By Linny Folau

Siosina Vakasiuola (30) was found guilty on two charges of obtaining money by false pretences, when she received $47,000 from two customers, who signed contracts with her for the importation of vehicles, which never materialized.

Justice Cooper issued his 35 pages written verdict on 10 July at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa, after a trial earlier in April.

The accused, who represented herself, was convicted of the charges regarding two agreements she had made with two separate people, both involving the importation of motor vehicles for these prospective buyers from Japan.

The first was committed between June and October 2022, at Kolofo'ou, when she obtained $30,000 by false pretences from 'Isileli Latu 'Akauola, when she told him that it was to purchase a truck for him, but that was false.

The second charge was on 19 April 2022, at Ma'ufanga, when she obtained $17,000 by false pretence from Viliami Pomale Blake to purchase two vehicles for him, which was again false.

The court heard that the defendant ran V & G Auto Tonga, a business whose aim was to sell motor vehicles here in Tonga, either those imported by her business into the Kingdom of Tonga or available through connections she had with other importers.

“Whether this was a properly registered business was never made clear as there was no evidence called by either side so as to assess that. In any event, that was not crucial to the questions the Court was faced with in determining whether the Crown had proved their case,” the judge stated.

Lies 

“Miss Vakasiuola was not a convincing witness and I conclude that she has lied to the Court."

The judge stated that examples of the evidence that forced him to this conclusion included:

• She stated in evidence she wrote to the supplier of the Truck and asked them to send a picture of it, which she would then send to Mr. 'Akauola
• The last payment he made was on 7 October 2022 and by then $30,000 had been paid to Miss Vakasiuola.
• Pages 46 to 69 exhibit 1 (a) Court Book, revealed that there was no photograph of the truck sent by her to Mr. 'Akauola, ever.
•  Before, on 16 September 2022, pages 35 she had already stated in a message to him that his truck was in a container at the wharf, behind other vehicles. In her message to him she stated would photograph it and send him the image.
• Alongside that text she sent him a photograph of a container with two cars in, so as to make him believe that she was at the wharf. The container with his truck in, was right in front of her
• It was a matter of unloading one or two vehicles before his would be ready to be photographed, and the image of which would then be sent to him, thereafter his truck ready for him to collect.
• She never sent any image of his truck, then or at any later time.
• There was no evidence that the Toyota Dump Truck. Mr. 'Akauola paid $30,000 towards ever was transported to Tonga or even paid for in part.

“It is important to note that is not an example of Miss Vakasiuola being required to prove a matter; or the burden being reversed.”

The judge said it was noteworthy given the evidence, she never produced any proof the vehicle was transported to Tonga.

“Indeed, she later claimed in evidence no payments had been made on the truck at all, as the supplier required 100% payments before they would send the vehicle.

“She claimed the vehicles, in both cases (count 1 and 2), were going to be sold to the purchasers, but she was going to forego her 10% profit. Why she would do this and how she could run a business without making a profit made no sense. It was perverse and illogical to the point of being unbelievable.”

“She also claimed that by December 2022 she still had all of Mr. 'Akauola's $30,000. Yet, when she agreed to repay him, she did not give him the full amount back. He only received from her a fraction. There could be no reason for that if she wished to repay him, as she stated and had all his money, as she claimed.”

Charges

Tthe court heard that on 31 May 2022, the defendant sent Mr. 'Akauola a contract for him to sign, among other messages.

The judge stated that from these messages it was clear that Miss Vakasiuola wanted Mr.'Akauola to react quickly to 'close the deal'. Two days later, 3 June 2022, he sent what the contract described as the "deposit" for $10,000 to her.

The judge also considered the way she pressurised Mr. 'Akauola to sign off the contract, implying that the vehicle needed to be swiftly secured by a deposit, in messages sent on 31 May 2022 and 1 June 2022; sent him a contract on 31 May 2022 that stipulated the first payment of $10,000 was a deposit, so implied it would secure the purchase for him; sent the screen shot on 4 June 2022 that was designed to make Mr. 'Akauola believe his $10,000 had immediately been sent to the Japanese supplier, straight after he sent it to her.

“And, when I take into account the narrow compass of the dates upon which all the above happened, some five days. This is all compelling evidence of her dishonesty from that start. It drives me to conclude, so I am sure, that she deceived Mr. 'Akau’ola and that deception was what operated on his mind to start sending the payments and to then carry on until $30,000 had been sent to her by early October 2022.

“The rest of the evidence and correspondence in respect of Mr. 'Akauola makes me quite sure she continued her false account of purchasing the truck to ensure as many of the payments were made, tricked him into thinking the truck was on its way to Tonga and deceived into thinking that the truck had arrived.

“So, that I am quite sure that the deception was operative from the start and continued throughout, until Mr. 'Akauola paid $30,000. Relevant in reaching this decision is, for example, the message she sent about moving the money from the TDB account to her ANZ account (17 June 2022 at 3.21 pm). That is an important factor in my considerations and assessing her credibility."

“In addition, she never moved the money to the ANZ account as the bank statements make clear she sent a message to Mr. 'Akauola that she tried but the queue at TDB prohibited her and she would try the next day (message 17 June 2022). She also closed her ANZ account, relevantly her business account on 22 June 2022, five days after telling Mr. 'Akauola she was moving the funds there,” the judge stated.

“It is quite irrelevant that some monies were paid back. When I look at the overall conduct of Miss Vakasiuola, I conclude that the paying back of some of the monies was not an act of someone who was trying to correct a mistake.”

The judge stated that the funds of Mr. 'Akauola ought to have been 'ring-fenced' and available to Miss Vakasiuola in full for an immediate refund. Instead, they plainly had been dispersed.

“It is also relevant at times she repaid in in kind. She sent him building material, instead of the money he wanted and both needed and was owed. Against that level of dishonesty on the part of Miss Vakasiuola, those meagre repayments represented belated and desperate efforts to avoid the consequences of her deception.”

In addition, Miss Vakasiuola also never paid any money to any company for the Nissan Skyline nor the Honda Stream. She lied when she presented evidence that exhibits demonstrated that she had. As the rebuttal evidence made clear, they were payments for totally different vehicles and she deliberately tried to mislead the Court into believing they were for Mr. Blake's cars.

Moreover, the banking evidence shows that no monies were paid to ICM or to Knox Trading for the Skyline nor the Nissan Stream. Neither document featured in any of the money transfer application paperwork, he stated.

 “I conclude that from the very start Miss Vakasiuola had no intention of using the money paid her by Mr. Blake to purchase those cars. It was a deception that operated on the mind of Mr. Blake from the beginning and induced him to start paying her from the outset.

“I am also quite sure from the subsequent dishonesty (all the surrounding evidence of the messages, the delaying tactics and the lack of full repayments as well as the profoundly dishonest accounts and reasons she gave in evidence) she intended to obtain the full $17,000 from Mr. Blake dishonestly.”

The judge then found her guilty on both charges and remanded her in custody for sentencing on a date to be confirmed.