- Flynote
-
- Case summary
-
VIDOT J
[I] The Accused stands charged with and pleaded to the following offences
Count I
Statement of offence
Uttering false document contrary to section 339 of the penal Code and punishable under section 337 of the Act.
Particulars of Offence
Count 2
Alex Dufresne of Roche Caiman, Mahe, on or around the month of April 2017, whislt
being employed as a VAT Refund Officer of the Seychelles Revenue Commission at the
Customs Passenger Terminal, Seychelles International Airport, Pointe Larue, Mahe,
knowingly and fraudulently uttered four false VAT REFID receipts bearing numbers
3787, 3786, 3736 and 3725, purported to be original receipts issued by the Seychelles
Revenue Commission.
Statement of Offence
Stealing by servant contrary to section 260 of the Penal Code read with section 266 and
punishable under section 266 thereof.
Particulars of Offence
Count 3
Alex Dufresne of Roche Caiman, Mahe, on or around the month of April 2017, whilst
being employed as a VAT Refund Officer of the Seychelles Revenue Commission at the
Customs Passenger Terminal, Seychelles International Airport, Pointe Larue, Mahe, stole
a total sum of SR56,315.20 purported to be VAT refunds to customers from Seychelles
Revenue Commission by producing forged VAT REFID receipts bearing numbers 3787,
3786, 3736 and 3725 to Nouvobanq counter at the customs Passenger Terminal,
Seychelles International Airport.
Statement of Offence
Obtaining money by false pretence contrary to and punishable under section 297 of the
Penal Code
Particulars of Offence
Alex Dufresne of Roche Caiman, Mahe, on or around the month of April 2017, whilst
being employed as a VAT Refund Officer of the Seychelles Revenue Commission at the Customs Passenger Terminal, Seychelles International Airport, Pointe Larue, Mahe, with
intent to defraud the Seychelles Revenue Commission, obtained a total sum of
SR56,315.20 from Nouvobanq counter at the Customs Passenger terminal, Seychelles
International Airport, by falsely pretending that the same amounts are VAT REFID
receipts bearing numbers 3787, 3786, 3736 and 3725 and that he would pay the amounts
directly to one Alexande Khabarov of Israel, Dimitri Abdushelishvili of Georgia, Aleksei
Kritsill of Russia and Victoria Haword of Britain respectively.
[2] After the facts were read out by the Prosecution and admitted by the Accused, the Court
accordingly convicted the Accused who is a first time offender. The Accused prayed to
Court for a probation (pre-sentence) report ("the Report"). The demand was acquiesced
to. A copy of the Report was made available to the Defence. Counsel for the Accused
then proceeded to make submission in mitigation on behalf of the Accused. The
submission was in part a repeat of the report. I shall when considering the appropriate
sentence to mete out, give due consideration to both the report and submissions in
mitigation.
[3] Mr. Camille, Counsel for the Accused pleaded for leniency and prayed that Court
imposes a non-custodial sentence on his client. He submitted that the Accused who is a
first time offender pleaded guilty, therefore savings the Court's precious time and
showing remorse. The Accused also apologises for the offence committed. Indeed, a
guilty plea should earn the Accused credit as far as sentence is concerned. Blackstone's
Criminal Practice (2012), paragraph E.12 p2148 provides that a guilty plea would in
effect earn an accused a reduction in sentence as it saves time of the court and reduces
considerable cost and in the case of an early plea, saves inconvenience of witnesses to
give evidence before court.
[4] The Accused is married and together with his wife have a 4 month old daughter..He has 2
other children from previous relationships. The Accused described his financial situation
as difficult as he is the sole breadwinner and that at the time of the incident he was living
under a lot of pressure and due to social problems, the living condition at home was tense. So, in order to keep up with his home financial circumstances he resorted to
committing the offences. He expresses regrets for his actions
[5] I appreciate that in meeting out sentence, Courts have to bear in mind that the classic
principle of sentencing is deterrence, prevention, rehabilitation, reformation and
retribution; see Lawrence v Republic r19901 SLR 47. I shall also take into consideration
the principle of proportionality of sentence.
[6] After, considering all mitigating factors, I sentenced the Accused as follows;
Count 1, the Accused is sentenced to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.
Count 2; the Accused is sentenced 2 years and 6 months imprisonment and to a fine of
SR36,OOO.OOand in default to a term of 4 months imprisonment.
Count 3; to a term of 1 year and 3 months imprisonment and to a fine of SR36,OOO.OOand
in default to a term of 4 months imprisonment.
[7] All terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently and shall for now be suspended for 2
years.
[8] In terms with section 151(I )(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, out the total sum of
SR72,OO.OO representing the fines under counts 2 and 3 above, the sum of SR56,315.00
shall be paid as compensation to the Seychelles Revenue Commission.
[9] The Accused shall pay a minimum sum of SR500.00 per month towards the fine for first
6 months until such time that this case shall be reviewed.
[10] If unsatisfied with this sentence, the Accused may appeal against the same within 30
working days from today.
Signed, dated and delivered at lie du Port on 10th October 2022