By Linny Folau
Penisimani Fisi’ihoi (43) is serving one year and six months imprisonment for obtaining $20,000 from a complainant, who was made to believe that he was surrendering over his town allotment in Kolomotu’a by falsifying a letter and stamp of the Ministry of Lands.
Justice Tupou sentenced him on 10 December at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa, after he pleaded guilty to obtaining money by false pretence.
The defendant is the registered holder of a town allotment situated at Kolomotu’a known as “Mohutapuaki”, which is subject to a mortgage to the MBF Bank for $222,442.52 registered on 22 April, 2025.
On 9 April 2024, the defendant Fisi'ihoi lodged a letter with the Ministry of Lands surrendering the said town allotment to one, Taipe ‘Isitolo. Then on the second week of April, he promoted the sale of the same town allotment to ‘Emosi Kauhenga (a friend of the complainant's brother).
The complainant was not named in the sentencing.
The judge stated that ‘Emosi knew through the complainant’s brother that she was looking for a piece of land and arranged for a meeting to take place. The meeting was held at ‘Emosi’s house with the complainant, her brother, ‘Emosi and the defendant, where he offered his town allotment to the complainant for $20,000.
The judge stated that it was understood that the defendant needed money urgently. The complainant paid the defendant $6,000 on that day and the balance of $14,000 the next day. In return, the defendant provided the complainant with a letter surrendering the said allotment to the complainant's eldest son.
The letter was stamped with the Ministry of Lands’ stamp with an identified item number M436/24 and a laminated copy of his Deed of Grant. Since April, 2024 the complainant had made enquiries with the Ministry of Lands about the defendant’s surrendering of the land. Up to February, this year the Ministry informed her they had not received any such surrender.
The complainant figured something was amiss and called the defendant asking for the money back. She then lodged a complaint with the police with the surrender dated 29 April, 2025 and the Deed of Grant the defendant gave, the judge stated.
During the police investigations it was discovered that: the letter of 29 April, 2025 signed by the defendant in favour of the complainant’s son was never filed with the Ministry of Lands office; the Ministry of Lands stamp used on the surrender was not genuine; the item number M436/24 inserted on the letter referenced a different land matter and the deed of grant given to the complainant did not contain the mortgage over the land registered in 2025.
Moreover, the land had been surrendered via an earlier letter from the defendant dated 9 April, 2024 to a different person.
When he was interviewed by the police, the defendant admitted the offending. He said he needed money and so promoted his allotment to ‘Emosi, and he apparently believed the land was unencumbered as per advice from the Ministry of Lands.
The defendant also personally drafted the letter and accepted the stamp on it was false, he admitted he made it up and he did not have the Ministry of Lands permission to use it, stated the judge.
“In this instant offending, the defendant’s actions were highly deceptive, dishonest, calculated and deliberate to obtain $20,000 from the complainant.”
The judge also rejected the defendant's claim that he believed the land was unencumbered on advice from the Ministry of Lands and considered it an attempt to mislead the court, on a number of reasons, including that on the first week of April, 2024, he had lodged a letter with the Ministry of Lands surrendering the said allotment to Taipe 'Ísitolo.
Notwithstanding that fact, the defendant, a week later was meeting with the complainant to surrender the same allotment to her son for $20,000. Only this time, he made up a stamp to pass off as an official stamp of the Ministry of Lands, inserted a false item number to deceive the complainant and told her to refer to the said number when making enquiries with the Ministry, she stated.
"That was not on any advice from the Ministry but a deliberate, calculated and dishonest systematic deception that the defendant allowed to mislead and frustrate the complainant for almost a year before he was found out. That, in my view are circumstances that render a custodial sentence necessary."
Sentencing
The judge set a starting point of 24 months, lifted by six months for his deliberate and calculated dishonest conduct and prolonged misleading of the complainant by encouraging the complainant to use the fake item number he provided with a fake stamp to enquire about the surrender he never lodged with the Ministry, resulting in a final starting point of 30 months imprisonment.
His only mitigation factors was his early guilty plea, clean record which reduced the starting point by six months.
Meanwhile, the defendant apologized for his conduct and asked for leniency. He wished to repay the complainant's money and claimed that he had paid back an estimated amount of $6,000. The Prosecution was unable to verify that information because the complainant was said to be travelling, stated the judge.
He was then sentenced to 24 months imprisonment with the final six months suspended for 12 months, on conditions. He is now serving one year six months in prison.
