Judgment: 2014-12-10 · Court archive

Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against five-year sentence for €336,814 employer fraud

The court found no error in principle in the Circuit Court’s sentence for offences involving diverted rejected payments, false instruments and false accounting.

The Court of Appeal · 259/13

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Dadibaku Ngkupumu (Appellant)
What

The court found no error in principle in the Circuit Court’s sentence for offences involving diverted rejected payments, false instruments and false accounting.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Avery Dennison
  • Belgium
  • Luxembourg
  • Germany
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Ngkupumu joined Avery Dennison in July 2012. After moving to its payment and banking team that October, he dealt with rejected payments. The Court of Appeal said he used his personal authorisation to alter payment mandates and route rejected payments to illegitimate accounts in Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany. Unsuccessful attempts totalled more than €304,000.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed Dadibaku Ngkupumu’s appeal against a five-year prison sentence for offences that caused his former employer, Avery Dennison, a loss of €336,814.27.

The ex tempore judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Birmingham on 10 December 2014, concerned 17 counts on indictment. The Circuit Court imposed the sentences on 26 November 2013, ordering them to run concurrently and backdating them to a date in May 2013.

Ngkupumu joined Avery Dennison in July 2012. After moving to its payment and banking team that October, he dealt with rejected payments. The Court of Appeal said he used his personal authorisation to alter payment mandates and route rejected payments to illegitimate accounts in Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany. Unsuccessful attempts totalled more than €304,000.

A client’s report that an invoice had not been paid prompted an audit. Company records showed the client had been paid, and the audit uncovered the irregularities. The judgment said the payment system was designed to require two employees’ credentials, but Ngkupumu had access to details belonging to a former employee who had trained him.

In the Circuit Court, the sentencing judge treated the offences as being at the higher end of the scale. Aggravating factors included the substantial unrecovered loss, breach of trust, use of a colleague’s details, offending over time and overseas accounts that indicated planning. Mitigation included Ngkupumu’s cooperation in later interviews, an early guilty plea that avoided a complex trial and the absence of previous convictions.

The appeal court said it could not change the sentence merely because it might have imposed a different or more lenient one. It required an error in principle and a sentence representing a departure from the norm. Finding that the Circuit Court judge had considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors carefully, the Court of Appeal concluded that no error in principle had occurred and that the sentence was open to the judge. It therefore dismissed the appeal.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review