State v Arora (High Court of Fiji, Judge Temo, 17 February 2012)

Fiji

Fact Summary

From 6 January 2006 to 11 May 2007, Ms Monika Monita Arora cashed approximately 36 forged cheques from her employer, Vinod Patel Company, at ANZ Bank Centrepoint, and withdrew a total of FJD 472,466.47. There was strong circumstantial evidence that Ms Arora was involved in forging the cheques as well as falsifying the invoices and payment vouchers associated with the forged cheques. There was also strong circumstantial evidence that she hid this cash from the authorities.

The fraud was discovered by Mr Kumar Shankar, the Chief Financial Controller of the company on 12 May 2007 when noticing an irregularity when reading through the companys bank statements. After this discovery, Mr Shankar found further irregularities involving irregular cash withdrawals and irregular supporting invoices and payment vouchers.

Ms Arora was charged with money laundering in relation to cashing the cheques. She was also charged with corrupt practices after offering FJD 10,000 to an accountant working for Vinod Patel Company on 13 May 2007 in an attempt to induce him to drop his investigation of the suspicious cheques that she had cashed. Only FJD 41,272.38 was ever recovered by Vinod Patel Company.

Ms Arora was found not guilty by three assessors in the High Court of Fiji, but this finding was not accepted by Judge Temo who convicted her of the two offences. Ms Arora was then sentenced to 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years.

Commentary and Significant Features

Judge Temo upheld the opinion earlier expressed by Judge Madigan in State v Prasad (High Court of Fiji, Judge Madigan, 14 April 2011) that the appropriate tariff for the offence of money laundering in Fiji should be a sentence of between 8 and 12 years imprisonment, prior to the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors. Judge Temo noted that this was necessary to give effect to Parliaments intention to treat money laundering as a serious offence, and that a lighter tariff would be counter-productive to this intention.

The case of State v Arora is also noteworthy as an example of how, under s 237 of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009, Fijian judges are not bound by the opinions of the assessors (jurors). In this case, the three assessors unanimously found Ms Arora not guilty of the offences with which she was charged, but this was rejected by Judge Temo.

Sentence Date:

2012-02-17

Cross-Cutting Issues

Liability

... for

completed offence

... based on

criminal intention

... as involves

principal offender(s)

Procedural Information

Legal System:

Common Law

Latest Court Ruling:

Court of 1st Instance

Type of Proceeding:

Criminal

Proceeding #1:

• Stage:

  first trial

• Official Case Reference:

  State v Arora (High Court of Fiji, Judge Temo, 17 February 2012)

Court

Court Title

High Court of Fiji

Location

• City/Town:

  Suva

• Province:

  Central Division

Criminal

Description

At trial Ms Arora claimed that she gave the whole amount of the money alleged to have been laundered to Mr Kumar Shankar, the Chief Financial Controller of Vinod Patel Company and Mr Umakant Patel, the Managing Director of the company and her supervisor. This was denied by Mr Shankar.

Following a trial lasting nine days, on 12 December 2011 three assessors unanimously found Ms Arora not guilty of the two charges against her, money laundering and corrupt practices. This finding was, however, rejected by Judge Temo of the High Court of Fiji on 14 December 2011, who found Ms Arora guilty of the two charges. His Honour found the prosecution witnesses to be credible whereas Ms Arora was not a credible witness.

Sentence

In sentencing Ms Arora, Judge Temo noted that there were a number of mitigating factors in Ms Aroras favour. Firstly, this was her first criminal offence at the age of 33. Ms Arora was also married with a young daughter. She had repaid some of the money, and the case had been hanging over her head for approximately four and a half years. She had continued to study while awaiting the outcome of the case, and had been remanded in custody for approximately 65 days.

On the other hand, Judge Temo noted that the offending was a serious breach of trust between an employer and employee, which was to be regarded as an aggravating factor. Furthermore, Ms Arora had shown no remorse and never revealed to the court where she had hid the money or how she had used it. Judge Temo noted that she had every intention of profiting from [her] misdeed, perhaps when [she] get[s] out of prison.

Judge Temo started with a sentence of 8 years imprisonment for the offence of money laundering, then added 4 years for the aggravating factors. He then deducted 5 years for the mitigating factors, leaving a sentence of 7 years imprisonment. Ms Arora was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for the charge of corrupt practices, leaving a total sentence of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years.

Defendants / Respondents in the first instance

Defendant:

Monika Monita Arora

Gender:

Female

Age:

33

Ms Monika Monita Arora worked for the Vinod Patel Company (Centrepoint) from March 1999 to May 2007, initially as a cashier before becoming an accounts clerk and later the secretary to the Managing Director. She was 33 and married with a young daughter at the time of sentencing.

Charges / Claims / Decisions

Defendant:

Monika Monita Arora

Legislation / Statute / Code:

Proceeds of Crime Act 1997 s 69

Charge details:

Money laundering

Ms Arora was charged with money laundering contrary to s 69(3)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1997 for laundering FJD 472,466.47 defrauded from her employer.

Verdict:

Guilty

Legislation / Statute / Code:

Penal Code s 376

Charge details:

Corrupt practices

The charge of corrupt practices related to Ms Arora offering FJD 10,000 to an accountant working for Vinod Patel Company in an attempt to induce him to drop his investigation of the suspicious cheques that she had cashed.

Verdict:

Guilty

Term of Imprisonment:

7 years

Ms Arora was sentenced to7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years.

Required

a. Identify the parties involved, their rights, their responsibilities

b. Identify the significant ethical issues of the case.

c. Identify the relevant factual issues, conceptual issues, social constraints, and any additional information necessary for an accurate understanding of the case

d. Formulate possible courses of action and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of those actions

e. Indicate which course of action you would choose, and why, provide your own opinions. "Use your facts/sources to convince me of your ethical point of view".