IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE
CRI-2023-009-003974
[2025] NZHC 1052
THE KING
v
NEHA SHARMA
Hearing:
5 May 2025
Appearances:
K South and J G Nelson for Crown J R Rapley KC for Defendant
Sentencing notes:
5 May 2025
SENTENCING NOTES OF EATON J
R v SHARMA [2025] NZHC 1052 [5 May 2025]
Introduction
[1] Mrs Neha Sharma, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to representative charges of obtaining by deception,1 money laundering,2 and forgery.3 Your guilty pleas were entered promptly following a sentence indication I gave on 11 March 2025.
[2] The sentence indication notes will be attached to, and form part of, these remarks.4 I will not repeat all of what I then said. Rather, I will summarise the matters I think are essential to the sentence I will impose, and I will discuss the further material that has been filed on your behalf since the sentence indication.
Background facts
[3] I will only briefly summarise the facts of your offending. They are fully set out in the prosecution summary of facts. You provided forged references to Oranga Tamariki (OT) in order to secure employment. Your application for employment was successful and you commenced work at OT on 4 February 2021. You resigned on 3 November 2022, when the bubble burst in relation to your deceitful conduct within your employment. Just days later you used a forged reference to secure employment at Waka Kotahi.
[4] While working in a senior position at OT you failed to declare a conflict of interest. Five months into that employment you arranged for your husband’s company, Divine Connection, to be set up within the OT systems as a contractor approved to undertake maintenance work on OT’s properties. You had a duty to advise OT of the conflict of interest. You did not do so. Indeed, you went so far as to deceive your employer, including by pretending you were not married to your husband when the two of you were working together at a work site.
[5] During the course of your employment, 203 jobs were assigned to Divine Connection. Over 15 months, you authorised 326 invoices that were submitted
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 240(1)(a) and(2)(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 243(2); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3 Section 257(1)(b) and/or (c); maximum penalty: ten years’ imprisonment.
by that company for payment and OT made 103 payments on those invoices totalling
$2,144,615.56. Of this, $688,339.08 was paid to third parties for expenses for work completed for OT. On occasions, the invoice prices were inflated.
[6] When concerns were raised by OT, you resigned. The registered office and director of Divine Connection were promptly changed. The brazen nature of your fraudulent conduct is reflected by your almost immediate use of a forged reference to then secure new employment.
[7] OT carried out an internal investigation. Not surprisingly it took…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading R v Sharma
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Sharma [2025] NZHC 1052
Case
[2025] NZHC 1052
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of The King v Neha Sharma, the defendant pleaded guilty to charges of obtaining by deception, money laundering, and forgery. The court, presided over by Eaton J, considered the defendant's offending, which involved providing forged references to secure employment, facilitating fraudulent payments through her husband's company, and laundering the proceeds of her deception. The court noted the significant personal gain and abuse of trust involved in the offences.
The legal issues centred on determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors. The court assessed the culpability of the offending in relation to established precedents, ultimately adopting a starting point of five years and three months' imprisonment. Mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, her previous good character, and the impact of her incarceration on her young children were considered, leading to a total deduction of 42.5% from the starting point.
After applying the deductions, the court sentenced the defendant to three years' imprisonment for obtaining by deception, twelve months for money laundering, and nine months for forgery, to be served concurrently. The court also noted that the issue of reparation should be addressed in civil proceedings, as there were uncertainties regarding the quantum of losses and benefits that needed further clarification.