A woman who stole almost $44,000 from her former employer will keep her name secret. Photo / 123RF
A woman who stole almost $44,000 from her former employer will keep her name secret. Photo / 123RF
A white-collar worker who faced 56 charges after stealing almost $44,000 from her employer has had her name permanently suppressed and been given community work for the crime.
The sentence came despite the judge adopting a start point of two and a half years imprisonment, and admitting that a community-basedsentence as an endpoint would be “insufficient”.
Today in the Wellington District Court, Judge Stephen Harrop said the case posed a dilemma as the woman’s new employer, who had offered to repay the money in full to the victim, would only keep her employed if her name was suppressed and if she did not come to work wearing an ankle bracelet.
The woman, in her 50s, was working at a Wellington family business managing accounts when she stole close to $44,000 through 56 transactions over 17 months.
Some transactions were only days apart and most were sums of between $300 and $900.
She pleaded guilty to 56 charges of dishonestly accessing a computer. Each of the charges carried a maximum seven-year imprisonment sentence.
“Not only had the company lost $44,000, it had also cost a lot of wages, time, and accountancy fees to investigate the fraud. It had been hard for them to come to terms with what you did,” Judge Harrop said at the sentencing.
The woman was sentenced in Wellington District Court.
Her lawyer Val Nisbet said the offending didn’t stem from a desire for a life of luxury, but an attempt to make ends meet.
“She felt she was in an invidious financial position, not being able to assist her daughter and live a normal life,” he said. He referred to the pre-sentence report, which found the woman was remorseful.
Judge Harrop took a two-and-a-half-year sentencing start point, which he then reduced by 55 per cent.
The woman received a 25 per cent discount for her guilty pleas, 15 per cent for previous good character, 10 per cent for the payment of reparations, and 5 per cent for remorse.
That left an end sentence of 13 and a half months in prison. When a final sentence lands under two years, a judge must consider the possibility of home detention.
The woman had earlier repaid almost $7000 of the stolen funds, but her new employer, the name of which is suppressed, had offered to repay the remaining sum in full which they would then take from the woman’s wages.
But the new employer, concerned for its own reputation, indicated they were only willing to pay the sum and keep the woman employed if she did not wear an ankle bracelet in the workplace, and did not have her name published.
During an adjournment, prosecutor Lydia McIvor made contact with the victims who had earlier strongly opposed name suppression, worried the woman would offend again.
Asked for their view, the victim ultimately indicated they would rather be repaid than see the defendant denied suppression.
While the Crown remained neutral on suppression, NZME opposed it.
“Whatever I can do to assist the victim being repaid must be a focus,” Judge Harrop said.
The victim may want to see a harsh punishment, but that could be at the expense of them being paid, he said.
Judge Harrop ruled out a sentence of home detention or community detention. Both required the wearing of an ankle bracelet, meaning her employer would sack her.
He reached a sentence of 350 hours of community work, an order that the money be repaid within 14 days, and 12 months of supervision.
“Although I said earlier that community detention combined with community work would be an insufficient response, having regard to the reality of this dilemma, I’m satisfied the sentence to be imposed here is a substantial sentence of community work.
“It’s an unusual sentencing. It’s not as if [the defendant] is holding a gun to my head, but that’s the reality.”
Judge Harrop said his decision to grant name suppression was based on the strict suppression criteria, which means a defendant must prove they will face extreme hardship if they were identified. While the victim’s view was not directly a factor, it was “indirectly”.
“Losing your job would be extreme hardship to you in all the circumstances. It would cause serious harm to the victim, they would miss out on a reparation order.”
He also said the defendant’s mental ill-health contributed to his decision.
Ethan Griffiths covers crime and justice stories nationwide for Open Justice. He joined NZME in 2020, previously working as a regional reporter in Whanganui and South Taranaki.
