Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

Police v Young Yen [2014] WSSC 195 (17 November 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Young Yen [2014] WSSC 195

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

CHRISTINA GASOLO YOUNG YEN female of Lelepa Savaii, Vailele-uta and Vaitele-uta.
Defendant

Counsel: L Sio and O Tagaloa for prosecution
F K Ainuu for defendant

Sentence: 17 November 2014

SENTENCE

1. The defendant appears for sentence after pleading guilty to 26 counts of obtaining by deception, 5 counts of obtaining by deception causing loss pursuant to a different section of the Crimes Act 2013, 3 counts of obtaining by false pretence and 2 counts of theft pursuant to the Crimes Ordinance 1961.
2. The summary of facts submitted by the police shows the matters before the court involve 13 different victims. From February 2013 many of these victims made public advertisements on the radio station offering to purchase vehicles for a low price. When the defendant heard the offers she contacted the advertiser and fraudulently offered to sell them a brand new vehicle for the price they were seeking. Because this seemed too good to be true the victims would often tell their friends and relatives of the defendants business and what she was able to achieve.
3. The defendant would for her part personally go to each victims home representing herself an agent for an overseas car dealership. Telling the victims that the business she is employed by purchases cars from Japan and other countries. Showing them photos of such cars for them to pick which vehicle they preferred and assuring them that once they placed an order the vehicle would be shipped even though it had not been fully paid for. Once the defendant convinced her victims the victims would pay deposits for the vehicles and in return receive a receipt for payment thus leading them to believe the defendant was genuine and bona fide. The defendant would come around and pick up further payments. Many treated her as a friend and some as a member of their family, giving her food and other things when she stopped by to collect payments for the cars.
4. The reality was that the overseas car dealership the defendant purported to represent did not exist and she was not an agent for any car dealership in Samoa or elsewhere. She was conning these people and keeping the monies that they paid her using it for her own personal purposes promising them that the vehicles had been ordered and were in transit. For almost a year from March 2013 to April 2014 the victims continued to pay the defendant sums of money believing she was an agent and their car was en route to Samoa.
5. Details of payments and dates and victims to whom it was paid are as follows:
   

6. Total amount of monies scammed by the defendant from these people was $80,146.90. As time went on and the cars never materialised people became suspicious about the defendant. Eventually leading them to make complaints to the police. Police investigation led to the charges before the court to which the defendant has pleaded guilty.
7. It is clear from what I have read this was a large scale fraud perpetrated on a significant number of unsuspecting victims. I am told by the prosecution more charges involving more people are in train. All these people have lost substantial sums of money which are probably non recoverable.
8. The defendant has told the probation office that she herself was defrauded by Japanese con-artists to whom she passed on the money collected from the victims less her commission. But there is no evidence supporting this and it would be foolish of the court to believe what someone like this says.
9. In any event the defendant has pleaded guilty to obtaining by deception and the other criminal charges. She faces 36 counts in total all of which carry imprisonment maximums ranging from 3 to 5 to 7 years.
10. I will deal with the obtaining by deception charges first: 26 counts plus 5 counts all carrying a 7 year maximum penalty a total of 31 counts. I take into account the offending was pre-planned, was extensive, was sustained and carried out consistently over an almost 12 month period. Further it did not involve swindling large companies with ample financial resources but everyday people wanting to buy a car but could not afford to pay for it in one lump sum. The defendant took merciless advantage of these people. A deterrent sentence is appropriate and required and the defendant should not expect leniency from the court in view of her actions. But as her counsel has reminded she is entitled to certain deductions.
11. I start at 6 years in prison. I consider in all the circumstances that is the relevant start point for sentence. For your guilty plea I will deduct one-quarter of the sentence a period of 18 months, leaves a balance of 54 months. You have a good background previous to this offending as per the pre-sentence report. You have a clean criminal record. To reflect those matters I will deduct 6 months from the balance of sentence leaves 48 months. No other deductions apply to your case.
12. In respect of the 31 charges of obtaining by deception, convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison. There are 3 counts of obtaining by false pretence which carry 3 year maximum penalties each count. Again reflecting the premeditated and extensive nature of this fraud, convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment each count concurrent terms.
13. On the 2 counts of theft which carry 5 years maximum penalty, convicted and sentenced to 12 months for each count again concurrent terms. Remand in custody time to be deducted from your imprisonment term which in total is 4 years.
14. In respect of these charges the prosecution is ordered to file a supplementary memorandum identifying the various charges and the charge numbers as per paragraph 20 of their summary of facts for the courts records please.
    

JUSTICE NELSON