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

Police v Rimoni [2011] WSSC 113 (1 August 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

TEUILA SIENI RIMONI
female of Faatoia and Vaivase-tai.
Defendant

Counsels: Ms L Su'a-Mailo and F E Niumata for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 01 August 2011

SENTENCE

This defendant has pleaded guilty to nine counts of theft as a servant and fourteen counts of forgery. The summary of facts which she has admitted said she is a 25 year old female of Faatoia and Vaivase-tai and is solo mother with four children. She was at the time of these offences employed by one of the local supermarkets as a senior accountant. She started working there in September 2010 and ceased employment in June 2011. So she was there for a period of only about nine months. As senior accountant she was responsible for cheques payable to various suppliers for the supply of produce of livestock and other general goods ordered and purchased by the supermarket.

In accordance with the procedure followed a purchase order required to be raised by one of the managers of the relevant department of the supermarket before a cheque is issued to a supplier of goods. The order form details the suppliers name, the description of the goods to be provided and the purchase price. Once an order form is checked and signed by an authorized staff member the defendant then prepares a payment voucher and issues a cheque to the supplier concerned. The procedure of the supermarket also required that management personnel must authorize and sign the payment voucher and the cheque prior to its release.

In this case what the defendant did was to forge a number of order forms for supposed purchases from various suppliers. She would enter fictitious details onto the forms and portray that they were for goods from various people. She would then forge the authorizing signature on the order form, prepare the requirement payment voucher and raise a cheque which management personnel would subsequently authorize and sign. On all relevant occasions the defendant would cash the cheque herself and keep the proceeds for her own personal use. She did this on nine separate occasions using different names and involving different amounts. All of which are detailed in the paragraph 5 of the police summary of facts which the defendant has admitted to this morning as being correct. In this way she stole a total sum of $14,933.50 from her employer.

The summary also goes on to state that on one separate occasion the defendant also forged another particular document. This document was a letter of confirmation from the supermarket supposedly signed by the accounts manager that was used by the defendant to support an application she had lodged to the New Zealand Immigration in order to facilitate travelling to New Zealand. Unfortunately for the defendant the New Zealand Immigration contacted the supermarket to confirm the letter and it was then discovered that the letter was a forgery. As a result of that discovery investigations were launched which then uncovered the defendants forgeries and thefts. As her forgeries and theft occured during the months of February, March, April and early May of 2011 and because the letter is dated at the end of May 2011 it is clear that the defendants plan was to abscond to New Zealand before her criminal activities could be uncovered. Had she been successful no doubt the thefts and forgeries would never have come to light.

I have reviewed the documents in this case and it seems to be a sad example of a bright young girl succumbing to temptation and engaging in very serious criminal offending. The probation office report indicates that she successfully completed her education in this country, received a government scholarship, went to New Zealand and came back with a commerce degree from Auckland University. She worked in various places in Apia and ended up holding the position of senior accountant at the supermarket. A position of great trust which she used and abused. She must now face the punishment for her crimes.

She has told the court and the probation office that she committed these offences because she was under severe financial pressure to meet family and other obligations. That may be so but we all have these problems and pressures, the solution is not to solve them by stealing your employers money. The courts policy in relation to sentencing for this kind of offence has been stated on many occasions and in previous cases and decisions. One such passage is contained in the prosecution sentencing memorandum taken from the case of Police v Milo [2007] where it is stated that the penalty for offences of this nature is invariably a term of imprisonment. Because those in positions of trust must understand that breaches of that trust will not be tolerated by the criminal justice system and will be met with appropriate sentences. This sort of offending by young women is also unfortunately very prevalent in this community. As such the court must continue to impose deterrence sentences so that the message that goes out to young men and women is if you do this sort of thing you will most likely end up at Tafaigata. And this applies even though you may be a first offender who has pleaded guilty and who has expressed regret and remorse for your offending.

The cases show that theft as a servant involving amounts around ten to fifteen thousand usually receive penalties of about 18 months in prison. That is the term that the prosecution have sought to be imposed in your case. That is a term that is consistent with the penalties handed down in similar cases involving offenders who have pleaded guilty. The amount involved in your offending is around this range and the position you held was not a junior position but a senior one in the employment of the complainant supermarket. I accept the prosecution submission, applying the totality sentencing principle for these charges you will be convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison. That is in respect of all charges except charge S882/11 which relates to the forged letter to the New Zealand Immigration

I consider that to be a separate offence because it was committed in order to facilitate your absconding from jurisdiction and to evade the other offences that you committed. It therefore should be addressed separately by the court. The maximum penalty for forgery is 5 years in prison. Considering all the relevant factors in respect of that offence an appropriate term would be a term of 12 months in prison. On charge S882/11 you will convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison but that term is to be served concurrent with your sentence in respect of the aforesaid theft and forgery charges.

............................
JUSTICE NELSON