IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Patiole [2025] WSSC 66 (6 June 2025)

Case name: 	Police v Patiole	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 66	
		
Decision date: 	6 June 2025	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v FINAUVALE SYONARA PATIOLE, female of Fagamalo & Saleaula (Accused)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	3rd, 4th & 5th February 2025
Submissions: 2nd May 2025	
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Leiataualesa Daryl Clarke	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	For the reasons set out, the charges of theft as a servant being charges 1 and 2 and the charge 6 of forgery in the amended charging document dated 13th January 2025 have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The remainder of the charges have not been so proven and are accordingly dismissed.	
		
Representation: 	L. Matauaina for Prosecution
A. Su’a for the Accused	
		
Catchwords: 	Theft as a servant – forgery – bank worker.	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, ss. 2; 159; 161(1)(a); 165; 165(e); 165(f); 194.	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

FINAUVALE SYONARA PATIOLE, female of Fagamalo & Saleaula.

Accused

Counsel:	L. Matauaina for Prosecution
A.	Su’a for the Accused

Hearing:	3rd, 4th and 5th February 2025
Closing 
Submissions:	2nd May 2025
Decision:	6th June 2025

JUDGMENT OF CLARKE J
The Charges:
1. 	The accused faces five charges of theft as a servant (TAS) and one charge of forgery. 
The Law:
2. 	The charges of theft as a servant are brought pursuant to section 161(1)(a) and 165(f) of the Crimes Act 2013. Sections 161(1)(a) and 165(f) relevantly provide:
	“161. Theft or stealing – (1) Theft or stealing is the act of:
	(a) dishonestly taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property; or
	…
	(2) An intent to deprive any owner permanently of property includes an intent to deal with property in such a manner that:
	(a) the property cannot be returned to any owner in the same condition; or
	(b) any owner is likely to be permanently deprived of the property or of any interest in the property (3) For tangible property, theft is committed by a taking when the offender moves the property or causes it to be moved.”
3. 	‘Dishonestly’ is defined in section 159 of the Crimes Act 2013 as:
	“dishonestly”, in relation to an act or omission, means done or omitted without a belief that there was express or implied consent to, or authority for, the act or omission from a person entitled to give the consent or authority”
4. 	Section 165(e) states:
	“165. Punishment of theft – A person who is convicted of theft is liable as follows:
	…
	(e) if the property stolen is property stolen by a clerk or servant which is owned by his or her employer or is in the possession of his or her employer, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years;”
5. 	Section 2 of the Crimes Act 2013 defines ‘property’ to mean “real and personal property, and any estate or interest in any real and personal property, money, electricity and any debt, and anything in action, and any other right or interest.”
6. 	The ingredients of the offence of theft as a servant which the prosecution must therefore prove beyond reasonable doubt are:
(i) 	the accused was an employee of the owner of the property or the property was in the possession of her employer;
(ii) 	the accused dishonestly took the property; and
(iii) 	the accused did so with the intention to deprive the owner permanently of that property.
7. 	[7]	The accused is also charged with forgery contrary to section 194 of the Crimes Act 2013. Section 194 provides:
	“194. Forgery – (1) A person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who makes a false document with the intention of using it to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration. 
	…
	(3) Forgery is complete as soon as the document is made with the intent described in subsection (1) or with the knowledge and intent described in subsection (2). (4) Forgery is complete even though the false document may be incomplete, or may not purport to be such a document as would be binding or sufficient in law, if it is so made and is such as to indicate that it was intended to be acted upon as genuine.”
8. 	The ingredients the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt are:
(i) 	the accused made a false document;
(ii) 	the accused knew the document was false; and
(iii) 	the accused intended to use the document to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration.
Background:
9. 	The accused was employed at the Samoa Commercial Bank (SCB), Fagamalo Savaii as the branch supervisor. The SCB branch Fagamalo is a small branch with only one other employee, Sisipeni Tuilapea who was a teller. Prosecution called 14 witnesses. The accused also elected to give evidence.
The Charges:
10. 	In terms of the theft as a servant charges, the accused accepts that she was an employee of the SCB. The concession is appropriately made as I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that at all material times up to the 2nd February 2023 when the accused received monies subject to the charges, the accused was an employee of the SCB. The first element of the theft as a servant charges are not in dispute.
Charges 1 and 6: Vaiuli Falo TAS - $7,500.00 and Forgery Withdrawal Slip Vaiuli Falo
11. 	The accused is charged as a former employee of the SCB that on the 2nd February 2023, she dishonestly took $7,500.00 the property of Vaiuli Falo. The prosecution evidence is that on Thursday 2nd February 2023, the accused had gone to see Vaiuli at her home with a withdrawal slip. She asked Vaiuli if she could sign for the deposit slip for $5,000.00, which Vaiuli refused. The accused later that day then completed the withdrawal slip withdrawing $7,500.00 from the Vaiuli’s account (exhibit P13). The accused then went to Sisipeni, gave her the withdrawal slip and withdrew $7,500.00. Sispeni explained that she stamped exhibit P13 with the SCB stamp and signed it. Sispeni said # 2048 is the transaction number and the customer signature belongs to Vaiuli.
12. 	I am satisfied that prosecution has established the second element of this charge beyond reasonable doubt, namely, the accused dishonestly took $7,500.00 the property of Vaiuli Falo in the possession of the SCB. The accused had gone on 2nd February and asked Vaiuli to sign a deposit slip for her for $5,000.00. Vaiuli refused. She later went to Sisipeni and presented Sisipeni with a withdrawal slip for $7,500.00 from Vaiuli’s account which Vaiuli confirms she never signed. When confronted by Vaiuli on the phone on the Saturday 4th February 2023, the accused apologized to her. In Vaiuli’s evidence which I accept, Vaiuli stated:
	Pros:	O le a la le lua tala s fai i le aso lea?
	Wit:	Na sau Sisipeni ma talanoa faimai o la’u tusi tupe na tala e Finauvale. Na ou vili ia Finauvale i le aso lava lea ae tali mai Finauvale ma faatoese mai ia a’u e uiga i le mea ua ia faia i la’u tusi tupe ma aioi mai ia te a’u e faitalia ia ma totogi mai i le Aso Gafua.
	Pros:	Ia?
	Wit:	Na uma le Aso Gafua e leai se mea fesootaiga e leai se tupe ae pei o le Aso Lua na toe vili atu ai le tamaitai o Sisipeni o la ua uma ona alu atu Finauvale deposit le $2,000 i totonu o la’u account. Ou toe vili ia Finauvale oute manao i se $5,000 ona e $5,000 le tupe la oute fia manao ai ae tali mai Finauvale se’i alu e su’e e toe momoli atu i le isi aso. Ma oo i le Aso Lulu toe oo atu Finauvale ia te a’u i le falemai toe avatu le isi $2,000. Na gata mai i le $2,000 le tupe na oo atu ia te a’u gata mai loa iina na o le $4,000 le mea na totogi. Ae o le isi tupe ua fiu e toe vili Finauvale ua le tali le telefoni.
	HH:	E fia lea na avatu ia oe i le falemai?	
	Wit:	E $2,000 na oo atu.”
13. 	In cross-examination, Vaiuli went on to say:
	“DC:	E mafai ona ou tuu atu ia oe o le taimi na e vilivili ai ia Finauvale na fai atu ai Finauvale ia oe o lena e malamalama Sisipeni i le mea na tupu i lau account. E iai se taimi na talanoa atu ai faapena Finauvale ia oe?
	Wit:	E leai.
	DC:	Ae o le a le tala a Finauvale na fai atu ia oe?
	Wit:	Na ou vili atu a Finauvale poo le a lau mea lea ua fai i la’u tusi tupe ae sa faatoese mai a ma faamalie mai a’u i le taimi lena faimai – aua o lae faasaga mai i uta le fale na iai ae na ou musu oute alu ina ua faimai e aua oute oo atu i o te’i ua oso le ma’i a lona tinā. Na ou nofo a lea ii ma faatali atu ae faimai faitalia ia ma totogi mai i le Aso Gafua la’u tupe.”
14. 	In the accused account, she denies seeing Vaiuli on the morning of the 2nd February asking for $5,000.00 nor that she completed the withdrawal slip and withdrew the $7,500.00. In the accused version, Sisipeni spoke with her on the 4th February asking for her help as the cash was short on the 2nd February so she used money from Vaiuli and Faamalo Paoa’s account to repay the short. In her version, it was agreed that Sisipeni would give the accused money to repay Vaiuli. The accused says that Sisipeni gave her $2,000.00 which she then passed on to Vaiuli. 
15. 	I find the accused evidence completely contrived and unbelievable. The accused had ceased working on the 2nd February due to money missing from SCB accounts. If the accused’s version is correct, it will have been clear to her that the person responsible for the theft and her release from the SCB was Sisipeni. It is entirely implausible in those circumstances that she would help Sisipeni. The accused accepts she paid to $2,000.00 to Vailua to reimburse part of the missing money. She did not pay that money on behalf of Sisipeni but in her hopeless attempt to have her theft of Vailua’s money resolved. I accept Sisipeni and Vailua’s evidence.
16. 	I also accept that the third element of the charge of TAS has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When the accused stole the $7,500.00, she intended to permanently deprive Vailua of that money. That is supported by her continued denial of taking the money, which she persists with in court. The only reason she repaid $2,000.00 was her attempt to try and salvage her situation when her theft came to light.
17. 	Charge # 1 of theft as a servant is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
18. 	I am also satisfied that the charge of forgery of the withdrawal slip exhibit P13 has also been established beyond a reasonable doubt. First, I am satisfied that the accused made the false document, exhibit P13. She needed money and asked Vaiuli for money. She presented Vaiuli with a withdrawal slip to sign for $5,000.00. Vaiuli refused but later, the accused presented a withdrawal slip (exhibit P13) for $7,500.00 from Vaiuli account. I infer from these facts and am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made that false document, namely, the withdrawal slip signed by the accused purporting to be the signature of Vaiuli Falo.
19. 	I am also satisfied that the accused knew it was false as she knew Vaiuli Falo refused to sign and so did not sign the withdrawal slip. The second element is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
20. 	The accused intended to and did use the document to obtain a pecuniary advantage, namely $7,500.00. The third element is also established beyond a reasonable doubt. Charge # 6 of forgery is also proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
 Charge 2: Faamalo Paoa - $2,900.00 
21. 	The accused is charged as a former employee of the SCB that on the 2nd February 2023, she dishonestly took $2,900.00, the property of Faamalo Paoa. The alleged theft of $2,900.00 came to light when Faamalo’s daughter Faaolataga Palepa Leota had gone to the bank in early February 2023 to withdraw money. At the bank, she was informed that there were insufficient funds:
	“…Na ou fesili loa lea pe aisea ona o lea ma te o atu ma le tusi o lea e iai i totonu le paleni ae faimai le tala a le teine faigaluega ia a’u sa tala i tua le tinoitupe e aunoa ma le avatua i totonu e matou o le tusi tupe…”

22. 	I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused took $2,900.00 from Faamalo’s account and she did so dishonestly, satisfying the second element of the charge. First, Faamalo did not withdraw the money. This is supported by the evidence that his bank book did not record any withdrawals entered on the 2nd February 2023. Second, Faamalo’s daughter Faaolataga confirmed that the customer’s signature appearing on the SCB Withdrawal slip to withdraw the $2,900.00 (exhibit P12) is not her father’s signature. Third and important is Sispeni’s evidence that on the 2nd February 2024, the accused went to her with a withdrawal slip (exhibit P12) for Faamalo’s account and cashed $2,900.00, which the accused took. The initial to the right of the “SCB” on exhibit P12 is that of the accused. 
23. 	I found the accused denials that she took the money again contrived and not credible. While she accepted that the initial to the withdrawal slip appears to be hers, she disputes Sisipeni’s evidence. However, Faaolataga’s evidence was also that when she found out about the missing money, she communicated with the accused. The accused explained to her that the money had been mistakenly withdrawn from her father’s account. There is a Sataua man’s account that is the same from which the money should have been withdrawn but that it was instead withdrawn mistakenly from her father’s account. This was a lie told by the accused in a clumsy effort to explain the missing money.
24. 	I am also satisfied that the accused intended to permanently deprive Faamalo of the $2,900.00. She lied when confronted by Faaolataga. She continues to deny the theft and has not repaid the $2,900.00.
25. 	This charge is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
Charge 3: TAS Mikaele Afitu - $2,700.00  
26. 	The accused, is charged as a former employee of the SCB that on the 19th January 2023, she dishonestly took $2,700.00, the property of Mikaele Afitu. Having heard the evidence, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused took this money. The prosecution evidence to support this charge was incomplete, inconsistent and unsure. 
27. 	While I accept that on or about 20th February 2023, Mikaele and his daughter Claudine went to the SCB at Fagamalo to open an account and gave to the accused $3,000.00, I cannot be certain that this money was taken by the accused. First, prosecution did not call any witness from the bank to confirm that no bank account has been opened in Mikaele Afitu’s name nor that there is no money in his name at the SCB. The prosecution case on money not having been banked rests substantially on the assertion by Mikaele and his daughter Claudine that there was no money in his account. I found this evidence somewhat unreliable.
28. 	In her evidence, Claudine said that when they left the bank on the 20th February: “Na ma o ese mai a lae taatia lava le tupe i luga o le counter ma le faila lea na faatumu e Finauvale.” Sisipeni did not see the accused take the money. In her evidence, Finauvale explained that:
	“O le process masani lava, ina ua uma ona faatumu le form, tuu mai le tupe tuu i totonu o le cash bag faamau faatasi ma le form lea sa saini ai Mikaele Afitu ona ou sau lea ma a’u i tua i le mea lea oute nofo ai, malaga atu loa Mikaele ma lona afafine fai loa le process masani a le bank e tuu atu i le teller mo le tuuina i totonu o le vault.”
29. 	While it was not put to Sisipeni that she had been given the money to place in the vault, the evidence of banking processes at the SCB Fagamalo was deficient, disjointed and unclear. There was no clear oral or documentary evidence of SCB policies and procedures applying to SCB Fagamalo concerning the opening of accounts; creating new account numbers; or that of counting and recording deposits before placement in the bank vault. There was also no evidence for example of any form of record keeping that recorded money placed into the vault for safekeeping, as one would expect.  In the absence of such clear evidence showing that the money wasn’t placed into the vault, I cannot discount the possibility the money was placed in the vault as the accused states. I am left in reasonable doubt.
30. 	This charge has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Charge 4: TAS Aumaga Katoliko - $2,008.40.
31. 	The accused is charged as a former employee of the SCB that between 28th December 2022 and 3rd February 2023, the accused dishonestly took $2,008.40, the property of the Aumaga Katoliko Safotu.
32. 	The prosecution evidence is that the Aumaga Katoliko Safotu opened an account with the SCB at Fagamalo by depositing $150.00. To open the account, a form was completed (exhibit P2). The evidence as to the date when it was opened however varied. In her evidence, Lusila Ponifasio said it was sometime in November 2022, but then also November to early December. In her evidence, Regina Saifoloi and Anamaria Smith said it was opened in December 2022. 
33. 	The three authorized signatories to the Aumaga Katoliko Safotu account were Lusila, Regina and Anamaria. On 29th December 2022, Lusila says that a further $3,008.40 was deposited to the account, however, a bank book was not issued. On about 26th January 2023, Lusila was informed that the bank book was ready for collection. As Lusila was at a meeting in Apia, Lusila says they went to the SCB Fagamalo on the 31st January to collect the bank book. The accused wasn’t there but they withdrew $1,000.00 that day leaving $2,008.40 in their account, but then also agreeing that $2,158.40 remained. On 1st February, they then collected the bank book from the accused.
34. 	On the 26th February 2023, Lusila and the others went to withdraw $500.00 but were then told that there was only $150.00 in the account. When Lusila telephoned the accused that day, she said it wasn’t her fault but that of the bank.
35. 	The evidence as to when the account was opened, money deposited and the $1,000.00 withdrawn was disjointed and changing. Although the account opening form is date stamped 25 January 2023, I am satisfied that the account was opened sometime between late November and early December 2022 with the payment of $150.00. On the 29th December 2022, $3,008.40 was then deposited at the SCB Fagamalo after the Aumaga’s tausala on the 28th December, increasing the account balance to $3,158.40. Between the 31st January and 1st February 2023, the Aumaga then withdrew $1,000.00 leaving $2,158.00. The “Aumaga Katoliko” were then informed on the 26th February 2023 that they only had $150.00 left in their account,  had withdrawn $2,008.40.
36. 	While I am satisfied that the Aumaga Katoliko deposited funds with the SCB paid to the accused, I am not satisfied the accused took the money alleged. While an account was purportedly opened (account # 100021-067 – exhibit P2) and a bank book issued, the bank book was not produced. Further, although exhibit D1 was tendered through the accused, no other bank statement was tendered or evidence given by a witness from the bank explaining whether or not the deposits paid by the Aumaga Katoliko had been entered into the SCB’s computer system. While I certainly consider it possible that the accused took the money alleged, the paucity of evidence from the SCB however leaves me in reasonable doubt such that I cannot be sure that the accused took the money alleged. As such, the second element of this charge has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Charge 5: TAS Reverend Umaga Siaki - $6,980.40.
37. 	The accused is charged as a former employee of the SCB that between the 9th January and 3rd February 2023, she dishonestly took $6,980.00, the property of Reverend Umaga Siaki.
38. 	I am somewhat at a loss with this charge as there was no evidence that the accused dishonestly took this money. The prosecution evidence was that on the 10th January 2023, Reverend Siaki together with his wife went to the SCB Fagamalo to open a new account. Reverend Siaki was served by the accused. Reverend Siaki opened the account signing a form completed by the accused. After the form was completed, he was informed by the accused that the form would be sent to the head office and it would take two weeks before he could get a bank book. He then left $7,000.00 with his wife who deposited the $7,000.00 with the accused. 
39. 	Although the accused gave no receipt for the deposit, when Reverend Siaki later went to the bank approximately two weeks later, he was given a bankbook that showed $6,980.00 in his account. This was confirmed by his wife Faasalusalu Siaki who stated:
“Wit:	Ia o lea oute manatua o le Aso 2 Fepuari na ma o atu ai o ia na tuu maia le ma tusi tupe i totonu o le bank ma le tala o lea ua iai le ma tupe i totonu o le tusi tupe. Ma o loa laia ua leai se isi tala e toe faia ona o lea ua iai le tupe i totonu o le tusi tupe.”
40. 	In prosecution’s own written submissions, confusingly, it appears that there is no dispute that this money was not stolen. Prosecution submits that:
	“Finauvale dealt dishonestly with Mr Umaga’s property. Prosecution refers to the time frame that Umaga left the money with Finauvale on the 10th January; and the date which the money was deposited in the bank account, which is 1 February 2023 referred to as P8.” (emphasis added)
41. 	Delay in processing the funds through the SCB system does not constitute theft. Although some evidence was given by Fonoifili that the $6,980.00 entered in and credited to Reverend Siaki’s account with the SCB was reversed (exhibit P3), this line of questioning was not pursued. As Fonofili stated, “oute le o mautinoa foi poo le a se mea sa sese ai le transaction lea, lea na mafua ai ona toe reverse lea e iai le 157.” Reverend Siaki and his wife Faasalusalu also did not give any evidence that there had been a reversal of the $6,980.00 from the Reverend Siaki’s account account. Indeed, the copy of Reverend Siaki’s bank book (exhibit P8) shows no reversals of any deposits into Reverend Siaki’s account.
42. 	The second element of the charge that the accused dishonestly took $6,980.00 is far from established beyond a reasonable doubt.
 Result:
43. 	For the reasons set out, the charges of theft as a servant being charges 1 and 2 and the charge 6 of forgery in the amended charging document dated 13th January 2025 have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
44. 	The remainder of the charges have not been so proven and are accordingly dismissed.
45. 	It is now a matter for setting a sentencing date.
JUSTICE CLARKE