By Linny Folau

Taniela Ngaluafe (25) stole electronics, including iPhones valued at around $78,180, from his employer Superfone Ltd. Qiwu Huang (60) received some of the stolen property valued over $10,000. Both received fully suspended sentences under certain conditions.

Lord Chief Justice Bishop sentenced the men on 1 April in the Supreme Court, Nuku’alofa. Ngaluafe pleaded guilty to the theft, while Huang was found guilty of receiving the stolen property.

The Prosecution's summary of facts stated that between January and April 2024, one of the owners discovered the irregularity during stocktaking. The complainant had already suspected Mr. Ngaluafe, as nothing like this had happened until he started working at their shop.

Ngaluafe was sentenced for theft of goods valued at $78,180, and Huang for receiving goods valued at $18,940, knowing they were stolen. The stolen goods included cell phones, tablets, and similar high-value, portable items, which are highly susceptible to theft.

Ngaluafe's theft from his employer was a substantial amount and constituted a serious breach of trust. Superfone Ltd., a small business, could not afford to lose this amount of stock.

Upon arrest, Ngaluafe admitted his involvement, cooperated with the police, and expressed remorse. He reached an agreement with the victims and repaid $7,250 by September 2024, although a large amount remains outstanding.

The court heard that Ngaluafe fully admitted to the offence and was remorseful. The Probation Officer reported that he apologized to Superfone Ltd. and paid reparations for the stolen goods.

Huang, born and raised in China, moved to Tonga in 2009 and supports his family with income from his retail shop in Longolongo. Huang has medical issues with his stomach and received treatment in China. The probation officer assessed him as a "low-risk" re-offender and recommended a fully suspended sentence under certain conditions.

Company owner

Mr. Felix WindMueller, the owner of the company, acknowledged the seriousness of the offence but informed the court that he had entered into a settlement with Ngaluafe, who agreed to repay financial damages weekly. WindMueller pointed out that incarceration would prevent Ngaluafe from meeting this obligation.

The court balanced Ngaluafe's previous character, remorse, and low risk of re-offending against the seriousness of the offence, the breach of trust, the amount of goods involved, and their susceptibility to dishonest sale.

In most cases of this kind, the defendant would serve part of the sentence, but the court considered the plea from the former employer to spare Ngaluafe prison so he could continue making payments for the loss suffered.

Ngaluafe made strong efforts to redeem his promise and paid $7,000 by September of the previous year. Although a large amount remains to be paid, the court believed he intended to fulfill his obligation, and sending him to prison would adversely affect the financial interest of the victim.

The Lord Chief Justice said, "This is a very unusual situation, in the ordinary way nobody can buy their way out of prison but I am prepared to make an exception and out of consideration to the loser and in response to his earnest pleas and to the remorse which you undoubtedly have experienced.”

His sentence was suspended in its entirety for three years on conditions.

Experienced businessman

For Huang, the court could not quantify the value of the stolen goods accurately. He was sentenced for goods valued at $13,000, the amount he paid for them.

As a 60-year-old experienced businessman, Huang should have known better than to behave as he did. He was tempted by the offer made by the co-accused and knew the goods could have been stolen.

The court regarded Huang's actions as an isolated lapse, considering the probation report and positive matters addressed by the crown in their sentencing submissions. Huang was assessed as low risk of re-offending and had a previous good character.

Sentences

Ngaluafe was sentenced to two years imprisonment, fully suspended for three years under certain conditions.

Huang was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, fully suspended for two years, also under certain conditions. Huang was ordered to pay $2,000 to Superfone within six months.

“It seems to me that compensation to the loser is a more productive way of dealing with this matter than a fine in the same amount,” stated the Lord Chief Justice.