SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Faatafa [2019] WSSC 95

Case name: 	Police v Faatafa	
		
Citation: 	[2019] WSSC 95	
		
Decision date: 	07 June 2019	
		
Parties: 	POLICE v IRENE RUTI SITITI FAATAFA female of Moamoa 	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	On these charges Irene you will be convicted and sentenced in respect of all charges to 40 months or 3 years and 4 months in prison.  	
		
Representation: 	L Faasii for prosecution
M Soonalole for defendant	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:
		
POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

IRENE RUTI SITITI FAATAFA female of Moamoa.
Defendant

Counsel:	
L Faasii for prosecution
M Soonalole for defendant

Sentence:	07 June 2019

S E N T E N C E
1.	Irene appears for sentence on forty-five (45) charges of theft as a servant involving some $57,000 odd tala in total.  The police summary of facts which is not disputed says she is a 35-year-old female of Moamoa and the victim company is Central Corporate Company Limited.  At the time of the offending Irene was employed by the company as its Manager in Samoa.  The documents before the court indicate the company is based in Panama and the defendant was in charge of their local office and was responsible for handling all monies and transaction involving the company.  
2.	On forty-five separate occasions between 04 January 2017 and 21 January 2018 the defendant would write out cheques on the company cheque account, cash them and use the money for her own purposes. Amounts of the cheques varied from the largest of $4,560.00 on 19 January 2017 to the lowest of $120.00 on 17 February 2017.  
3.	It seems the defendant was engaged in the procedure of using the company cheque account as her own personal kitty bank.  This matter only came to light when a sudden audit was carried out revealing the missing monies and the false supporting documents that the defendant created to hide her thefts. Resulting in the police charging the defendant with these forty-five counts of theft as a servant.  
4.	This is another tragic case of a young woman embezzling money from her employer which has now closed its Samoa office for reasons that are not quite clear but may be unrelated to the defendants offending.  What is clear is the seniority of the defendants position.  She was the local Manager of an offshore company. And as such was in a position of great trust and responsibility.  A trust which she consistently abused over approximately a twelve-month period according to the charges.  The amount she stole is significant.  And this is a case of not one-off offending but multiple offending on different dates.  
5.	The offending was clearly planned; the summary of facts indicates she falsified documents to cover up what she was doing.  There is no question an imprisonment term is required to hold her accountable for what she did, to denounce her behaviour as unacceptable and to continue to send a deterrent message to the community that you do this kind of thing you probably will end up in Tafaigata.  A message the court will continue to send to young women such as the defendant.  
6.	In case your counsel has not told you Irene the maximum penalty by law for what you did is 10 years imprisonment for each charge.  The prosecution have suggested that the circumstances warrant a start point for sentence of 6 years in prison.  I think that is slightly high I will start at 5 years. 
7.	From that is to be deducted matters in your favour or mitigating factors.  The first is for your previous good record and background as detailed in the pre-sentence report supported by various references which speak well of you.  it is also not disputed that you are a first offender.  To reflect those personal circumstances I will deduct 6 months from the start point of sentence, leaves 4½ years in prison.  
8.	The document shows there has been no restitution and neither has there been any apology to the complainant understandably though because it is no longer in business in this country.  
9.	The only other mitigating factor in your favour Irene is your guilty plea which has saved the courts valuable time and resources.  I will give you the usual twenty-five percent deduction from the balance of your sentence that is a period of 13½monhs, leaves a balance of 40½ months. I will round that off to 40 months.  There are no other factors that require to be taken in consideration in your favour. 
10.	On these charges Irene you will be convicted and sentenced in respect of all charges to 40 months or 3 years and 4 months in prison.  
JUSTICE NELSON