By Linny Folau
Lepeka Moala (30) is serving six months in prison, after the Appeal Court quashed her 30 months fully suspended sentence for obtaining $88,000 by false pretences from two people, whose vehicle purchases never arrived.
In a judgment on 7 July.he Appeal Court allowed the appeal against sentence by the Crown and quashed the fully suspended sentence imposed in the Supreme Court.
Moala (respondent) was then re-sentenced to 30 months, and she must serve six months in prison with the remaining 24 months suspended for two years on conditions,
This was after the Appeal judges found that the fully suspended prison term for obtaining such a substantial amount of money by false pretences failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending and the need for punishment and general deterrence.
"Although the sentence promoted rehabilitation, a wholly suspended sentence was "so out of line with the comparable cases" that it failed to adequately reflect punishment and general deterrence."
Originally from Vava'u living in Tongatapu, the respondent is the mother and primary carer for five children. She lived with her parents, where she helped her father in the plantation and her mother weaving mats for sale. She has made full restitution to the complainants.
On 27 January 2026, she pleaded guilty to two counts of obtaining $23,000 by false pretences on the first count and $65,000 on the other.
The first complainant, Mele Tahaafe, 63, and her husband sought to purchase a three-ton Toyota Dyna truck and a Nissan Murano advertised on Facebook. They paid $23,300 in cash in June 2022 after signing an agreement that the vehicles would arrive the following month. The vehicles never arrived despite repeated assurances and delays.
Police later established that the money had been sent to Vava'u rather than to Japan. She admitted the offending, although she claimed she had not received the full amount from one of her agents.
The second complainant, Melefusi Fisi'iahi paid for a Toyota Hilux that was too advertised on a Facebook page operated by the respondent under the name "Soleil Temaleti". After making substantial instalment payments, she was persuaded to instead purchase a black Hummer valued at $65,000, when the Hilux did not arrive. This Hilux also never arrived, and the complainant reported the matter to police.
Jail time
The Appeal Court stated that Lord Chief Justice Bishop had sentenced the respondent to 30 months imprisonment fully suspended for three years, on conditions.
There was no issue with the length of the sentence, but the Crown challenged his desion to fully suspend the three years sentence.
The Lord Chief Justice adopted starting points of 20 months'imprisonment for the first count and three years for the second before allowing discounts for mitigating factors, including her guilty pleas, remorse, lack of previous convictions and full restitution.The combined sentence was 30 months' imprisonment, fully suspended for three years, with conditions including 120 hours of community service.
He found the case was one in which suspension was "just about possible" because all money had been repaid and accepted by the complainants, although he acknowledged the seriousness of the offending and warned that any breach of the conditions would result in immediate imprisonment.
The Crown, on the other hand argued that the sentence placed too much weight on her guilty plea, previous good character and restitution. while giving insufficient weight to punishment, deterrence and the impact on the complainants. It submitted that the sentencing judge had misapplied authority concerning restitution and suspension of sentences.
The Appeal Court considered the significant impact of the offending on both complainants.
The first complainant and her husband lost retirement savings, were unable to obtain vehicles needed for their plantation business, lost about 800 kava plants, and were forced back into work while waiting for repayment.
The second complainant suffered prolonged financial uncertainty and emotional distress after using business funds and family contributions to purchase what was intended to be a vehicle for her daughter's 21st birthday.
Reviewing comparable cases, the Appeal Court observed that the total amount obtained by Moala $88,000 exceeded the amounts involved in the authorities cited, and that full suspension had been granted only in cases involving shorter custodial sentences.
It added that while caring for young children is an important consideration, it was not decisive when determining whether an entire sentence should be suspended. Furthermore, the resondpent engaged in a course of criminal activity over a period of several months.
"It involved significant planning, deception and breach of trust resulting in considerable losses to two different complainants. While there has been full restitution involving considerable sacrifice by her family the effect on the complainants in both cases was significant.
It is to their credit that they have forgiven her and wished her all the best for the future. Nevertheless, it remains a particularly serious offence. No point is taken in relation to the length of the custodial sentence. We think the nature of the offending was too serious to justify suspending the whole of the sentence."
Although, the Appeal judges fully understood the compassionate factors, which led the Lord Chief Justice to take that step, they thought it failed to sufficiently recognise the gravity of the offence and the purpose of general deterrence in a case of this kind.
Nevertheless there are very many mitigating factors, which justify imposing a substantial period of suspension in the unusual circumstances of this case, it stated.
"Suspension of part of the sentence will promote rehabilitation and deter the respondent from future offending. She is a first offender who has expressed remorse. She has the support of her family and church. One factor not taken into account by the Lord Chief Justice but which is in her favour is that five young children, who are dependent on her both financially and emotionally.
We take into account that she has completed seven hours of community service. Lastly she has had this appeal hanging over her for several months. These factors are reflected in our decision. Nonetheless we think some period of imprisonment are required."
The Appeal Court then quashed the original suspension order and re-sentenced her to 30 months' imprisonment.
She will serve six months in prison, with the remaining 24 months suspended for two years, on conditions that she commit no imprisonable offence, among others.
