‘Swindlers must be deterred’

Press, 6 February 1982, Page 5

‘Swindlers must be deterred’

International swindlers had to be deterred from coming to New Zealand to "try their luck." Mr Justice Roper has said in the High Court. His Honour made the comment when dismissing an appeal by Vitoon Panprasertson. aged 25. a merchant of Thailand. who appealed against a sentence of eight months imprisonment imposed in the District Court at Christchurch by Judge Frampton on charges of obtaining $2400 by false pretences and conspiring to defraud. Mr N. J. Dunlop' appeared for Vitoon and Mr D. J. L. Saunders for the Crown. Vitoon and two women companions obtained money by selling fake diamonds after handing over some real diamonds for appraisal. The two women, Somnuk Homhual Somnuk. aged 34. and Buntha Soombathorm. aged 42, were also sentenced to eight months imprisonment on the same two charges as Vitoon and an additional one of obtaining $15,000 by false pretences. They lodged appeals against sentence but the appeals were withdrawn when they were called in court.

His Honour said that Vitoon was a Thai national who came to New Zealand on October 12. 1981. on a visitor's permit in the company of two women. Buntha and Somnuk. The next day Vitoon and the women obtained $2400 by falsely representing that five stones were genuine diamonds. In fact they were synthetic and worth about

$lO each. Their victims had declined to buy all of the 45 stones which they were offered for $lO,OOO.

The trio attempted to sell the same "diamonds” on October 17. They tried to sell 45 stones to another person at an unknown price. It appeared that they had had one or two genuine diamonds

which were presented for testing and valuation. On that occasion the prospective buyer, being aware of the earlier fraud of the same nature, informed the police and the three were apprehended, his Honour said.

The earlier fraud had occurred in July. 1981, and involved Buntha and Somnuk only. They had made an earlier trip to New Zealand and had obtained $15,000 for 19 worthless stones. On all three occasions the same explanation for selling the “diamonds” was offered — that they were Vietnamese refugees who needed the money to travel to the United States. All three were sentenced to eight months imprisonment on each charge, all terms to be concurrent. Buntha and Somnuk also appealed against their sentences but those appeals were abandoned.

The grounds of Vitoons appeal were that he should have been sentenced to a lesser term because.he had been involved in only two of the three frauds and was not involved in the most serious one where $15,000 was obtained and that his personal circumstances and that of the offences in which he was involved made a sentence of eight months imprisonment manifestly excessive. The personal circumstances relied on were that Vitoon had no known previous convictions; had dependents in Thailand who would be left in financial difficulties because of his absence; that he was isolated from friends and farriily and would find the sentence of imprisonment particularly arduous because of his lack of English; because he had pleaded guilty and at the time of sentencing had been in custody for about a month.

“In my opinion." said his Honour, “those factors have little weight in the circumstances of the case. What I

see as important is this: It is obvious that Vitoon and the two women came to New Zealand for only one purpose — to commit crimes of dishonesty from which they hoped to obtain a substantial sum of money. “I therefore regard deterrence as the prime concern of the Court. Any show of leniency could only have one effect — to encourage others to come to New Zealand to try their luck." said his Honour.

As for the apparent disparity in the sentences imposed on Vitoon and his co-of-fenders. he was of the firm opinion that the sentences imposed on Buntha and Somnuk were inadequate, having regard to the fact that encouraged by their first success in which they obtained $15,000. they made a further trip to New Zealand. "If their appeals against sentence had proceeded, counsel may have been hard pressed to convince me that the sentences should not be increased.

“I do not regard the sentence imposed on Vitoon as either inappropriate or manifestly excessive. If anything. I think that it errs on the side of leniency. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” his Honour said.