By Linny Folau

A man in Tonga who received a rental car, that was allegedly stolen by his former wife in New South Wales in Australia and shipped to Tonga, was found guilty on one count each of money laundering and receiving stolen property. Siosio Malohi Vea (40) will be sentenced in November by the Supreme Court in Nuku'alofa.

Lord Chief Justice Malcolm Bishop found him guilty on both charges on 20 September, after a trial.

In this indictment the defendant faced two counts money laundering and receiving stolen property, arising out of the importation of an MG motor car into Tonga from Australia. It was alleged that the he knew that he had no right to deal with the motor car in the way he did and as a result was guilty of two offences.

The prosecution put forward evidence and produced five witnesses for their case namely, Asraful Hassan, Uinise Tu'inukuafe, 'Ana Faumotu, and Sargent 'Alekisio Tonga.

The defendant called no additional witnesses but gave evidence himself.

The LCJ stated that first, the defendant in the knowledge or suspicion that the car in question was criminal property, that it was derived directly or indirectly from the commission of a serious offence, he converted the car to his own use concealing its true origin.This constituted the money laundering offence under the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act.

It was also alleged that because he received into his possession the motor car in question with the knowledge or belief that it had been stolen or otherwise obtained by criminal conduct, he committed the offence of receiving stolen property.

The judge said a number of prosecution witnesses were credible and truthful. “I heard first from Mr. Asraful Hassan who had an in managerial role in a rental car firm in New South Wales, Australia, known as Ride Solutions Pty Ltd. He produced a number of documents which show that the MG in question having the registration plate, which was hired by the defendant's wife under a rental agreement.

The vehicle was rented in the state of New South Wales Australia, its removal from that state was prohibited by the rental agreement, unless prior authorization had been obtained. No such written authorization was made.

Defendant was present

The court heard that rental payments fell into arrears and there was at times friendly but then hostile communication between Mr. Hassan and the defendant's wife.

“The lady in question whom I shall call Kasanita, agreed that she was out of time with payments but asked for some for bearance which was granted,” the judge stated.

“It was also noteworthy, in my view, that the vehicle was subject to a number of inspections and that at least one of those inspections, according to Mr Hassan, whose evidence I accept, the defendant himself was present.

The renter continued to make prompt payments of the rental and eventually the renter ceased to get in touch with the renting company. This resulted in a number of increasingly anxious communications taking place, eventually including a publication on social media of the loss of the vehicle. This resulted in information being communicated to Ride Solutions that the vehicle was in Tonga, he stated.

"The defendant told me the reason for that communication to the rental company was a result of an unrelated family dispute about a package in the container, in which the vehicle was bought in to Tonga. Why the rental company was contacted and how the report got to the rental company, I find is irrelevant. Tonga Police executed a lawful search warrant as I find it, and as a result the vehicle was located at the defendant's premises and confiscated pending the outcome of these proceedings. The police also searched the defendant's house, but found nothing of note."

Stolen property

The LCJ stated that the issue was whether the defendant either knew or reasonably believed that the vehicle was in his possession as a result of a criminal offence.

“In this case the alleged criminal offence was theft, that is to say that the vehicle was not in the defendant's lawful possession and was appropriated by someone without lawful authority to do so with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of that property. In this case the thief was alleged to be the defendant's former wife, Kasanita.

“I am satisfied that the correspondence discloses not only that the vehicle was originally rented by Kasanita on the terms set out in exhibit 3 but that as the result of further correspondence, she had no intention of complying with the agreement or restoring the vehicle to its lawful owner, Ride Solutions.

“Putting it shortly, I am satisfied on the evidence that Kasanita appropriated the car, and this was to the defendant's knowledge. This was the case when he arranged for its export to Tonga where he took steps to register the car in his own name and it was found at his premises. That seems to me to be the clearest evidence of his belief that the vehicle had been acquired by criminal means.”

He added that all relevant times, the defendant was cohabitating with his wife.

“I find that he must have known that the payments were late, he must have known that the hiring company were seeking payment of the arrears and was becoming more and more agitated at the failure to do so. He also claimed that he had nothing to do with its original rental and that there is nothing to connect him with any knowledge of its unlawful acquisition. I reject that evidence.

“He was in a close relationship with his wife as I have already indicated, and he was party to some of the discussions, which followed as a result of a failure to pay. He was present on at least one occasion when the vehicle was inspected.

“Moreover, he was physically present and so he must have known that the vehicle did not belong to his partner but that she was renting it under an agreement which fell into arrears. If it belonged to his wife, I see no reason why it was regularly inspected like it was done here,” he added.

"In my view there was plain evidence here of the commission of count 1. In respect to the money laundering count, it must be established that the defendant acquired the vehicle in question. There is no doubt about that, his name is on the bill of lading and the vehicle was found outside his house.

“Next it must be established either that he knew or had reasonable grounds to believe or to suspect that the property i.e. the car in question was the direct or indirect consequence of the commission of a serious offence.

“Again for the reasons I have already indicated, I am quite satisfied that he did believe or suspect, in fact on my view, he had full knowledge that the vehicle was not his partner's to dispose of but that it had been appropriated by her with the intention of depriving its lawful owners of it and with that knowledge by arranging for the import of the vehicle to Tonga in my view he converted the property and in this sense he is guilty."

“I find on clear evidence:  the car was not the defendant's; the car was not Kasanita's; the defendant knew that Kasanita had no right to appropriate it or treat it as her own; she did so and the defendant acquired the vehicle knowing these facts; and with that knowledge he arranged or was part of its arrangement for its removal from Australia to Tonga. Moreover, he continued to be in possession of it and would have continued to do so had the vehicle not be apprehended by the police, stated the LCJ.

The judge concluded that the indictment had been proved to the criminal standard and that the defendant was guilty of both counts. The accused will be sentenced on 7 November.