By Linny Folau

Ashok Kumar (58) is serving seven years in prison for one count of trafficking in person, when he lured a 36-year-old woman from Fiji under the pretence of a potential hotel employment opportunity in Nuku’alofa, last year.

Justice Tupou sentenced him on 12 December at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa, after he changed his plea to guilty. Four other charges of serious indecent assault were withdrawn by the Prosecution, offering no evidence.

The defendant who lives in Fangaloto met the complainant on Facebook via messenger between September and October, 2024.

The judge stated that the defendant used a profile picture of a young man on his Facebook page, sent the complainant a friend request. On 27 September, 2024, the complainant accepted his friend request. The two acquainted themselves via the social media platform, and as the correspondence continued a potential employment opportunity for the complainant in Tonga, specifically at Tanoa Hotel was discussed.

The defendant told the complainant that a friend had confirmed numerous vacancies at a pay rate of $10 per hour at the hotel. He then offered to pay for her airfare and requested the complainant’s biodata page of her passport for immigration purposes and in order to pay for her flights.

On 28 September 2024, the defendant told the complainant to travel to Tonga the coming month. On October 1, he sent the complainant money to purchase some items to bring with her to Tonga. On the next day, the complainant asked the defendant whether she was starting work upon her arrival in Tonga.

He replied that in about a week after her arrival in Tonga. On 3 October, the defendant called the complainant to confirm that she would start work on 7 October, at Tanoa Hotel, and assured her that he would support her financially on her arrival in Tonga, until she started working.

On 4 October 2024, the complainant left Fiji for Tonga and the complainant upon meeting the defendant realised he did not look like the photo depicted on his Facebook profile. Then when they arrived at the defendant’s home, it was not how he had described it to her.

During her stay, the complainant alleged that the defendant made three attempts in regards to the sexual advances, which she refused. On 5 October, 2024 the complainant sought help from a cousin in Fiji. Then on the same day the defendant introduced the complainant to his friend, Mr. Ram at Jilong store at Fasi, who reportedly knew someone at Tanoa Hotel and arranged a job interview for the complainant for 7 October,.

On 6 October, the defendant and complainant went to the Monfort Technical Institute’s Principal, Mr. Joy Madavana (aka Brother Jim) quarters to drop off some food. Following a brief conversation with Jim about her situation with the defendant, he told the complainant he would help her.

On 7 October, Jim told the defendant about the complainant’s complaint. The defendant returned to the house and told the complainant to move out by 6:00pm. However, the police arrived at around 11:00am and took the complainant to the police station. The defendant then messaged the complainant demanding his charger back and threatening to report her to the Police. He required her to pay back the money for her ticket amounting to $1244.60 to Monfort Technical Institute. 

On 8 August 2024, the defendant was arrested and remanded by the Police. During his interview he cooperated to a limited extent.

The judge stated that in his record of interview, the defendant acknowledged his arrangement to bring the complainant to Tonga, by paying for her flight and luggage. However, he denied ever offering to secure a job prior to arranging her tickets to Tonga.

Exploitation

The Prosecutuon submitted the aggravating features of the offendings were:

• the offence was serious given its nature with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 15 years; he lured the complainant to Tonga with specific alluring, and false promises of stable, well-paying employment (“10 an hour at Tanoa Hotel”)
• he deliberately targeted and exploited the complainant’s evident vulnerability as a divorced, unemployed single mother of three children, who expressed a strong desire to work and improve her family’s circumstances.
• the defendant's actions demonstrated pre-meditation, initiated through social media contact, sustained communication to build trust, and systematic arrangements for travel (paying airfare). The rapid escalation of demands upon arrival further underscored a pre-conceived exploitative plan; his true intentions became apparent almost immediately upon her arrival
• he immediately subjected her to debt bondage by demanding repayment of “ticket money” ($1244.60), upon the complainant’s refusal to reside with him; the complainant, a foreigner, was made entirely dependent on the defendant for shelter and promised support, effectively isolating her and amplifying control
• the defendant's statements during the police interview, denying offering a job, claiming the complainant agreed to marriage for a visa, indicated a complete denial of responsibility
• the complainant also suffered serious mental and emotional trauma as a direct result of these incidents. As this was her first experience in Tonga, the events rendered her initial exposure to the country deeply distressing and traumatizing.
• she also feared for her life, after the defendant angrily confronted her about telling Jim that she did not want to stay with him
• for now, she had moved on with her life and did not want to talk about what happened to her. She was relieved about not having to return to give evidence.

The judge stated for his part, the defendant claimed that he wanted to marry her, so he paid for her airfare and put up accommodation for her at the Monfort School compound.

“Furthermore, Jim stated that the complainant’s airfare was an advance of the defendant’s pay from Monfort. He said the defendant told him that he found a girl from Fiji to marry and requested to have her stay on the school compound

“As against the guidelines in Mo’unga, none favour the defendant. He is not young and has previous convictions in Australia including two incidences of stalking/intimidating with intent to cause fear and physical harm in 2013, stated the judge.

“The Crown described the defendant’s conduct as deeply insidious, systematic and predatory in nature. I agree. In setting up his facebook page with a photo of a young male was intentional act to deceive the complainant that he was that young male, informing the complainant that there were two bedrooms where she would be accommodated when there was one bedroom, assuring the complainant that there were numerous jobs with Tanoa Hotel at $10 per hour, when he did not arrange that until she was in Tonga, telling Jim that he was going to marry the complainant to permit him to have her live with him on the school compound, when the complainant said nothing about an arrangement for marriage, in my view, support Crown’s expressed opinion of the defendant."

The defendant was then sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment, with the final six months suspended for 12 months, on conditions. 

He is now serving seven years in prison. In addition, he was given credit for any time spent in custody as he waited for sentencing.