018.

41. I presume, for the sake of the argument, that that assertion is correct. I nevertheless find Ms Malken not guilty of count 1.

42. The prosecution has not proven element (i): that the accused “applied” the money the subject of count 1. All she did was convey instructions to the ANZ Bank to put into effect the instructions of the client, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd, to pay out of the ANZ account K52 million to the Young & Williams trust account.

43. Though elements (ii) (the money was applied to the use of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd) and (iii) (the money was “property) have been proven, neither the fourth nor fifth elements are proven.

44. As to (iv) the money was not, by being paid into the Young & Williams trust account, applied to any person other than its owner, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd.

45. As to (v), it has not been proven that Ms Malken acted dishonestly. I accept her evidence that she did not ask Mr Jubi for any money. It is relevant that Mundi No 1 Ltd was also a client of Young & Williams. There is no evidence that she somehow connived to get the K10,000.00 paid to her by Mundi No 1 Ltd for some improper reason or that the prospect of such a payment motivated her to act other than a reasonable legal secretary would in the circumstances have acted.

47. Ms Salika was the lawyer in Young & Williams who under the supervision and control of the managing partner of the firm, Gregory James Sheppard (the sixth accused), was responsible for acting on the instructions from the client, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd. She accepted instructions from the company’s CEO and secretary, Samson Jubi. She conveyed to ANZ Bank the instructions of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd, given on its behalf by its CEO and secretary, Mr Jubi, to make the payments of K15 million and K37 million to the Young & Williams trust account.

48. There is evidence that on 24 August 2018 K30,000.00 was paid into Ms Salika’s personal bank account by Mundi No 1 Ltd. The prosecution asserts that that payment bespeaks dishonesty on the part of Ms Salika as the money had its source in the payment of K15 million into the Young & Williams trust account, which was made on 17 August 2018.

49. I presume, for the sake of the argument, that that assertion is correct. I nevertheless find Ms Salika not guilty of count 1 for the same reasons the fourth accused is not guilty.

50. The prosecution has not proven element (i): that the accused “applied” the money the subject of count 1. All she did was cause instructions to be conveyed to the ANZ Bank to put into effect the instructions of the client, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd, to pay out of the ANZ account K52 million to the Young & Williams trust account.

51. Though elements (ii) (the money was applied to the use of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd) and (iii) (the money was “property) have been proven, neither the fourth nor fifth elements are proven.

52. As to (iv) the money was not, by being paid into the Young & Williams trust account, applied to any person other than its owner, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd.

53. As to (v), it has not been proven that Ms Salika acted dishonestly. Rather, she diligently implemented the instructions given to her on behalf of the firm’s client, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd, by its CEO and secretary, Mr Jubi. It is relevant that Mundi No 1 Ltd was also a client of Young & Williams. There is no evidence that she somehow connived to get the K30,000.00 paid to her by Mundi No 1 Ltd for some improper reason or that the prospect of such a payment motivated her to act other than a reasonable lawyer would in the circumstances.

55. Mr Sheppard was, and still is, the managing partner of Young & Williams, and responsible for acting on the instructions from its client, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd. He was responsible for the instructions from the company’s CEO and secretary, Samson Jubi, being put into effect. He was responsible for his employed lawyer, Ms Salika, conveying to ANZ Bank the instructions of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd, given on its behalf by Mr Jubi, to make the payments of K15 million and K37 million to the Young & Williams trust account.

56. There is no evidence that he personally benefited from those payments other than indirectly through the receipt of legal fees, paid out of the trust account to Young & Williams’ operating account, for services rendered by the firm to Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd. Mr Sheppard estimated in evidence that the total of all such fees was less than K4 million. That is a substantial sum but it is not part of the State’s case that the amount of fees was excessive or unwarranted.

57. I find Mr Sheppard not guilty of count 1 for the same reasons the fourth and fifth accused are not guilty.

58. The prosecution has not proven element (i): that the accused “applied” the money the subject of count 1. All he did was cause instructions to be conveyed to the ANZ Bank to put into effect the instructions of the client, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd, to pay out of the ANZ account K52 million to the Young & Williams trust account.

59. Though elements (ii) (the money was applied to the use of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd) and (iii) (the money was “property) have been proven, neither the fourth nor fifth elements are proven.

60. As to (iv) the money was not, by being paid into the Young & Williams trust account, applied to any person other than its owner, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd.

61. As to (v), it has not been proven that Mr Sheppard acted dishonestly. Rather, he diligently implemented the instructions given to him on behalf of the firm’s client, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd, by its CEO and secretary, Mr Jubi.

63. Only the first, second and third accused are subject to this charge. It relates to three payments totalling K216 million made out of the ANZ account to two other accounts in the name of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd at Bank South Pacific and Westpac Bank (K5 million and K21 million to the BSP account and K190 million to the Westpac account).

64. There were three separate board meetings of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd (on 3 August 2018, 13 August 2018 and 5 February 2020) at which each of the payments was approved. The first and second accused were present at each of the three meetings and the first element of the offence can therefore be regarded as proven against them.

65. The third accused was not present at the meetings that authorised the payments to the BSP account but was present at the meeting that authorised the payment to the Westpac account, so the first element has only been partly proven against her.

66. The second and third elements have been proven against the three accused for the same reasons given in relation to count 1: that the money was applied to the use of a person other than the accused, viz Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd, and that it was property.

67. However, the fourth and fifth elements of the offence have not been proven. As to the fourth element, the K216 million was not paid to a person other than its owner, Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd. Furthermore, there is evidence, and it is an agreed fact, that none of the K216 million has been withdrawn from the accounts into which it has been deposited. An undertaking has been provided to the National Court in separate civil proceedings regarding the use of that money that it would not be used and the undertaking has been complied with. The total amount of K216 million remains trust money, held for the benefit of the peoples of the CMCA regions, which must be applied in the future only to its intended purposes.

68. As to the fifth element, I find no dishonesty on the part of Mr Kasiman, Ms Oai or Ms Smerewai in regard to the application of the K216 million.

__________________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Sasingian Lawyers: Lawyers for the First to Fifth Accused
Young & Williams Lawyers: Lawyers for the Sixth Accused

National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Kasiman [2024] PGNC 307; N10990 (11 September 2024)