Ursula Primrose Havili (34) is serving one year’s imprisonment after being found guilty on numerous counts of obtaining $52,550 by false pretences from six customers that she would order their vehicles from Japan, in a web of deception.
Justice Garlick sentenced her on 10 October at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa. She was convicted after a trial on 4 August.
The offences were reported to have occurred within a short time, between the months of March and September 2023. The particulars of the offences were similar, involving a dishonest misrepresentation that the defendant would deliver a motor vehicle to the six complainants within a set period of time of between six to eight weeks.
Her car business was Raniaa Lexi Trading.
The court heard that the defendant knowingly made a false statement to the complainants when she represented to:
- Penisimani 'Epenisa on 13 April 2023 that she would order him a White Honda Fit valued at $8,000, which would arrive in June to July.
- Hopoi Fanua on April-July 2023 that she would order him a White Mazda Demio valued at $8,700, which would arrive in June-July.
- Tu'itupou Vea on April 2023 that she would order him a Black Mazda CX5 valued at $22,000, which would arrive in June-July .
- ‘Akesa K. Maloni around April to July 2023 that she would give her a Silver Toyota Rumion valued at $16,000, which would be ready by July 2025.
- Lavinia La’akulu on 3 June 2023, that she would order her a Maroon Mazda Demio, which would arrive in August to September.
- Monika 'Eli on 1 September 2023, she would order her a Mazda Demio Red, which would arrive in October.
The defendant had no previous convictions. She is a single parent, being the sole carer for her two daughters, aged 11 and 9 years old.
Meanwhile, the Crown submitted that the aggravating factors were the seriousness of the offending, and that there were six victims and her actions of deceit and dishonesty.
Other aggravation was the premeditation with the offending involving six complainants taking place over a period of several months from March to September 2024, and the blatant breach of trust. The defendant was also in a position of trust towards the complainants, who were her customers who had approached her in good faith and entrusted their money to her.
A substantial amount of money was involved, the aggregate sum being $52,550, of which only $1,500 was refunded to 'Akesa Maloni and $200 to Penisimani 'Epenisa. In addition was the impact suffered by the complainants, and no apologies were offered to any of the complainants.
Her mitigating factors were being a first-time offender and that some minimal repayments of $1,700 were made.
The defence submissions for mitigation stated that the defendant was well educated and has a good employment history, which will assist her in seeking a job which would enable her to continue with her obligations to her daughters and to compensate the complainants.
She was reported to be profoundly remorseful and wished that she could reverse time to amend her wrongs, and intended to apologise to the complainants after her conviction, but her lawyer advised her that she still had the same bail conditions and that approaching the complainants before sentence was inappropriate.
The defence submitted that the defendant accepted that she had poor management skills in relation to her business and which caused financial problems to occur. She has learned that she was running her business without adequate capital or a well-made business plan, and that she must now face the consequences of her poor decisions.
The judge said the circumstances of the offences such as these were committed for a number of reasons.
“In some cases, the perpetrator of the offence embarks up on fraudulent and deceptive conduct from the outset. However, in other cases, the offending arises from an activity which was originally legitimate, but became unlawful (for example, because of a change in the offender's circumstances or a change in business conditions) and this may indicate lower culpability and thereby a reduction in sentence.
“I listened carefully to the evidence of the defendant and, whilst I am sure that she did commit these offences, and she did knowingly deceive her customers, I am satisfied that she did not commence trading with a view to defrauding her customers.”
He added that the evidence demonstrated: that she had very little business acumen; that she was under the pressure of a very difficult family life, which caused her not to concentrate sufficiently on her busines; that she began the process of misappropriating the monies that her customers paid her under pressure from her supplier in Japan, who suggested and, to an extent, incited her to deceive her customers, in an attempt to trade her way out of the financial difficulties that her business was facing.
The judge then sentenced her to a total of 28 months' imprisonment, with the final 16 months of suspended for two years on conditions. This included not committing any offence punishable with imprisonment, during the operational period of the suspended sentence when released.
The defendant is now serving one year in prison.
