Inferior Number Sentencing - larceny.
Before : |
T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher and Pitman |
The Attorney General
-v-
Alexandra Gil dos Santos Canivari Mendes Gouveia
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:
1 count of: |
Larceny as a servant (Count 1). |
Age: 41.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Background
The defendant was employed by New Stage Building Construction Limited ("New Stage"), a family business, as the company book-keeper, in or around April 2015. The defendant helped the owners of the company set the business up, and had full access to their business bank account. The defendant organised and paid all the wages for the staff members and organised all of the accounts.
During the first few months of trading, all payments were made by cheque, including weekly expenses and staff wages.
The defendant then assisted in organising an arrangement to set up online banking with Natwest Bank. She had access to the online business account, which was protected by a password.
The defendant and her employer would usually sit together in the company office and generate all of the employees' weekly payslips, and would then effect the respective payments. These would include the defendant's wages.
Towards the end of March 2016 the defendant took a week's holiday to Portugal. During the week prior to her departure, the defendant taught her employers' daughter (who was also employed within the company as the assistant manager) how to effect all the payments using online access to the business account.
During the first days of April 2016, whilst reviewing the business account, the employers' daughter noticed a transfer in the sum of approximately £1000 to the defendant's personal bank account. As this was a large and unusual transfer, a review of the accounts was conducted, at which time numerous suspicious transactions were discovered to have been made into the defendant's account, which went far beyond what the defendant had been charging for her book-keeping services, as recorded on her payslips.
It was identified that funds in the region of £38,000 had been transferred to the defendant. The theft of the funds was reported to Police and the defendant was arrested on suspicion of fraud.
In interview the defendant immediately admitted having taken the funds from the New Stage business account, and produced a printed A4 sheet of paper detailing 38 transactions totalling £30,761.51. She explained that she had transferred all of these funds without permission. She claimed that the list was comprehensive and that she had not taken any other money save the wages and reimbursements to which she was entitled as part of her employment.
The defendant told the interviewing officers that since September 2015 she had needed to raise funds in the sum of £50,000 by the end of March 2016. However, she declined to disclose what the funds were for or where they would be spent. She claimed that she had been unsuccessful in raising the said funds, and for that reason had decided in December 2015 to transfer money from New Stage to her own account.
The defendant claimed that she had considered asking New Stage for a loan, but because she was aware that another employee had been denied a similar request, she decided to take the money without asking. The defendant claimed that she continued making transfers up until the date when she went on holiday to Portugal at the end of March 2016. She said that she intended to repay the money which she had stolen once she had successfully obtained a loan in Portugal. She stated that she had applied for a loan of £50,000 during her holiday, but alleged that this was with a "loan shark" rather than a registered financial institution.
The defendant told Police that she had spent the money, but refused to provide any details about why she needed it.
The defendant confirmed that she had been providing book-keeping services to around 10 local companies and individuals, and that she also offered translation services. She also said that she represented Portuguese people in the local Employment Tribunal. She said that she ran several separate companies to facilitate the provision of these services. Prior to coming to Jersey she operated a consultancy business in London working with Portuguese speaking businesses.
Analysis of the business accounts of New Stage and the personal accounts provided by the defendant verified the contents of the printed list supplied to the Police by the defendant. A total of £29,750.30 was found to have been paid into an account in the name of the defendant and her ex-partner. The remaining sum (in the region of £1000.00) was paid into a different bank account in the name of the defendant.
Of the £29,750.30 received into the defendant's HSBC bank account, as at the date of sentencing none of the monies remained in this account. The monies had been spent/utilised locally by the defendant, much on everyday expenses.
The offending took place over a period of around 4 months, from the beginning of December 2015 to the end of March 2016. The amount of money stolen was over £7500 per month on average.
The defendant had made no effort to repay the any of the money, despite having been on bail since her arrest and in employment.
Offending was a deliberate and calculated betrayal of the trust invested in the defendant by her employer.
Details of Mitigation:
The Crown:
Early guilty plea, fully co-operative with police.
The Defence
Offence took place over a short time period, not sophisticated offending, no attempt to cover tracks, assessed at very low risk of re-offending, degree of hardship that has been suffered by daughter, defendant highly regarded for her work in community, remorse, good references.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
Count 1: |
2 years' imprisonment. |
Order sought for the disqualification of the defendant under Article 78(1) of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 for a period of 5 years with the following conditions:-
That it is expedient in the public interest that a person should not without leave of the court -
(a) Be a director of or in any way whether directly of indirectly be concerned or take part in the management of a company;
(b) Be a member of the council of a foundation incorporated under the Foundations (Jersey) Law 2009 or in any other way directly or indirectly be concerned or take part in the management of such a foundation; or
(c) In Jersey in any way whether directly or indirectly be concerned or take part in the management of a body incorporated outside Jersey.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Count 1: |
18 months' imprisonment. |
The Court took into account the defendant's good character, remorse, early guilty plea, co-operation with police, good references and service to the community; as well as the effect her offending had had on her daughter. There was however no mitigation available as to the reason for the defendant's offending as she had not disclosed her motivation.
Order made for the disqualification of the defendant under Article 78(1) of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 for a period of 5 years with the following conditions:-
That it is expedient in the public interest that a person should not without leave of the court -
(a) Be a director of or in any way whether directly of indirectly be concerned or take part in the management of a company;
(b) Be a member of the council of a foundation incorporated under the Foundations (Jersey) Law 2009 or in any other way directly or indirectly be concerned or take part in the management of such a foundation; or
(c) In Jersey in any way whether directly or indirectly be concerned or take part in the management of a body incorporated outside Jersey.
C. M. M. Yates, Esq,, Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. We sentence you today for one count of larceny as a servant. That count reflects that over a 3 month period you diverted some £30,761.51 from your employer to yourself. You did so in total disregard of the complete trust that your employer had in you, with your unfettered access to your employer's online banking account.
2. You needed money and whilst you considered asking for a loan it is clear that you believed that your employer would not agree to a loan, so you took the money anyway. You have declined to say why you needed the money, but it appears from an analysis done on your bank account that it was used to meet daily living expenses and towards your other businesses. This failure to offer us an explanation we view with concern and what it means is that we cannot assume that there is any mitigation available to you in this respect.
3. We note the effect of this offending on your former employer, which was a small family business. We take into account the worry and the fear that this has caused to them; and the fear for the future and the financial consequences that your crime has visited upon them.
4. You are of good character and we note and accept the genuineness of your remorse. You have pleaded guilty at an early stage and you were, in effect, completely cooperative with the authorities. We have read the references that have been provided on your behalf. They speak not only of your good character, but of your significant service to the community and we certainly take that into account. We note not only the effect that this offending has inevitably had on you but on members of your family including, of course, on your daughter. It is a pity that you did not think of these effects when you embarked upon this course of offending. We have of course had regard to her circumstances but as the Crown observes there is often very strong mitigation in cases such as this and offenders are often of good character and often there are consequences that flow not only to them but to members of their family. The clear policy of the courts is that, save in the most exceptional circumstances, a custodial sentence for an offence of this nature, involving as it does an egregious breach of trust, is almost inevitable.
5. Accordingly, we do not feel able to depart from that sentencing policy, but in the light of the strong mitigation that is available to you we are prepared to reduce somewhat the conclusions moved for by the Crown and you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
6. In terms of the payment of compensation, in the light of the sentence that we have just imposed, and in the light of your means as communicated through the schedule provided by your Counsel, we do not make any order for compensation. To the extent that compensation becomes a question in the future that may be a matter to be dealt with through the civil courts in due course but not by us.
7. We now reconstitute ourselves as a Court of civil jurisdiction and we order your disqualification pursuant to Article 78(1)(a) to (c) in the terms moved for by the Crown, and that under the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 for a period of 5 years.
Authorities
Companies (Jersey) Law 1991.
R v Barrick [1985] 7 Cr App R (S) 142.
Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.
Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders)(Jersey) Law 1994.