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

Police v Mataia [2024] WSSC 10 (2 April 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Mataia [2024] WSSC 10 (02 April 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

LELE MATAI’A, female of Vaivase uta and Satoalepai

Defendant

Counsel: F. Lagaaia for Prosecution
L. Strickland for Defendant

Sentence: 2 April 2024

S E N T E N C E

Charges

1. You appear for sentence on 4 joint charges. The first two are theft as a servant contrary to section 161 and 165(e) Crimes Act 2013. The maximum penalty for each charge is 10 years imprisonment. The remaining two are corresponding charges of false accounting contrary to section 198(a). The maximum penalty for each charge is 7 years imprisonment.
2. You denied all charges when first finalised in March 2021. On the 7^th February 2024 when hearing was to take place, prosecution sought to proceed only on 4 charges to which you then vacated your denial and entered guilty pleas. Your co-accused on the other hand maintained her not guilty pleas and will be dealt with separately.

Offending

3. At the material time, you were employed by Pacific Ezy Money Transfer at its Salelologa, Savaii branch. You commenced employment there in July 2018 and your key roles included processing and withdrawal of local customers’ monies transferred from overseas accounts. All money transactions are recorded on the control money system from where the daily payer records are generated.
4. At the end of each day, you and your co-accused were responsible for reconciling transactions against the control money system. You would then prepare the Salelologa branch cash report to be emailed to the main Apia Office, whilst the cash balance and report records are kept at the Salelologa office.
5. On 2 occasions in June 2020, you intentionally made false entries on the Salelologa Cash Report and removed monies without your employer’s knowledge or approval. On 15^th June 2020 you stole $8,490.80 with intention to deprive your employer permanently of the said money. You did so by deliberately inserting and using incorrect numbers that affected the formula in the system, with the intention of falsifying the daily balance.
6. The following day, 16^th June 2020, again by using incorrect numbers and formula, you manipulated the system to facilitate your theft of $1,348.37. Again your intention was to deprive your employer permanently of the monies. The total amount stolen is $9,839.17.
7. In late June 2020, your employer became aware of discrepancies in the reports submitted by you and your co-accused. During an internal investigation that followed, you admitted theft of the monies and were given the opportunity to pay back. Your failure to pay back led to a police complaint and the charges you now face. You also admitted to police your involvement.
8. In the pre-sentence report, you admit the offending and told probation that your co-accused (who has denied the charges) had shown you how to manipulate the system so that you could steal and avoid detection. Obviously that has not worked because your employer did discover the discrepancies, the result of which you now appear for sentencing on serious charges.

Victim

9. Pacific Ezy Money Transfer is a remittance company which for the past 19 years has provided services to the Samoan diaspora in New Zealand in sending money to families in Samoa.
10. In a victim impact report dated 6^th March 2024, its country manager highlights a serious breach of trust and impact of your dishonesty on their brand and service for the Samoan community in both New Zealand and Samoa.
11. The report says that from the company’s internal investigation, financial loss amounted to more than $20,000 though for the charges finalised by police and on which you are being sentenced, the sum involved is $9,839.17. It says further that the total loss of consumer funds has never been recovered and the company has had to absorb the losses and ensure that customers’ funds were still paid out.
12. Apart from its financial loss, your offending also impacted the company’s resources when a team was mobilised to the Salelologa branch upon your suspension; further recruitment and training for new staff were conducted; and considerable time was spent working with police in the lead up to the hearing but for your late change of plea.
13. The report also says you have neither attempted to pay back as agreed. The company seeks a deterrent sentence because of the impact on businesses that become victims of this type of offending.
14. I consider however that just now as I was handing down sentence, your counsel interrupted to advise that you had paid $2,000 in part restitution to counsel for prosecution late last week. This is confirmed by a copy of the receipt provided by prosecution and should have been raised by both counsel at the start because of its impact on the sentence the court will impose.

Aggravating Factors

15. The aggravating features of your offending are as follows:
    • (i) breach of trust;
    • (ii) the significant sum stolen being $9,839.17;
    • (iii) these were 2 incidents of offending over 2 days - fortunately for the victim company they discovered the discrepancies a couple of weeks later;
    • (iv) there was clear planning and premeditation – you deliberately manipulated the system by entering incorrect amounts with the intention of avoiding detection;
    • (v) impact on the victim – apart from the huge loss in absorbing the cost of customers’ funds involved, significant time and resources were committed to recruitment and training of replacement staff, and with police in preparation for the hearing given your earlier denial;
    • (vi) prevalence of the offending.
16. There are no aggravating factors personal to you as offender.

Mitigating Factors

17. I consider the following factors personal to you as offender:
    • (i) your guilty plea;
    • (ii) apology;
    • (iii) restitution of $2,000;
    • (iv) your personal circumstances - you are a 30-year-old single female of Satoalepai and Vaivase uta. You are the youngest of 12 siblings and come from a family that was dependent on plantation and copra for financial support. You have had a good education having completed secondary school at Vaipouli College. You attended the National University of Samoa for one semester and have a certificate in computing from PIU. You currently work at the Millenia Hotel reception, and together with a sister who works in Savaii, you support your family in its upkeep and maintenance. You have apologised to the country manager of the victim company. There are testimonials from your pastor, pulenu’u of Satoalepai and a representative of your family. You are a first offender.

Discussion

18. Theft as a servant cases continue to rise despite the Court imposing deterrent sentences of imprisonment. The Court has repeatedly said in numerous sentencing decisions of its general sentencing practice - to impose custodial sentences for cases of thefts committed by those in positions of trust except in exceptional circumstances. I find that no such exceptional circumstances exist in your case.
19. Prosecution recommend a starting point of 3½ years. They produce in support a table of the following cases, the circumstances of each I have considered - Police v. Taulapapa [2002] WSSC 24; Police v. Auina [2006] WSSC 49; Police v. Filipo [2007] WSSC 18; Police v. Iteli [2009] WSSC 12; Police v Tavita [2016] WSSC 101; Police v Reupena [2019] WSSC 46, and Police v Viliamu [2020] WSSC 16.
20. Ms Strickland on the other hand submits that 2 years is an appropriate starting point. Counsel relies on Police v Otineru [2023] WSSC 60 and argues that your case is comparable in terms of the amount involved, the nature of the business where monies were handled and stolen, and position you held which fell short of a managerial or supervisory role.
21. I consider however that the monies stolen in your case were not simply due to the victim company as in Otineru. Indeed yours involved customers’ monies transmitted from overseas to their families here in Samoa, the loss of which the victim company absorbed so that the intended recipients here could still be paid. The impact of your offending on the victim company is also well documented in a VIR whereas in Otineru, the court simply had to consider in general the financial impact of the offending in the absence of a VIR.
22. Apart from the authorities cited by counsel, I have also considered a recent unreported sentence of Clarke, J in Police v Tiresa Sanerivi Lotomatauama (8 March 2024) and table of sentencing authorities produced therein.
23. Having said all that, the sentence must denounce your conduct and deter you and others from committing the same offence. Upon a consideration of all factors and the submissions by both counsel, I adopt on a totality basis a starting point of 3 years on the lead charge of theft as a servant. I deduct 4 months for your personal circumstances including your remorse, apology and first offender status. I deduct a further 6 months for part restitution of $2,000. I make a final deduction of 8 months for your guilty pleas. The end sentence is 18 months imprisonment.

Result

24. Accordingly I sentence you as follows:
    • (a) On each of the 2 charges of theft as a servant, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
    • (b) On each of the 2 charges of false accounting, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
    • (c) The sentences will be served concurrently.

JUSTICE ROMA