An Auckland couple who accidentally received $158,000 in an account transfer error in what they labelled a “blessing from God” told police they thought the unexpected windfall was winnings from online gambling.
But a judge said the explanation “lacks plausibility”, particularly given they transferred most of the money out of their account within days, using it to repay bills, send money back to family in Samoa and purchase a new vehicle.
Senia Filipo, 39, and her husband, Alexander Saumani Afaese Filipo, 37, can finally be named after the pair lost suppression today and were sentenced to six months’ community detention.
Senia, the mother of five young children, had earlier pleaded guilty to theft, while her husband, a warehouse worker, pleaded guilty to receiving $64,000 of the victim’s money.
The case related to an ill-fated money transfer mix-up by Mt Roskill pensioner Andrew Che Sit Bong in January 2024.
The retired electrical engineer tried to move his life savings from Barclays Bank in the UK to his Auckland Westpac account.
However, the money was lost after he missed a single digit when entering the recipient account details.
The 78-year-old told the Herald he was using an old computer with a “sticky keyboard” and one of the account numbers failed to register.
The number sequence he entered was for a valid account, but not his. The money was accidentally sent to Senia’s Westpac account.
Today, the Auckland District Court heard the couple were surprised when the money landed in their possession.
They later told police they believed the huge deposit was winnings from an online casino game Alexander had been playing.
“He told her he might have got lucky,” Judge Simon Lance told the court.
However, they admitted failing to make any further investigations as to the source of the funds before withdrawing the money to pay for food and bills, settling a car loan, sending $20,000 back to Samoa and purchasing a new Hilux van.
The court also heard Senia’s bank statement recorded the source of the money as Barclays Bank, rather than an online gambling site.
“The explanation that this could have been some sort of windfall from online gambling lacks plausibility,” Judge Lance said, as he declined the couple’s applications for a discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression.
While “ignorance and lack of experience” with banking practices partially explained the couple’s actions, “this was an extreme level”, the judge said.
The speed with which they dealt with the surprise loot also weighed on the judge’s mind. The couple - who were supported in court by an interpreter - had moved some of the money the same day it arrived.
“It makes it hard for me to believe that the couple thought that the money was honestly theirs. There must have been either wilful blindness or recklessness involved.
“They didn’t make inquiries. They didn’t say, ‘This can’t be right’.”
Defence lawyers argued the couple were remorseful for their actions and accepted they should have carried out further investigations.
Senia “sincerely regrets that she spent the money and understands the consequences”, lawyer Zaina Nisha said.
However, Nisha argued that the couple weren’t entirely to blame, as the money only landed in their account due to Che’s transfer error.
She argued the couple’s identities should remain secret to protect Alexander’s employment, given he was the sole breadwinner for his wife and children.
Publication would also bring great shame on the family and risk them being ostracised by their Samoan community and church, it was claimed.
However, the judge ruled the offending was moderate to serious, and that the consequences of a conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the crimes.
He said the case was highly unusual and it had been difficult to find comparable cases when considering an appropriate sentence.
Judge Lance referred to the infamous “runaway millionaires”, Rotorua couple Leo Gao and Kara Hurring, who fled the country after Westpac mistakenly deposited $10 million into their account in 2009.
He recalled defending the co-offender in that case, but said their circumstances were quite distinct from the present scenario, as was the quantum involved.
Earlier in the hearing, the couple entered the dock clutching a newborn baby and accompanied by a toddler.
Judge Lance asked whether any family members could look after the youngsters, saying, “I don’t want to have a child in the dock”.
They had no support, however, so court staff were called to look after the older child.
Later Judge Lance paused the sentencing when the baby became unsettled.
“I have sympathy for you having young children,” he told the couple, “but it’s hard for me to concentrate when a child is making noise”.
Staff then took the baby outside the courtroom and the sentencing resumed.
Judge Lance said he was not prepared to grant permanent name suppression. The consequences the couple would face from publication were those ordinarily stemming from their offending.
“I don’t think the test of extreme hardship has been met. In my view, clearly the principles of open justice prevail in this case.”
He set a starting point of at least two years in prison but granted discounts for the couple’s guilty pleas, their previous clean criminal record and the fact the offending was “opportunistic” and not premeditated.
He had “no hesitation” in allowing both defendants to serve their community detention sentences in the same house, given they were husband and wife and caring for five young children.
Given Barclays Bank had agreed to refund Che, the victim was not out of pocket and the judge declined to make any reparation order.
“That’s a matter between the banks and the defendants.”
It’s understood Barclays has launched civil proceedings to recoup the money and that Interpol is now involved.
Che met the couple last month for a restorative justice conference. He said he did not accept their explanation and felt they should repay the money they had spent.
He earlier told the Herald he wanted the pair to face justice and believed they should both be publicly named.
He said Senia knew the money wasn’t hers when it was deposited into her account, but spent his life savings “like nobody’s business”.
The theft had a pronounced effect on his life. He suffered depression, sleepless nights, and was unable to pay for his son’s wedding.
He was frustrated they had tried to avoid responsibility and he wanted the court to hold the pair accountable and send a message to anyone else who accidentally received another person’s funds.
“You have actually committed a crime. You took money that doesn’t belong to you.
“Sentencing is good so long as the sentence fits the crime.”
Lane Nichols is Auckland desk editor for the New Zealand Herald with more than 20 years’ experience in the industry.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.