By Linny Folau

Siosiua Vea (37) was sentenced to two-years two-months imprisonment partially suspended for serious fraudulent conversion, when he scammed $15,000 from a couple whom were paying for a vehicle advertised on facebook.

Acting Lord Chief Justice Tupou sentenced him on 8 March at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa, after pleading guilty to the one charge earlier in January.

In 2023, the defendant converted a Nissan X-Trailer valued at $15,000 that had been delivered to him after it was paid for by the complainants, in which he resold to another person, Tevita Likiliki for his own benefit.

The Court heard that on 9 February, 2023, while in Australia on the seasonal workers scheme, the complainants, Nikola Masalu and his wife saw vehicle listings for sale on Vea Trade’s facebook page, which the defendant who is from Vaini administered. They expressed interest in purchasing the vehicle being advertised for $15,000.

It was agreed for Nikola to deposit $10,000 and then pay the balance on his return to Tonga. Accordingly, Nikola paid the defendant the $10,000 and the remaining $5,000 was paid on 7 March, when Nikola returned to Tonga. It was agreed that the vehicle would be ready for Nikola to pick up within one week but that did not happen.

The A/LCJ stated it was not until 4 April, 2023, that Nikola learnt the defendant had resold the same vehicle to Tevita on 24 March, 2023. Nikola demanded a refund of the money he paid. When payment was not forthcoming, the complainants lodged a complaint with the police. They received $1,900 from the defendant after the matter had been referred to the police. No further payments were made and the outstanding amount was $13,100.

 The defendant who initially denied the offending did not to cooperate with the Police and exercised his right to remain silent.

Betrayal

The Crown submitted the aggravating features of the offending were his betrayal of trust undermining the integrity of car dealership in Tonga; premeditation; misusing a legitimate business (car dealership) to facilitate dishonest taking of money, and the financial loss to the complainant. He was also charged for a similar offending, at the Magistrates Court for obtaining money by false pretences.

His only mitigating factors were his apology offered to the complainants and early guilty plea. The Crown recommended a starting point of three-years imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the offending, the amount converted and the breach of trust. A discount of eight months was suggested for mitigation, resulting in a final sentence of 28-months imprisonment.

His pre-sentence report stated that in 2021, the defendant registered a car dealership business licensed under the name, Vea Trade. At the time, he was working as a daily paid labourer at the Ministry of Labour and Commerce. He had since been dismissed as a result of this offending. He told the probation officer that his business started off well but soon went bankrupt due to excessive ordering of additional vehicles and was unable to reimburse his customers.

When Nikola found out, he asked for a refund, the defendant was unable to make the refund as his business was bankrupt. He volunteered that he had been charged with a similar matter at the Magistrates Court. The probation officer also opined that the defendant was remorseful and although he stated he would accept the Court’s decision, he begged for mercy and leniency but he was of the opinion that imprisonment was inevitable.

“Here, the taking advantage of the complainants’ full payment for the vehicle and subsequently handing over their vehicle to a third party, breach of the promise he made to Nikola, the quantum of the money involved and the failure to make full restitution, in my view, constitute circumstances rendering imprisonment necessary.”

“The Legislature has set the maximum penalty for the present charge at 10-years imprisonment signalling the seriousness in which it considers this type of offending. I bear this in mind when considering an appropriate sentence here. Having regard to the maximum statutory penalty, the comparable sentences above, the sentencing principles of punishment, denunciation, the protection of the public from this increasing type of criminality and to deter the defendant and any others who intend to engage in this type of offending, I set a starting point of three-years imprisonment," said the judge.

“Despite the defendant’s initial denial of the offending, he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and has a previous clean record. I reduce the starting point by 10-months (30%), resulting in a final sentence of two-years and two-months imprisonment."

The A/LCJ added that against the considerations on suspension discussed in Mo'unga, the defendant was not young and had no diminution of culpability.

“I accept that he is remorseful and consider the minimal restitution made due to his alleged bankruptcy, as well as his good character as described by his Bishop and town officer and a long criminal free life until now. He has been penalized prior to this sentence in the dismissal from his job. For those reasons, I accept the Crown’s recommendation and suspend 12-months of his sentence on conditions,” she stated.

The defendant was then sentenced to two-years and two-months imprisonment. The final 12-months of the sentence was suspended for two-years, on conditions that he must not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment, among others.

 Failure to comply with any of those conditions will see him serve the balance of his sentence. He is now serving14-months imprisonment.