N11719

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR (FC) 37 & 39 OF 2025

STATE

V

HENRY KOKNAT

GOROKA: WAWUN-KUVI J
15-16, 19 MAY 2025; 23 FEBRUARY 2026
CRIMINAL LAW-SENTENCE-GUILTY PLEA-CYBERCRIME CODE ACT-Electronic Fraud, s 12(1)(a) and Unlawful Advertising, s 31-University of Goroka Student-Forging Police Clearance certificates and advertised his illegal service online-concurrent sentence of 5 years, fined K1000 and banned from using mobile device and ICT for 7 years.
Cases cited
Gima v Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2003) SC730
Koribiseni v State [2022] SC2296
Saperus Yalikabut v The State [2006] SC890
Mase v The State [1991] PNGLR 88
Public Prosecutor v Kerua [1985] PNGLR 85
Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412
, State v Winston [2003] PNGLR 5
Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] SC564
Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
The State v Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320

Counsel
S Joseph, for the State
V Move, for the accused

SENTENCE

1.	WAWUN-KUVI J:   With the advent of technology, many, like Henry Koknut, the offender, have applied their skills to criminal activities instead of good. The offender is a student at the University of Goroka. He used his mobile phone and laptop to forge police clearance certificates and advertised his illicit business on the social media application WhatsApp.

2.	The facts to which the offender pleaded guilty were that between 1 March 2024 and 31 November 2024, he created police clearance certificates and advertised this illegal service online. Once he received requests, he would then provide his personal account to receive payments between K50 and K150.

3.	Yeith Ponia, a vigilant police officer, having discovered the activities of the offender, commenced an investigation. He posed as a customer. The offender created his forged police clearance. Following this, the matter was escalated, and further investigations revealed that the offender was a student at UOG. Police then went to the university; however, the accused had fled, leaving behind his black backpack containing his laptop and forged documents. He was later apprehended at his wife’s residence. He was arrested and charged.

4.	The offender has pleaded guilty to these facts, and I must now decide the appropriate penalty.
Penalty
5.	The offender pleaded guilty to charges of Electronic Fraud under s 12(1)(a) and Unlawful Advertising under s 31 of the Cybercrime Code Act respectively. 

6.	The penalty under s 12 (1)(a) is:

“(a) In the case of a natural person, a fine not exceeding K100,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 25 years, or both;”

7.	And under s 31(a):

“Penalty:
(a) In the case of a natural person —
(i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years; or
(ii) a fine not exceeding K20,000.00; or
(iii) prohibition from accessing and using 1CTs or electronic system or devices for the term of imprisonment imposed plus an additional two years; or
(iv) all or any of Subparagraphs (i), (ii) or (iii);”
8.	 I remind myself that the maximum is reserved for the most serious case.
Comparable cases and guidelines
9.	Although the Cybercrime Code Act has been in existence since 2016, it appears that there have been very few investigations and prosecutions. Consequently, there are no published decisions on the charges of electronic fraud and unlawful advertising.

10.	Counsel for the State submits for a sentence of 10 years imprisonment for the conviction of electronic fraud and 7 years for unlawful advertisement. She further submits that the offender be banned from the use of ICTs or electronic systems or devices for the term of imprisonment imposed, plus an additional two years for the offence of unlawful advertising.
Counsel for the offender does not propose any sentencing range but invites the Court to apply its discretion under s 19 and sentence the offender according to his peculiar circumstances.
Antecedents
11.	The offender is 25 years old and hails from Membok Village, Middle Fly, Western Province. His father is a retired teacher who now works with a faith-based NGO at Kiunga, Western Province. His mother is a housewife. He has six siblings. He is the fifth, and his youngest sister attends Divine Word University. His parents support him financially with school fees, necessities and accommodation.

12.	He has withdrawn from his studies because of the court case.

13.	He is married and has an 18-month-old daughter. His wife is from Lufa, Eastern Highlands Province.
Allocutus
14.	I do not accept that the offender is genuinely remorseful. As with his pre-sentence report he appears to care more about himself then the impact of his offending.  
Culpability
15.	The offender committed the offences over a period of eight months. He was only stopped when police arrested him. The fraud was planned, sophisticated and brazen. Using his computer he forged and advertised police clearance certificates. His motive was for financial gain. This indicates a higher level of culpability. 
Harm
16.	The Assistant Commissioner for Police (Crimes) Hodges Ette stated that through investigations police uncovered that the offender was also forging and advertising the sale of Drivers Licences, Port Moresby General Hospital CEO letterhead, University of Technology Certificates, University of Goroka Identification Cards, University of Papua New Guinea Degrees and National Identification Certificates.

17.	He states:

“The intentional and sustained targeting of these numerous entities demonstrates a high level of premeditation and organisation, posing a significant threat to the integrity of state and institutional documents across the country. We submit that the court must consider the vast number of organisations and documents defrauded as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
............
The Police recommend that the Court impose a custodial sentence on Mr Koknat.
We respectful submit that a non-custodial sentence, such as a suspended sentence or a community service order, would undermine the severity of the offence and fail to send an adequate message to the public. Given the alarming increase in cyber-related fraud, the sentence must serve as a strong deterrent and establish a clear judicial precedent that such widespread, organised electronic fraud will result in severe punishment. A custodial sentence is necessary to justly punish Mr Koknat for the extent and impact of his criminal activity on multiple victims and institutions.”

18.	In noting the Assistant Commissioners statements, I am reminded that the offender pleaded guilty to only electronic fraud and advertising of police clearance certificates. Consequently, the offender can only be sentenced to facts in which he has pleaded guilty to: Saperus Yalikabut v The State [2006] SC890 and Koribiseni v State [2022] SC2296.
Mitigation
19.	 In mitigation, is the offender’s guilty plea and that his is a first-time offender.
Aggravation
20.	In aggravation is that he was intentionally forging police clearance certificates and advertised them online. The police clearance certificates are intended to ensure that employers and other institutions do not employ people who have criminal convictions and that they do not employ persons who could pose a threat to their businesses and institutions. While there is no case law specifically on electronic fraud, at its essence it is the offence of forgery. Forgery is prevalent. The offender’s motive was for financial gain and that it occurred over a period. He has not expressed genuine remorse for his actions. 
Consideration
21.	   Considering how long the offender conducted his illegal business, one can only imagine how many people used his services and benefited from them. One would think that, considering the police had his bank account and computer, they should trace the individuals who paid for this illegal service and have them arrested, as well as remove the fabricated documents.

22.	It is alarming that the offender says that he saw other UOG students doing the same online service, and so he just followed them to make an income. It is unbelievable that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong, given that he is a university student.

23.	While there are no sentencing guidelines or comparable cases, the offences are serious but cannot be said to be the worst case. I am mindful that the offender pleaded guilty and is a first-time offender, matters which mitigate his sentence.

24.	Given the foregoing matters, the offender’s antecedents, his level of culpability, the victim's view, and the mitigating and aggravating factors, I find that a sentence of 5 years imprisonment is appropriate for conviction of electronic fraud under s 12(1) and 3 years imprisonment for the offence of unlawful advertising under s 31.

25.	The next question is whether the sentence should be made cumulative or concurrent. In Koribiseni v State [2022] SC2296, the Court referred to Public Prosecutor v Kerua [1985] PNGLR 85 and Mase v The State [1991] PNGLR 88 which state that:

1.	where two or more offences are committed in the course of a single transaction the sentences should be concurrent;
2.	where the offences are different in character, or in relation to different victims, the sentences should normally be cumulative;
3.	after deciding whether sentences should be concurrent or cumulative, the court must consider whether the total sentence is just and appropriate, and if it is not, the court must vary one or more sentences to get a just total (the totality principle).

26.	In Koribiseni v State [2022] (supra) the Supreme Court considered that since all the offences were committed within a relatively short period, one after the other, and during a single transaction or purpose, namely sexual abuse of pupils, the appellant sentences should have been made concurrent.

27.	Here, the circumstances of the offence indicate that it was a single transaction, that is, he forged the documents and then advertised them. Consequently, the sentences are made concurrent, and the offender shall serve 5 years imprisonment.

28.	The accused was in custody from 2 November 2024 to 9 May 2025. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice Sentences Act, the period of 6 months and 1 week is deducted and the offender shall serve, 4 years, 5 months and 3 weeks. 

29.	The next question is whether any part of the sentence should be suspended. I have considered the principle regarding suspension in the cases of Gima v Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2003) SC730, State v Winston [2003] PNGLR 5, Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] SC 564, Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91and The State v Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320, I am also reminded that the same factors that reduced a sentence cannot be the same factors to consider in suspension because it amounts to a double discount: see Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412. 

30.	 The Probation Officer spoke to Thomas Koknat, the offender’s father, Masina Dei, the offender’s wife, Nathan Dei, the offender’s father-in-law and Manuel Kuria, the offenders tutor.

31.	The Police through ACP Hoges seek a custodial sentence stating that a punitive sentence must be imposed to serve as both a personal deterrent to the offender and a general deterrent to other likeminded offenders. 

32.	The offender’s father, wife and father-in-law and tutor speak of the offender’s prior good conduct. The authorities on suspension are however clear that if a noncustodial sentence is to be considered the Court must have the views of the community. While the probation officer has listed the father-in-law as a community leader, his views are biased considering that the offender is his son in law. The Court must have independent views from people in his community to make an informed decision. His tutor speaks of his academic marks, that he has potential to contribute to something meaningful and that he is willing to assist him. However, as noted the offender withdrew from studies because of this offence.

33.	The offender is otherwise healthy, and imprisonment would not cause him excessive hardship. 

34.	I am not satisfied that a suspended sentence is appropriate given the lack of community views and the seriousness of the offending. No part of the sentence shall be suspended.

35.	I next consider whether a fine should be imposed. Since the offence was financially motivated, I consider a fine appropriate.

36.	Pursuant to s 12(1) (a) of the Cybercrime Code Act and s 3(1) of the Cybercrime Code Act in conjunction with s 19(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, in addition to the sentence of imprisonment the offender is fined K1000.00 for the offence of Electronic Fraud.

37.	Pursuant to s31(a)(ii)(iv) Cybercrime Code Act and s 3(1) of the Cybercrime Code Act in conjunction with s 19(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, in addition to the sentence of imprisonment the offender is fined K1000.00 for the offence of Unlawful Advertising. 

38.	Similarly, since the offences occurred as part of one transaction, the offender shall pay a concurrent fine of K1000 to the State. His bail of K1000 is converted to payment of the fine.

39.	Finally given the nature of the offending and the documents that were forged and the period it was committed, pursuant to s 31(a) (iii) of the Cybercrime Code Act the offender is prohibited from accessing and using 1CTs or electronic system or devices for 7 years. To give effect to this Order, the Office of The Public Prosecutor with the Police are to ensure that the Offender details together with this Order are served on all service providers as well as the National ICT Authority NICTA being the regulatory body.

40.	Other then the offender’s identification card, keys and bank card which shall be returned to him, all electronic devices which include the laptop, sim card, mobile phone and memory card shall be destroyed by the arresting officer in the presence of the Assistant Registrar National Court.
41.	It is recommended that police investigate and have prosecute all individuals who have obtained the illegal service of the accused.
Orders
42.	The Orders of the Court are as follows:
1.	For count 1, the offence of Electronic Fraud under s 12 (1)(a) of the Cybercrime Code Act, the offender is sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
2.	For count 2, the offence of Unlawful Advertising under s 31(a) of the Cybercrime Code Act, the offender is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
3.	The sentence under count 2 is made concurrent to count 1 and the offender shall serve a sentence of 5 years imprisonment.
4.	 Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, the pre-sentence custody period of 6 months and 1 week is deducted, and the offender shall serve 4 years, 5 months and 3 weeks,
5.	Pursuant to s to s 12(1) (a) of the Cybercrime Code Act and s 3(1) of the Cybercrime Code Act in conjunction with s 19(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, in addition to the sentence of imprisonment the offender is fined K1000.00 for the offence of Electronic Fraud.
6.	Pursuant to s31(a)(ii)(iv) Cybercrime Code Act and s 3(1) of the Cybercrime Code Act in conjunction with s 19(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, in addition to the sentence of imprisonment the offender is fined K1000.00 for the offence of Unlawful Advertising. 
7.	The sentences of fines are made concurrent, and the offender shall pay a fine of K1000.
8.	Cash Bail of K1000 is converted to the payment of fine.
9.	Pursuant to s 31(a) (iii) of the Cybercrime Code Act the offender is prohibited from accessing and using 1CTs or electronic system or devices for 7 years.
10.	 The Office of The Public Prosecutor with the Police are to ensure that the Offender’s details together with this Order are served on all service providers as well as NICTA as the regulatory body.
11.	The offender’s identification cards, keys and bank card shall be returned to him.
12.	All electronic devices which include the laptop, sim card, mobile phone and memory card unless required for police investigation shall be destroyed by the arresting officer in the presence of the Assistant Registrar National Court.
13.	The CR(FC) and bail files are closed.
________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public prosecutor
Lawyer for the prisoner: Public Solicitor