Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Mapi [1998] PGNC 58; N1936 (3 July 1998)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1936

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. 125 OF 1997
THE STATE
-V-
HENRY MAPI

Lae

Sakora J
11 May 1998
19-20 May 1998
25 May 1998
29 June 1998
1 July 1998
3 July 1998

Counsel

Mr M Peter for the State

Mr C Inkisopo for the Defence

SENTENCE

3 July 1998

SAKORA J: Henry Mapi was found guilty and convicted of two counts of fraudulent conversion of two sums of money, K6,000.00 and K9,656.00, belonging to Steven Nandang of Wau and his Australian business partner Andrew Ralph Thomson. The offences were committed in Bulolo in the Morobe Province between January and September 1995. At the time of the offence the prisoner was a senior public servant in the Department of Morobe, holding the position of Business Development Officer at Bulolo.

The case went to trial for four days, after which I was satisfied that an elaborate deceitful scheme had been concocted by the prisoner to steal these large sums of money from the complainant, a local businessman from the area who could ill-afford to lose such monies. But he did lose his and his associate’s monies only through the fraudulent manipulation of the prisoner. It is instructive to note that the prisoner, Henry Mapi, is no stranger to his victim, Steven Nandang, the latter being a nephew of the former (on the latter’s mother’s side). This close family relationship, creating as it did the initial point of reference for trust, was thus one of the enabling factors in the success of the fraud that was being perpetrated.

The prisoner had been employed as a Business Development Officer with the Department of Gulf in Kerema between 1978 and 1986, after which he procured employment in the private sector. He rejoined the public service with the Department of Morobe in 1992, and was posted to Bulolo as a Business Development Officer. It was in this official capacity that he committed the two offences.

The State’s case was that the prisoner, having concocted this scheme of fraud and deceit, approached the victim and told him that he would be able to negotiate a government grant of K250,000.00 from the Department of Finance, Port Moresby, to assist him (Steven Nandang) set up a saw-mill. He advised the victim that there was such a government scheme, and he was, and would be, acting as the Business Development Officer in the project. The victim was further advised that to be accepted for the scheme, and thus benefit from the K250,000.00 grant, he (Steven Nandang) had to come up with a sum of K15,000.00 for deposit in an Interest Bearing Deposit (IBD) account. This was said to constitute a demonstration of the victim/applicant’s qualification as a viable business venture.

That was the representation made to Steven Nandang by the prisoner in his official capacity, so that once the K15,000.00 deposit was given then the K250,000.00 would be made available to him for his sawmill. The prisoner knew that the victim was engaged in a timber project; so he was approached with this scheme for government funding. The prisoner being a relative as well as a Business Development Officer for the Wau-Bulolo area of Morobe had no problems being trusted by Steven Nandang who wrote him a cheque for K6,000.00 and gave it to him on 20 January 1995. The victim rang his business partner, Ralph Thomson, in Australia the same day to send the balance to make up the required and requested K15,000.00. Australian dollars converted into K9,656.00 were subsequently transmitted from Australia by telegraph transfer. These monies were then deposited into the prisoner’s personal bank account.

The scheme as represented to Steven Nandang by the prisoner did not involve anybody else. Upon receipt of the total sum of K15,000.00 (though evidence prove K15,656.00 was in fact handed over to the prisoner), the prisoner was to give this to the Finance Department for deposit into a government IBD account.

After these two sums were received by the prisoner, Steven Nangang sought advice and progress on his application for the K250,000.00 grant and his deposit from the prisoner on several occasions over a period of about one year, but without success. So he (Steven Nandang) contacted the police to investigate the matter. And this he did after he had contacted the Finance Department in Port Moresby and had been advised that they knew nothing about his application for funding and the deposit amount.

When confronted with the complaint of Steven Nandang by the Bulolo police, the prisoner told a story of someone from the Prime Minister’s Department coming to Bulolo and revealing the existence of funds for disbursement to local business people upon their first putting monies up front as deposits. This person whom the prisoner was supposed to have met for the first time in Bulolo, was said to have arrived unannounced, unexpected, and uninvited, on the morning of 2 December, 1994. The prisoner gave this person’s name as Robert Mato, and he was supposed to be a Project Officer with the Prime Minister’s Department.

It was to this person that the prisoner said he handed over the K6,000.00 and the K9,656.00 in 1995, because the man had collected some monies from other businessmen in the Bulolo-Wau area in December 1994. The prisoner said Steven Nandang knew this, before and when those two amounts had been given to him (prisoner). This explanation for the whereabouts of the total sum of K15,656.00, which the prisoner offered in his record of interview with Senior Sergeant Roy Gawi ) of 24/09/96), was repeated (though with certain inconsistencies already noted in my decision on the trial) at the trial in his sworn oral evidence.

In the concocting of this incredulous story about Robert Mato, to explain away the first fraudulent representation to Steven Nandang, the prisoner “trips” himself up in various material respects (already adverted to in the judgement). Suffice it is to say here that, firstly, the prisoner’s initial scheme of deceit, as demonstrated by the victim’s evidence, satisfied me of false representation being made knowingly or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Secondly, the tale about Robert Mato coming to Bulolo with a somewhat similar scheme was deliberately woven, invented, by the prisoner to counter the victim’s direct evidence of the initial deceit.

The incredulous second story, is well demonstrated by the prisoner’s attempt at explaining (sworn oral evidence) how he came to “trust” the invested person Robert Mato:

It was that time (morning of 2nd December 1994) that Katu Zawong introduced Robert Mato to me, as Project Officer with Prime Minister’s Department. That very moment I knew for sure the first time this person, heard his name in my office. I had never seen him before in my life, but what impressed me, what convinced me, was that he was well-dressed: stockmen shoes, long gentlemen’s trousers and long-sleeved shirt; and he wore a state tie, emblem of the Prime Minister’s Department on the tie; he was holding a black briefcase; a very expensive camera, and he was talking about other projects he had assisted in other centres of this country, like Madang, Rabaul and Kavieng; furthermore, he showed me photos of VIP functions, of the Prime Minister’s Department, in Port Moresby and other places he was involved in. With those items he just convinced me beyond reasonable doubt he was truly a Project Officer from the Prime Minister’s Department.

This offence involved breach of trust: trust that one has of a relative and also of an official representative of the government whose duties and responsibilities directly involve helping people. Members of the public must trust officials and officers of the State, especially those who deal directly with people such as Steven Nandang at the local or district level.

When government funding to assist or boost local initiatives at income-generating ventures is not readily available or accessible these days, it really is a shameful inconsiderate thing, as well as being a serious criminal offence, to trick our people. There are really no redeemable features in such fraudulent manipulation of people’s trust.

I have had the opportunity of hearing both the prisoner and his lawyer, as well counsel for the State, on the question of sentence. The prisoner’s Allocatus was devoted exclusively to his immediate predicament vis-a-vis employment prospects and the consequent plight of his immediate family.

The only thing that can be said of this is that if he were genuine about his concern for his family, he would not have embarked upon this criminal path in the first place. The adverse effects on family members, individually or collectively, is the natural consequence of one’s own misconduct, misbehaviour. Thus, it is better and more effective to consider welfare of the family before rather than after the event.

One notable thing about the prisoner’s Allocatus was the absence of regret. He expressed no remorse for this offence so that his attitude, or lack of, in this respect leaves me in doubt as to whether he recognises the criminal nature of his actions, and if his attitude will alter for the better, whatever sentence I impose.

The prisoner’s offer at restitution is noted as part of his overall plea for leniency. He has publicly acknowledged various sources from which funds can become available to make good his offer of restitution. In support of this he had tendered into court by his lawyer a copy of remittance advice on his continuing Higher Duties Allowance (HDA).

Also, in support of his previous good character and community interests, a letter from his local Pentecostal pastor (dated 23/06/98) was tendered.

The prisoner is aged about 38 years, and comes from Biaru village outside Wau. He is married with 4 school-aged children. He comes from a family of 5 children (2 brothers and 2 sisters), he being the eldest. Both parents died in 1990. Thus, he has been the main and only income-earner in the family. He has never been in trouble or conflict with the law before.

Learned counsel for the prisoner also urged leniency in the sentence of the court. In this respect he discussed the well-established principles in sentencing options available in dishonesty cases such as this. The court is indebted to him as it is also to learned counsel for the State. The court has carefully considered those principles and guidelines in its difficult but onerous task of sentencing here.

In the end result the court is convinced that a strong warning must go out to other public servants and state officials that this type of offence will not be condoned; and that conviction and sentence for this offence of dishonesty, deceit, will not have a lasting effect on the prisoner if he is not sent to jail. This court has a constitutional and legal duty to protect the innocent, the easily influenced and gullible members of our communities who, through no fault of their own, become easy prey, easy targets at the manipulative hands of unprincipled, unscrupulous and dishonest representatives of the State.

The sentence of the court is as follows:

1. 3 years IHL.esn rt oecCoun Count 1.

2. &##160;; 360; 3 yearsyears IHL. in respect of Count 2.

3. ـ T60; The 2 terms of 3 years ea servncurr.

4. ;ټ T60; The cone concurrent term oerm of impf imprisonment is to be suspended if the pthe prisoner makes full restitution (K15,656.00the v Stevndang within a period of 6 months from today’s d7;s date, ate, and the prisoner immediately enter iner into a Good Behaviour Bond for a period of 3 years.

Lawyer for the State: The Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Defence: The Public Solicitor