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

Police v Magele [2024] WSSC 134 (15 November 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Magele [2024] WSSC 134 (15 November 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

ARIETA SEGIFILI MAGELE, female of Vaivase-tai and Moataa.

Defendant

Counsel: T. Fesili for Prosecution
Ms. Aiono on behalf of V. Afoa for the Defendant

Sentence: 15 November 2024

SENTENCE

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to thirty-two (32) charges of theft as a servant for differing amounts ranging from $500 to $1,500 at any one time, occurring over a four-month period from the 06 April to 19 July 2023.
2. The summary of facts which is not in dispute says the defendant is a 32 year old female married with five (5) children. At the time of this offending she was working for the Bank of the South Pacific or BSP. She was employed as an international payment support officer in the Operations Department.
3. In January 2023 she assisted a customer in accessing his account and in the course of that she became aware of the customers account details, including how to access the account. From 06 April 2023 to 19 July 2023 she used these access details to steal monies from the customers account. She did this not once not twice but thirty-two separate times. Total amount stolen according to the summary is $41, 919.41.
4. In August 2023 what she did was discovered when the customer in question queried the unauthorised transactions on his account triggering an internal investigation by the Bank. The matter was reported to the Police and the defendant admitted what she did. As a result, she faces thirty-two charges and initially she pleaded not guilty to the charges. But on trial day she applied to have her not guilty pleas set aside and substituted with guilty pleas.
5. According to the Summary none of the funds stolen have been recovered. But I have received confirmation from the Bank in writing that she has in fact paid back $2,519.44. She promised to repay the balance but that has not occurred.
6. This is yet again another tragic case of a young female working for a financial institution in a position of responsibility and trust and having access to customers accounts. She betrayed that trust and used that information to steal customers monies for her own personal purposes including paying off her personal loans to the Bank. Her employer has had to reimburse the customers funds and it is clear from the Victim Impact Report from the Bank that was not the only the repercussion of her offending. It has affected not only staff but also customer confidence in the Bank.
7. I use the words “another tragic case” because this is a scenario that is far too prevalent in Samoa. The result of that is the court has evolved a policy over the years that normally this kind of behaviour attracts a penalty of imprisonment unless there are exceptional circumstances. There have been may pronouncements by judges of the courts to this effect. See for example Police v Valaauina [2009] WSSC 21:
   • “The courts attitude to thefts as a servant is well documented and should be well known to the public by now. Because of the seriousness and because of the prevalence of such offending usually a penalty of imprisonment is imposed. The only time that it is not imposed is if there are exceptional circumstances warranting some other treatment. The reason for such penalties is to not only deter the offender himself/herself from such future behaviour but also others who may be tempted to follow his/her example.”
8. The young women of this community must understand that every time they do this kind of thing it is quite likely that they will be catching the bus to Tanumalala Prison. I have reviewed the defendants case carefully, there are no exceptional circumstances in her matter. Her regret and remorse is not an exceptional circumstance. The penalty must be one of imprisonment. All that changes from case to case on these sorts of matters is the length of the term because not every case is the same.
9. The maximum penalty for theft as a servant is 10 years in prison. Considering all the circumstances of your case and the kinds of sentences for other cases, the appropriate start point for sentence is 5 years in prison.
10. As your lawyer has pointed out, from that start point you are entitled to certain deductions for factors in your favour. This is your first offence you have previous good character and your background is obvious from the many references that people have filed with the Probation service about you. They have said all they can for you and they are all surprised at this matter. To reflect these factors the court will apply the usual deduction of 6 months from the start point of your sentence.
11. You have apologised to the complainant Bank and this has been confirmed by them. The amount that you paid in partial restitution is also now confirmed it is slightly under $3,000.00. To reflect those matters a further 3 months deduction will be made.
12. Final deduction that you are entitled to is for your guilty pleas even though entered late. In respect of that I will round off credit for guilty pleas to 6 months and that will also be deducted from the start point for sentence. That means in respect of your matter your total deductions amount to 15 months from a start point of 5 years in prison, leaves a balance of 45 months in prison that is a period of 3 years and 9 months.
13. In respect of all these 32 charges of theft as a servant you will accordingly be convicted and sentenced to 45 months in prison. Any remand in custody time to be deducted.
    

SENIOR JUSTICE NELSON