By Linny Folau

Business owner Kisione Tu'ipulotu To’aho (41), whose company imported and sold vehicles, is serving 20 months imprisonment for two counts of obtaining $29,600 by false pretences when he scammed customers in two separate incidents.

Justice Tupou sentenced him on 2 May in the Supreme Court, Nuku’alofa, after he pleaded guilty in March. The defendant from Tokomololo is the owner of a company known as Getpert Computers, which not only imports and sells vehicles from Japan but offers services relating to computers and unlocking phones.

The judge stated that the first complainant was Ms. Loseli Liu on behalf of Sino Union Economic Trading Ltd of Ma’ufanga. On 14 June, 2024, an amount of $19,800 was paid to the defendant by her on behalf of the company for a vehicle. Staffs of the company were informed that the vehicle will be delivered the following week. That did not happen. Despite numerous promises the vehicle was not delivered. The company demanded its money back and lodged a complaint with the police.

Then on 4 March, 2024, the second complainant, Mele Veatupu approached the defendant at his company office to purchase a vehicle to take to Vava’u. They were assisted by the defendant and they selected a 2012 White Nissan.The vehicle was valued at $9,800. Mele and her husband asked to see the vehicle but the defendant concocted a story that the vehicle was still at the wharf and documentation for the release of the vehicle was to be processed in Japan after payment was received. 

The next day Mele contacted the defendant and she was told the money had not reached Japan due to the different time zones. She became suspicious. She and her husband attended the defendant’s office and requested their money back. Instead, the defendant took them to his broker at the wharf who showed them telegraphic transfer receipts. She also took a photo of the receipts carrying the name ICAR JAPAN. Mele’s husband, Paula contacted ICAR JAPAN about the telegraphic transfers.

The company confirmed the receipts were fake. Mele also enquired at the Tonga Development Bank from which the transfers were allegedly made. The bank also confirmed they were fake. A complaint was lodged with the police and the defendant was charged accordingly, stated the judge.

The Crown submitted the aggravating factors was the involvement of two separate victims, the substantial amount of money, the defendant’s position of trust, the premeditated and calculated nature of the offending, the deceit and dishonesty, lack of cooperation with the police, previous convictions and the breach of the conditions of his suspended sentence. His only mitigating features were his early guilty plea, and partial restitution in respect of count one.

A Victim Impact Report showed that both complainants suffered as a result of the offending. After full reparation was made to the second complainant forgave the defendant and withdrew her complaint.

The court heard that an undated letter from the second complainant’s husband addressed to the police requested for the charges to be dropped was lodged by the defendant together with his sentencing submissions. On the other hand, the first complainant appeared to have suffered the most as the offending disrupted its bid as one of the successful contractors to construct houses to accommodate delegates for the Pacific Island Forum in August last year. The subject vehicle was to aid in transporting the labourers to construction sites.

When interviewed by the Crown, it was revealed that in addition to the financial loss, the company resorted to other means of transportation that were not always available when needed impacting the work and causing stress to management. However, a letter of 10 January, 2025 was produced by the defendant with his submission reporting that $10,000 had been paid back by him and arrangements were in place for the balance to be paid by June, 2025, she added.

The defendant also submitted an application for a discharge without conviction the Criminal Offences Act, under a provision which requires the court to look at the nature of the of the offending, the character of the offender, that it is inexpedient to inflict punishment and a probation order was not an appropriate penalty. This was rejected by the judge.

“This is a serious offence and is reflected both in the statutory penalty under the Act and the circumstances described above. As against the favourable reports from the Church Minister and Mrs. To'aho, of the defendant’s character, the defendant is a recidivist who has failed to comply with the condition of a fully suspended sentence. He was reported to be remorseful and was willing to make full reparations but felt hesitant he might receive a sentence of imprisonment if he cleared it. The report also suggested orders for restitution or a term of imprisonment,” she added.

The judge sentenced him to 24 months imprisonment, which included 16 months pf his suspended, which was rescinded and activated in full.The final four months was suspended for two years on conditions. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions may result in the suspension being rescinded, in which case, the defendant will be required to serve the balance of his sentence. He now serving 20 months imprisonment, ordered the judge.