Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

Police v Sitanisilao [2026] WSSC 1 (6 February 2026)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sitanisilao [2026] WSSC 1 (6 February 2026)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE

Informant

AND:

VISESIO ANTHONY PENI SITANISILAO

Defendant

Counsel: J Leung Wai for the Prosecution
S Ainuu for the Defendant

Hearing 22 September 2025
Submissions 12 December 2025
Decision 06 February 2026

RESERVED DECISION OF THE COURT

1. This matter involves a loan from the Samoa National Provident Fund (“the SNPF”) to Visesio Peni Sitanisilao (“Mr. Sitanisilao”) and his wife Ms. Rosie Solipo (“Ms. Solipo”), which was drawn down in early July 2022. The Police pursue two dishonesty charges against Mr. Sitanisilao, a 42-year-old male of Vaimoso and Moataa, in relation to two key documents of the loan.
   1. Charge 1:

That at Motootua on or about 1 June to 30 June 2022 Visesio wilfully made a false document namely, Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity, by signing the name of Mr. Vani Vai, with the intent of using it to obtain a pecuniary advantage or benefit, in breach of s.194(1) Crimes Act 2013.

2. Charge 2:

That at Matafele on the 17 February 2022, Visesio wilfully made a false document namely, Consent Letter, by signing the name of Mr. Vani Vai, knowing it to be false, with intent that it be used and acted upon as genuine, thereby committing the crime of forgery, in breach of s. 194(2) Crimes Act 2013.

2. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
3. The issues that arise for determination:
   • (a) Did Mr. Sitanisilao make two false documents, namely, a Consent letter and a Deed of Guarantee?
   • (b) If he made the false documents, did he intend to use them to obtain any property, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, knowing the documents were false and with the intention the Samoan National Provident Fund (“the SNPF”) used or acted upon by as genuine?
4. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution to prove the charges to the criminal standard or proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. The complainant is not the lender, SNPF, because Mr. Sitanisilao and Ms. Solipo did not default on their payments that would have triggered SNPF having recourse to its security, including the guarantee given by the complainant and three other guarantors. Rather, the complainant in this matter is one of the guarantors, Mr. Vani Vai (“Mr. Vai”), who says he never knew that he was a guarantor until 18 months after the loan was drawn down.

THE EVIDENCE

Prosecution

6. The Police rely on the evidence of three witnesses, (1) an SNPF Loans Officer, (2) the complainant, Mr. Vai, and (3) the Officer in Charge.

Antonia Leleisiuao

7. Ms. Leleisiuao works as the Assistant Manager in the Lending and Investment Department of SNPF, and her job is to review loan applications and oversee the operations of the department.
8. Ms Leleisiuao handled Mr. Sitanisilao and Ms. Solipo’s loan application, and she contacted Ms. Solipo via email from November 2021 over the identity of the guarantors and potential co-borrowers. Dealings between Ms Leleisiuao and Ms. Solipo included Ms Leleisiuao saying that she received an envelope from Ms. Solipo on 17 February 2022 which contained a consent letter, Mr. Vai’s pay slip and a copy of his bank statement.
9. Ms Leleisiuao assessed the loan application and then passed it to her senior, the Manager of Loans. The ultimate decision to grant the loan to the borrowers was made in accordance with the SNPF’s policy by the SNPF’s Chief Executive Officer.
10. Following approval of the loan, Ms Leleisiuao prepared the letter of offer to Mr. Sitanisilao and Ms. Solipo, dated 8 June 2022. This letter doubled as disclosure of the terms and conditions of the loan, and it included the names of the guarantors, which included among them the name Mr. Vai Sila, which is accepted to be a reference to Mr. Vai.
11. Mr. Sitanisilao and Ms. Solipo used their lawyer, Mr Mathew Lemisio, to carry out the legal work for them; it included Mr Lemisio witnessing three of the four guarantors signing the Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity, which is hand dated 17 June 2022 (“the Deed of Guarantee”). Mr Ainuu said Mr Lemisio did not witness Mr. Vai signing the Deed of Guarantee. Mr. Sitanisilao’s evidence is that Mr. Vai was overseas on 17 June 2022, and he signed his name following his return, as is discussed below at [30].
12. Ms Leleisiuao said SNPF’s Legal section took over the file when the loan process had reached the Memorandum of Mortgage and Deed of Guarantee stage. According to SNPF’s usual process Mr Lemisio would have returned the signed Memorandum of Mortgage and the Guarantee to SNPF’s legal section. The evidence is that SNPF had possession of the Deed of Guarantee after it had been signed by three of the guarantors before Mr Lemisio, but before Mr. Vai’s signature had been added.

Mr. Vai

13. Mr. Vai was employed as a Police Officer assigned to the Prime Minister of Samoa’s diplomatic protection squad. He acknowledged he had worked together with Mr. Sitanisilao for many years, and that they had worked together in the Police Tactical Operations Section.
14. Mr. Vai says Mr. Sitanisilao asked him to guarantee his loan with the SNPF. He says he asked Mr. Sitanisilao to go and get his pay slip to take to the SNPF to see if they would accept him as a guarantor. Mr Vai claims that following his giving of this advice that he heard nothing further from Mr Sitanisilao about the topic.
15. Between 5 and 28 June 2022, Mr. Vai accompanied the Prime Minister on her travels and attendances at international conferences, including a conference of CHOGM held in Rwanda. Whilst he was away, he was contacted by Mr. Sitanisilao who told him that his loan with the SNPF had been accepted and that Mr. Vai was needed to sign the guarantee. Mr. Vai says that following this advice he prepared an email, dated 20 June 2022, which he sent to SNPF. Mr. Vai produced the email, which is discussed below at [46] and [47].
16. In his evidence in chief, Mr. Vai said he wrote his 20 June 2022 email on the basis that when he returned to Samoa, he would be advised about the terms of the loan, the amount of the loan and what would happen if were to give a guarantee, and he needed to understand the details of the loan and whether he could service a default, these were matters he would be able to consider once he had returned to Samoa. The claims suggest that his agreement to give a guarantee was only an agreement in principle. The email does not record any such a reservation or condition precedent.
17. The two documents Mr. Vai denies signing are the Deed of Guarantee and the Consent letter to give a guarantee. He denies signing the consent letter, which Ms Leleisiuao says was in an envelope she received from Ms. Solipo on 17 February 2022. He claims that he only became aware he was a guarantor when he checked his SNPF statement of account through his SNPF portal, on 11 January 2024, and saw a reference to an unfamiliar Housing loan.
18. Mr. Vai’s claim that he did not sign the consent to guarantee letter is based on his assertion that nothing further happened following his initial consent to give a guarantee and direction to Mr Sitanisilao to get his pay slip and take it to SNPF to find out if he qualified as a guarantor. It is on the basis of the absence of activity, that he was aware of, that he says he not authorise the accessing of his personal information that were handed to SNPF – these documents are a consent letter bearing his signature, his personal bank statement printed on 23 February 2022, confirmation of his employment with the Ministry of Police and his payslip for February 2022. Mr Vai says he found these documents on SNPF’s files only after he had made his complaint to the Police.
19. Before leaving Mr Vai’s evidence, I should address the following matters.
    • (a) Mr. Vai claimed that Mr. Sitanisilao and Ms. Solipo came to see him to apologise for whatever wrong they had committed concerning their loan. Mr. Vai says he rejected their apology. That was the last time he met with Mr. Sitanisilao. The Court does not place a lot of weight on the claim of an apology as some admission of “guilt”.
    • (b) Somewhat curiously, Mr. Vai produced an exhibit showing what he says are his usual signatures, which he said demonstrates that his true signature is different to the signatures affixed to the letter of Consent to give a guarantee and the Deed of Guarantee. Prosecution did not call a handwriting expert and instead had Mr. Vai give evidence he created. The evidence is unreliable. Accordingly, I do not accept Mr. Vai’s claims that the exhibit of his signatures is a true representation of his usual signature. The Court is not a handwriting expert.
    • (c) Under cross examination, Mr. Vai agreed that it was normal for Police officers to support each other with loans. In an example involving him, he said that if he had wanted someone to give a guarantee to support his loan, he would ask for permission and for the documents needed to support the guarantee, such as pay slips. Mr. Vai benefited from the Police practice of supporting each other’s loans when Ms. Solipo provided a guarantee for his loan to the Samoa Commercial Bank, as referred to below at [22].
    • (d) Mr. Vai claims he first discovered Mr. Sitanisilao’s loan had been approved, on his SNPF portal on 11 January 2024. However, this assertion is inconsistent and contradicts Mr. Vai’s other evidence - that Mr. Sitanisilao had told him in June 2022, almost two years earlier that the loan had been approved. When Mr. Sitanisilao told Mr. Vai about the loan in June 2022, he asked Mr. Vai to advise the bank about the situation regarding the guarantee. Mr. Vai advised the bank of his intention to guarantee in his email of 20 June 2022. It is not possible to reconcile Mr. Vai’s evidence in this important regard.
    • (e) The lender has not called on the security purportedly given by Mr. Vai, and he accepts that he has not paid any money towards the repayment of Mr. Sitanisilao’s loan. Exh D3 is a discharge and release of Mr. Vai from Mr. Sitanisilao and Ms. Solipo’s loan. This discharge appears to have occurred on 22 March 2024.

Inspector Paul Taua’a

20. Officer Taua’a’s evidence concerned the steps he took in his investigation.

Defence

Mr. Visesio Anthony Sitanisilao Peni

21. He is 42 years old and worked for the Ministry of Police, mostly in the Tactical Operation Section for 17 years, between 2007 and 2024. He resigned from the Police to take up his current employment as a Security Safety Manager for the US Peace Corps.
22. Mr. Sitanisilao had known Mr. Vai since 2008. He considered him a friend and a brother. He claims Mr. Vai had a loan with the Samoa Commercial Bank, and Mr. Vai asked him for help to guarantee his loan of SAT20,000. Mr. Sitanisilao claims that his income alone was not sufficient to qualify as a guarantor, and Mr. Vai asked whether Ms. Solipo could act as a guarantor as she had the required level of income. Ms. Solipo agreed and she guaranteed Mr. Vai’s loan with the SCB.
23. Sometime later, Mr. Sitanisilao and his Ms. Solipo decided to develop land they owned at Afiamalu. The land secured a mortgage for a loan they took out to fund the purchase the land. Mr. Sitanisilao and Ms. Solipo had owned the land for some time and they wanted to take the next step of building on it their home. Mr. Sitanisilao says he spoke with Mr. Vai who although gave him his complete agreement to act as a guarantor, Mr. Vai had reservations about whether his income was enough for him to be a guarantor. Ms. Solipo then contacted Antonia (Ms Leleisiuao), by email, and she replied that Mr. Vai was not suitable because he had a mortgage. Mr. Sitanisilao claims he advised Mr. Vai that SNPF did not accept him as a guarantor because of his mortgage, and Mr. Sitanisilao said that matters were left on that footing.
24. He could not be sure of exactly when, but Mr. Sitanisilao says that later he met Mr. Vai at a Samoa Commercial Bank ATM machine located in Taufusi, Apia. Mr Sitanisilao claimed that Mr. Vai told him to check again with SNPF because Mr. Vai’s loan with SNPF had been repaid. Ms. Solipo checked again with SNPF, and this time Mr. Vai was approved as a potential guarantor (Exhibit D1 dated 30 November 2021). The evidence of a chance meeting, Mr Vai’s change of financial position and SNPF’s approval of Mr. Vai as a guarantor appears reliable.
25. Once the SNPF approved Mr. Vai as a guarantor, Mr. Sitanisilao claims Mr. Vai gave him the papers for the SNPF; the confirmation of employment, consent letter to give a guarantee, his payslip, and bank statement. Mr. Sitanisilao identified these documents as disclosed by the Prosecution in the trial documents. In relation to the Bank Statement, Mr. Sitanisilao says that he was given the statement by Mr. Vai, who Mr. Sitanisilao claims went himself to the Samoa Commercial Bank to get this statement.
26. The documents that Mr. Sitanisilao claimed were given to him by Mr. Vai, were then given to Ms. Solipo. Ms Leleisiuao gave evidence that the documents were inside an envelope that Ms. Solipo handed to her.
27. There is a dispute in the evidence as to how Mr. Sitanisilao obtained Mr. Vai’s personal documents. Mr. Sitanisilao claims that Mr. Vai gave them to him. However, Mr. Vai says he had merely given him his permission to get his pay slip to give to the SNPF. However, Mr. Sitanisilao claimed that Police internal procedures do not permit people to access others payslips from the Finance section, or confirmation of employment letters from Human Resources. Such a policy makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the Court did not have any evidence in the form of relevant parts of a Practice Manual or directly from the officers of the relevant sections. Prosecution did not seek to call any evidence in rebuttal on the point. The prosecution, with the burden of proof to show the unlawful access of Mr. Vai’s personal information, chose to have this important point proved on the uncorroborated assertions of the complainant.
28. Mr. Sitanisilao and Ms. Solipo’s application for the loan was submitted in February 2022 and approved four months later in June 2022. The SNPF gave Mr. Sitanisilao and Ms. Solipo a copy of the Deed of Guarantee to take to their lawyer for signing. Mr. Sitanisilao claims he was in the room when three of the guarantors signed, and he saw them sign. Mr. Sitanisilao says the Deed of Guarantee was then returned to SNPF, and the space next to Mr. Vai’s name remained blank, as well as the space next to the section for the signature of the Authorised Officer of the SNPF.
29. SNPF lawyer, Ms Ellenlina Moala (“Ms Moala”), who was not called to give evidence, told Mr. Sitanisilao that SNPF had received an email from Mr. Vai confirming his willingness to act as guarantor and that he would be returning to Samoa on 28 June 2022. Mr. Vai’s email dated 20 June 2022 was not sent to Mr. Sitanisilao or his Ms. Solipo, but to persons with the email addresses sine@SNPF.ws and ellenlina@SNPF.ws. Mr. Sitanisilao says that as Ms Moala noted in her email of 28 June 2002, they would wait for Mr. Vai’s return on the 28^th and that Mr. Vai could come in (to SNPF) to uplift the guarantee so he could sign it in front of Mathew (Lemisio) – Exh D6. There was no evidence about how Mr. Vai came to know of the email addresses of the persons that he sent his email.
30. Ms Moala further contacted Mr. Sitanisilao to advise that Mr. Vai had returned, and that he should pick up the document for Mr. Vai to sign. Mr. Sitanisilao claims he took the Deed of Guarantee with him when he went to see Mr. Vai, at the Office of the Protection of the Prime Minister squad next to the lift on the bottom floor of the Government Building. Mr. Sitanisilao says he explained to Mr. Vai that all that remained to get the loan was his signature as guarantor. Mr. Sitanisilao says Mr. Vai signed the Deed of Guarantee in front of him, and Mr. Sitanisilao returned the document to SNPF. The Government Building, which is where Mr. Vai worked from, and the SNPF building, is a short walking distance apart.
31. When the defence case was put to Mr. Vai, he did not reject Mr. Sitanisilao’s evidence in any incredulous or affronted way, but politely said he did not accept Mr. Sitanisilao’s version of events. Mr Leung Wai challenged Mr. Sitanisilao’s claim on the basis that even if Mr. Sitanisilao’s evidence was correct, it would show that Mr. Vai did not sign in front of a solicitor, as he was required, and that this impeached the integrity of the obligations contained in the Deed of Guarantee. Respectfully, this case is not about the enforceability of the Deed of Guarantee but whether the document had been signed by the person named, or forged by someone else.
32. Not long after Mr. Vai is alleged to have signed the Deed of Guarantee the loan facility was made available to Mr. Sitanisilao and Ms. Solipo, in the week commencing 4 July 2022. Work on their home could begin and loan was drawn down in stages, upon provision of receipts, to pay for the construction work as it progressed. The loan proceeds was paid to Mr. Sitanisilao and his Ms. Solipo’s Samoa Commercial Bank account and a copy of the account showing these deposits were produced to the Court as Exh D2.

Ms. Solipo Solipo

33. Ms. Solipo is married to Mr. Sitanisilao, a 35-year-old woman employed as a Principal Enforcement Officer in the Ministry of Revenue.
34. The evidence she gave was that she was the couple’s main link with SNPF. She said she gave the payslips, bank statement and consent letter to SNPF. Ms. Solipo also gave evidence concerning the circumstances of the signing of the Deed of Guarantee. She was present when 3 of the guarantors signed the document witnessed by Mr Lemisio. Further, that Mr. Vai was overseas at that time. They were advised by their lawyer to contact Mr. Vai to advise him that the loan had been approved, which Mr. Vai acknowledged Mr. Sitanisilao did. On 28 June 2022, the date Mr. Vai had advised them he would return, she contacted SNPF for an update – refer Exh D6.
35. This witness also gave evidence about the signing of the Deed of Guarantee. Ms. Solipo claims that when Mr. Vai returned to Samoa, Mr. Sitanisilao went to see him to have him sign the Deed of Guarantee, but she did not accompany him.

THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

36. What does the phrase a “false document” mean?
37. Section 193 of the Crimes Act 2013 provides the following definition of the term “false document” means a document:
    • (a) of which the whole or any material part purports to be
    • (b) made by any person who did not make it, or by a fictitious person; or
    • (c) of which the whole or any material part purports to be made by or on behalf of any person who did not authorise its making, or on behalf of a fictitious person; or
    • (d) of which the whole or any material part has been altered, whether by addition, insertion, deletion, obliteration, erasure, removal, or otherwise, and that purports to have been altered by or on behalf of a person who did not alter it or authorise its alteration, or by or on behalf of a fictitious person; or
    • (e) that is, in whole or in part, a reproduction of any other document, and that purports to have been made by or on behalf of a person who did not make it or authorise its making, or by or on behalf of a fictitious person; or
    • (f) that is made in the name of a person, either by that person or by that person’s authority, with the intention that it should pass as being made by some other person who did not make it, or by a fictitious person.
38. This Court has affirmed the position in Samoa, that a document will only be a forgery if it is not merely a false document, but one that is intended to be taken as genuine, one which tells a lie about itself.^[1] The lie must be one or more of the types of lies under s. 193 paragraphs (a) – (e).
39. In this case, the type of lie in issue is set out in paragraph (a) signature purporting to be made by a person, who did not make it.
40. Section 194 of the Crimes Act provides as follows:
    • 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.
    • A person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with the intent that it in any way be used or acted upon, whether in Samoa or another country, as genuine.
    • 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).
    • 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.
41. The prosecution’s case rests on the allegations that Mr. Sitanisilao forged Mr. Vai’s signature on the Consent letter to give a guarantee and the Deed of Guarantee. I must be sure:
    • (a) The signatures on these documents were not placed on them by Mr. Vai; and
    • (b) That the person who placed the signatures on the documents, the person who forged Mr. Vai’s signature, is Mr. Sitanisilao.

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE

42. I have had the benefit of seeing and hearing from both Mr. Vai and Mr. Sitanisilao, and two other key witnesses who were involved in the application process for the SNPF loan and the Deed of Guarantee.
43. Prosecution of the two charges rest on Mr. Vai’s assertion that he did not sign the Consent to guarantee. Mr. Vai says he did not provide the SNPF his payslip, covering late January 2022 to early February 2022; a copy of his SCB bank statement; nor proof of employment. He further claims that he did not sign the consent letter to give a guarantee nor did he sign the Deed of Guarantee.
44. The only evidence the Police relied on was the word of Mr. Vai. The Court, however, does not accept the Mr Vai’s uncorroborated evidence. Mr. Vai’s version of events around the provision of his personal information to SNPF is highly dubious. He claims he was completely unaware that his personal documents had been accessed, inferentially by Mr. Sitanisilao, and given to the SNPF. These documents were proof of employment, dated 17 February 2022, a payslip for the period of late January and early February 2022, and a personal bank statement of his transactions between 1 September 2021 and 23 February 2022 and appears to have been printed on 23 February 2022.
45. To have carried out a breach of Mr Vai’s privacy would have meant Mr. Sitanisilao needed to have involved two Police agencies and a respected Commercial Bank to release Mr Vai’s personal information to someone other than Mr. Vai. However, Prosecution did not call witnesses from the two Police sections – Finance and Human Resources, as well as a representative of the Samoa Commercial Bank. The Court is entitled to draw the inference that these witnesses were not called because they could not corroborate Mr Vai’s assertions.

Mr. Vai’s email dated 20 June 2022

46. Mr. Vai sent an email to SNPF on 20 June 2022. At the time Mr. Vai was on overseas duties accompanying the Prime Minister. The email shows Mr. Vai was familiar with the loan and his role as a guarantor. He wrote saying:
    • (a) That he was overseas for work purposes as would have been disclosed to SNPF by the applicants for the loan;
    • (b) He wanted to advise that he knew and understood the position that he would be one of the guarantors, and that he gave his complete support to guarantee the loan to Mr. Sitanisilao Peni and Ms. Solipo.
    • (c) The hope was to return to Samoa with the Honourable Prime Minister on 28 June 2022 and he would go to SNPF to sign as a guarantor for the applicants.
47. The terms of this letter demonstrate that not only did Mr. Vai know about the loan, but that he intended to be one of the guarantors of the loan. However, at trial, Mr. Vai attempted to suggest that he had not finally committed to giving a guarantee, but that he wanted to see what the terms of the loan were and his liability if the borrowers defaulted. There is no mention of those “conditions” in the email.
48. The defence evidence given by Mr. Sitanisilao is that he received advice from SNPF that Mr. Vai had returned and to uplift the Deed of Guarantee from SNPF and to take it to Mr. Vai to sign as guarantor. The advice is consistent with the terms of an email from SNPF to Ms Solipo. Mr. Sitanisilao gave evidence as to where and how the signing took place, and these circumstances were put to Mr. Vai who said he did not agree with the claims. The Deed of Guarantee must have been returned to SNPF shortly thereafter because the loan was drawn down in stages with the first draw down the following week.

DECISION

49. I am satisfied the Prosecution has failed to prove its case. There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial that Mr. Sitanisilao forged Mr. Vai’s signature on either the Consent to guarantee letter or the Deed of Guarantee.
50. In the end, Mr Vai’s claims are mere and unsupported assertions. His denials in his evidence in chief were inconsistent with and contradicted by his email dated 29 June 2022. As to giving a guarantee, Mr. Vai knew about his role as a guarantor – he says so in his email to SNPF - “...o loo ou iloa ma malamalama ile tulaga ile avea lea o au ma se tasi o guarantor...”. Further, he knew that as a guarantor he was required to sign a Deed of guarantee, which in his email to SNPF he said “...e toe taliu atu....ile aso 28 o Iuni 2022 ma ou agai atu ai e saini as a guarantor...”
51. A person’s signature evidences their intention to be bound. I find that at all material times, Mr. Vai intended to give a guarantee to support Mr. Sitanisilao and Ms. Solipo to get a loan, as they had done for him in the past. His signing of the consent letter to be a guarantor and the signing of the Deed of Guarantee are wholly consistent with such intent, and I am left in no doubt that he signed the documents.
52. Mr Sitanisilao was not required to give evidence as he has the constitutional protection of being innocent until proved guilty. Yet he took the witness box and exposed himself to cross-examination. Mr Sitanisilao gave a good account of himself in his evidence about the circumstances around the signing of the Deed of Guarantee, particularly when answering questions from the Court. I am satisfied that Mr. Vai signed the Deed of Guarantee in the way Mr Sitanisilao explained.
53. The two charges against the defendant are dismissed.
    

CHIEF JUSTICE PERESE

^[1] Police v Tevaga [2016] WSSC 192 at para 67, per Tuatagaloa J.