IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Telea [2025] WSSC 43 (6 June 2025)

Case name: 	Police v Telea	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 43	
		
Decision date: 	6 June 2025	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v HELANI TELEA, female of Faleasi’u (Accused)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Tuatagaloa	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The accused is convicted and sentenced to 3 years and 1 month imprisonment less any time in custody	
		
Representation: 	S Natia for Prosecution
A Matalasi for the Accused	
		
Catchwords: 	Theft as a servant – stole a substantial amount of money – first offender – no retribution.	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, ss 161 & 165(e).	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

HELANI TELEA, female of Faleasi’u.

Accused

Counsel:	S Natia for Prosecution
A Matalasi for the Accused   

Sentence:	6 June 2025

sentencing of Tuatagaloa J
1. 	The accused appears for sentence on one count of theft as a servant while working for 	Frankie Company Limited.  The penalty for such offending is maximum 10 years’ 	imprisonment. 
2. 	According to the summary of facts, the accused stole the total amount of $56,129.46.  The accused was employed as Head Cashier at the victim company supermarket at Utualii. As Head Cashier she was responsible for accounting daily proceeds generated by the supermarket including revenue from the MoneyGram operations and their banking. 	On 23 April 2024 a ‘spot audit’ was carried out of the Utualii branch and the company auditors discovered that the following were unaccounted for despite the supermarket being in operation for those two days:
•	$25,749.80 was unaccounted for in the 22nd April sales; and
•	$30,379.66 was unaccounted for in the 23rd April sales.
3. 	The accused was present at the conclusion of the audit and was said to have admitted to both company auditors that she had misappropriated the entirety of the missing funds for personal use. However, the accused tells a different story in the pre-sentence report (PSR) saying that she used the money from Money Gram to make up for the shortfalls in the supermarket sales. The accused maintains that she never used the money or any portion of it for personal use. The accused further claims that the only reason she said what she said to police was because she was confused and under duress.
Aggravating factors
4. 	Inherent in the offending of theft as a servant is the breach of trust in the relationship of employer – employee. An employee is employed by an employer to a specific position with specific responsibilities. The employee is entrusted by the employer to carry out her functions and responsibilities diligently and with honesty. 
5. 	Pre-meditation is usually, if not always, involved in the commission of this offending. In 	present circumstances planning was evident as the accused sought to evade detection. She manipulated lodgments and shifted funds between various points of sale including MoneyGram and store cash registers to conceal the discrepancies.
6. 	The impact of the accused offending on the company is very serious given the amount stolen resulting in the company spending time and resources in reviewing and replacing its systems. 
7. 	The total amount stolen of $56,129.46 is a substantial amount.  The fact that none was recovered or substantial amount is paid back are also taken as aggravating factors.
Mitigating factors
8. 	The accused is a first offender, early guilty plea and attempt to apologize are taken as mitigating factors. The court also accepts that the accused is remorseful of her behavior 	as she has told counsel that she will accept any penalty to be imposed by the court.
Discussion
9. 	The offending of theft as a servant is prevalent in our society.  The Court’s attitude has always been a custodial sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances that would warrant a non-custodial sentence. There are no exceptional circumstances in the present offending.
10. 	Both the prosecution and counsel for the accused recommends a custodial sentence with a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment. I agree.
11. 	I deduct 10 months for the accused prior good character and further 10 months for attempt to apologize and remorse. This leaves 50 months to which I give a 25% discount 	amounting to 13 months for early guilty. The end sentence is 37 months’ or 3 years and 1 month.
Sentence imposed
12. 	The accused is convicted and sentenced to 3 years and 1 month imprisonment less any time in custody.
JUSTICE TUATAGALOA