The State v Joyce Moripi

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Salika, DCJ
• Judgment Date: 31 July 2017
• Citation: (2017) N6867
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2017
• Judgement Number: N6867

Full : CR (FC) 129 of 2017; The State v Joyce Moripi (2017) N6867

National Court: Salika, DCJ

Judgment Delivered: 31 July 2017

N6867

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR (FC) 129 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

JOYCE MORIPI

Waigani: Salika, DCJ

2017: 17; 31 July

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Sentence – Charges of Conspiracy to defraud – Section 407 of Criminal Code Act – Obtaining goods by false pretence – Section 404(1) (a) of Criminal Code – Offender defrauded her employer – conspired with another – issued false invoices – obtained K207,000.00 from issue of the false invoices – sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.

Cases cited:

In The State v Glenda Nugai CR (FC) 150 of 2015

The State v Margaret Ani CR (FC) 194 of 2015

The State v Nancy Uviri (2008) N5468

Wellington Belawa v The State (1988-89) PNGLR 496

Counsel:

Ms H Roalokona, for the State

Mr Kirriwom, for the Prisoner

SENTENCE

31st July, 2017

1. SALIKA, DCJ: INTRODUCTION: The prisoner pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud under s.407 of the Criminal Code Act and one count of obtaining goods by false pretence under s.404(1) a of the Criminal Code Act.

FACTS

2. Joyce Moripi was a property manager employed by Century 21 Siule Real Estate Limited. Between the 1st day of January and 30th day of September 2013, the prisoner conspired with one Geua Gavera to submit false invoices for upholstery work, alleged to have been done at a client’s residence. Donnybrook, which Century 21 was managing. A total of 19 False Invoices were submitted by Geua Gavera on different dates to the prisoner who then submitted to accounts for payment. Brian Hull and Ore Simoi as signatories to the accounts for Century 21 Siule Real Estate then raised those payments to Geua Gavera..

3. Payments were done on those 19 different occasions between 4 January 2013 and 10 September 2013 and each time the payments were done, Geua would split the payments as the payments were done to her name and give the prisoner her share which would be half of the invoiced sum.

4. The prisoner received an accumulated sum of K207, 000 and these monies were obtained by false pretence with the intention to defraud as no work was ever done.

5. The State says that the prisoner conspired or agreed with Geua Gavera to submit false invoices with the knowledge that no work was done and obtained the sum of K207, 000. She contravened section 407 and section 404 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act.

ISSUE

6. The issue for the Court is to determine the appropriate sentences to impose on the prisoner on the two charges..

THE LAW

7. Section 407 of the Criminal Code says:-

407. Conspiracy to defraud.

(1) A person who conspires with another person—

(a) by deceit or any fraudulent means to affect the market price of anything publicly sold; or

(b) to defraud the public, or any person (whether or not a particular person); or

(c) to extort property from any person,

is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

The maximum sentence for conspiracy to defraud is a term of imprisonment not exceeding 7 years.

8. Section 404(1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act says:-

404. Obtaining goods or credit by false pretence or wilfully false promise.

(1) A person who by a false pretence or wilfully false promise, or partly by a false pretence and partly by a wilfully false promise, and with intent to defraud—

(a) obtains from any other person any chattel, money or valuable security; or

is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

The maximum sentence for an offence under s.404(1)(a) is five years.

9. Section 19 of the Criminal Code Act gives the Court a wide discretion to impose lesser sentences than the prescribed maximum depending on the peculiar circumstances of each case.

10. The prisoner pleaded guilty to two criminal offences and the court will also need to decide whether the sentences imposed on the two counts should be served concurrently or cumulatively.

PERSONAL PARTICULARS

11. The prisoner is 32 years of age and is from the Gulf Province. She was educated to Grade 12 level at the Lae Secondary School in Morobe Province. She is a member of the Lutheran Church. She is a single mother with 2 children, 8 and 9 years. The two children are living with the prisoner’s parents in Lae and have been so since her arrest.

MIITGATING FACTORS

12. The prisoner pleaded guilty, thus saving the court and the State time and expenses. She admitted her crime right at the outset. She therefore co-operated with the police. She is a first time offender and has expressed remorse. She also expressed her desire to repay the money.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

13. The following are the aggravating factors.

(i) A substantial amount of money was taken or stolen from Century 21 Siule Real Estate Ltd.

(ii) The offences were committed over a period of 10 months.

(iii) She was entrusted by her employer, which she has now breached.

(iv) The offence is prevalent.

ALLOCATUS STATEMENT

14. The prisoner said she was driven to commit these offences by demands of her estranged husband. She said her husband had threatened her and her children and abused her mentally and physically. She said her actions were out of character.

CASE PRECEDENTS

15. The case of Wellington Belawa v The State (1988-89) PNGLR 496 is the starting point in considering what sentence to impose in fraud, corruption, stealing and misappropriation cases. In that case the Supreme Court laid down relevant factors that the courts should consider when considering sentences on offenders. The factors it identified were:-

(a) Amount of money taken.

(b) The degree of trust held by the offender.

(c) The period over which the offence was committed.

(d) The use to which the money was put to.

(e) The effect on the victim.

(f) The effect on the offender himself or herself.

(g) Whether restitution has been made.

(a) Amount taken.

K207, 000 was stolen from the victim.

(b) Degree of trust held by the prisoner

The prisoner was the Property Manager for Century 21 Siule Real Estate Ltd. She conspired with Geua Gavera for Geua Gavera to invoice her employer higher amounts. She breached the trust of her employer by engaging in such an enterprise or scheme. She was bestowed with a high degree.

(c) The period over which the offence was committed.

The offence was committed over a period of 10 months.

(d) The use to which the money was put to.

The prisoner said she sent most of the money out to a person named as Ronald Welly. She said he was the man who she used to go out with. She said when she left him he threatened to report her to her bosses. But what was she going to report her to her bosses for? Did he know she was stealing from her employer and that she was sending him stolen money. This part is not clear with respect. She said she gave some of her money to Geua Gavera to pay her creditors and some she used it herself.

(e) The effect on the victim.

Century 21 Siule lost business to fight an insurance case with an insurance company in court. The owner of Century 21 Siule said the prisoner was a serial professional thief and should be given a custodial sentence. The company trusted her and gave her a job and she cooked up this evil plan to steal from the hand that was feeding her.

(f) The effect on the offender herself.

Obviously she had lost her job with Century 21 Siule Ltd. She is now self employed. She does Real Estate sales and marketing. She is separated from her two children. Her parents now take care of them,. She is now remorseful of what she did. What she does not say is whether this person Ronald Welly knew she was sending him stolen money so that he can be charged.

(g) Whether restitution has been made.

As of today no restitution has been made, although an offer has been made.

16. Similar case precedents to this case are; The State v Margaret Ani CR (FC) 194 of 2015 and The State v Nancy Uviri (2008) N5468. In Margaret Ani’s case the prisoner was a volunteer treasurer of Port Moresby Cancer Foundation. She was forced by her partner for money and she ended up stealing K66, 968.90 from the Cancer Foundation. She was convicted after a trial and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment but suspended on condition that she repaid the money within 12 months. She did not repay the money in the given time and so she is now serving 3 years. If she repaid the full amount of money at any time now, she will be released.

17. In the case of Nancy Uviri, she pleaded guilty to misappropriation of K536, 134.00 in cash from her employer over an 18 months period. She engineered a scheme of presenting bogus invoices and obtaining cash. There was clear evidence of her misappropriation of K300, 000 and she was sentenced on the basis that she misappropriated K300, 000 and not K536, 134.00. She was sentenced to 7 years, with no part suspended.

18. In The State v Glenda Nugai CR (FC) 150 of 2015, the prisoner devised a scheme with a regular customer whereby she transferred electronic top up credits totalling K232, 000 to a regular...