IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 29 of 2003

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

-v-

GEORGETTE FONTAINE RAVOLOU

SENTENCE

This is the sentence of the defendant, Mrs. Georgette Ravolou.

The defendant, Mrs. Georgette Ravolou pleaded not guilty on 16 July 2003 to the charge of misappropriation contrary to section 125(b) Penal Code Act [CAP. 135].

The matter was then adjourned for two (2) days trial commencing on 16 September 2003 at 9.00 a.m. o’clock.

On 16 September 2003, the defendant changed her plea of “not guilty” into a “guilty plea”.

The matter was further adjourned to 17th September for submissions on sentence and mitigations.

The Penal Code Act [CAP. 135] by virtue of section 125(b) spells out the prohibition of misappropriation. It says in the following words:

“No person shall cause loss to another-

(b)	by misappropriation;

Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 years”.

Misappropriation was further defined in section 123 of the Penal Code Act [CAP 135]. It says:

“A person commits misappropriation of property who destroys, wastes, or converts any property capable of being taken which has been entrusted to him for custody, return, accounting or any particular manner of dealing (not being a loan of money or of monies for consumption)”

The defendant was at the relevant time a senior officer in the loan recovery department of the Port Vila office of the National Bank of Vanuatu.

In most instances the defendant received from bank customers monies by cash and cheques. Monies were given directly to the defendant by the Bank customers to service their pre-existing loans and other transactions with the bank. The defendant converted the money to her own use.

In some instances a small portion of that delivered over to the defendant was actually credited to the lender’s account although in most of the cases there was no money in fact credited by the defendant to the lender’s account.

On some occasions money was collected at the request of the defendant by another bank employee (a Vicky Tari) from clients and then delivered to the defendant. Bank clients were given receipts for their deposits initialled by the defendant.

In all some 19 bank customers were defrauded by these acts of the defendant. The defendant personally knew all of the customers. On some occasions the defendant committed multiple offences against a particular client (7-10) and on others committed ‘one off’ offences.

When the defendant went on holidays in the latter part of 2002 the matter of client anomalies and their accounts came to light and there was an internal investigation conducted by bank executives before the matter was referred to the police.

The defendant on 7 November 2002 when confronted with one of the earliest detected anomalies (one for VT 96,000) denied any actual knowledge but did accept responsibility and offered to pay restitution. A few days later on 12 November she made a more fulsome confession when confronted with the large number of cash receipts to clients with her initials.

The next day in a letter she accepted responsibility for her initials being on the receipts issued to clients in their deposit books which involved amounts not credited to the client’s particular accounts. She also said she could not specifically recall where the actual monies had been disbursed.

The defendant made a final confession in the police statement form that some VT 4,178,002 was misappropriated in a manner outlined.

The defendant holds one of the senior positions in the National Bank of Vanuatu. It is unfortunate to see that the defendant has abused that position for her self-gain. The objective seriousness of her offending is high in terms of her breach of trust. She holds the position of trust and the public at large expects high trust and confidence from that position. It is sad to see that such trust has been mutilated by her evil desires to defraud the Bank clients, especially those that are directly affected by her actions.

Such practices cannot be tolerated. It is part of the Court’s duty to sanction the author of such dishonest activities. This is another form of dishonest and corrupt conduct within the commercial environment. Whatever size it appears whether in a smaller or bigger form, its nature remains the same, it is dishonesty and corruption. Professional women and men like the defendant should expect to be punished as severely as the others, in some cases are more severely.

I have viewed the chronological events as transpired in the case. The defendant was facing a financial crisis. The details are supplied in her counsel’s submissions. I understand she is having a difficult time at home in terms of her finance. The situation was out of control that she then formulated contrary ideas in the wombs of her mind to do something that is against the law of the land.

I must say that there are alternative ways to cope with the pressure of life. The pressure of life must be assessed with wisdom and understanding. The defendant at that material time thought the solution of such unwanted pressure is to steal and defraud other people. That is not the solution. The court will definitely discourage that trend of mentality and misconduct.

I must shade some light into the minds of those who are in a position of trust and with a plan to follow this path that the court will not entertain such practices. Those in such positions must be conscious of their actions. The court always ensures strong sanctions are imposed in order to deter others from doing the same thing.

The defendant has no criminal conviction. She is given credit for that. She pleaded not guilty but then changes her plea to a guilty plea.

The appropriate sentence in this type of case is 2 years imprisonment. I follow and apply the case of PP-v- Leah Tureleo CR. No. 48 of 1995. I consider if the circumstances of the case and the defendant’s warrant a suspension of such a sentence.

It must be clear that the breaches of trust resulting in big amount of vatu like the present cannot in my view be dealt with by any other form of sentence except an immediate custodial sentence in spite of the defendant’s change of plea and immediate admissions to Police.

The sentence of imprisonment cannot be suspended.

The defendant, Georgette Ravolou is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. A one third (1/3) of that sentence be discounted for her guilty plea.

She shall spend 1 year and 4 months in prison.

The sentence is effective as from today 23rd September 2003.

I am informed that the National Bank of Vanuatu has issued a Civil Claim against the defendant before the Court. There will be no consideration for restitution by this Court at this stage.

DATED this 23rd day of September 2003

BY THE COURT

Vincent LUNABEK
CHIEF JUSTICE