Three months after a sentence discount on grounds he would repay $420,000 stolen from his employer, Thirusivan Perumal Rajah was back in court having the reparations order cancelled. The rest of his sentence, nearly thirty months imprisonment for fraud, remains unaltered.
The High Court was told Rajah stole just under $420,000 from his employer in a long running false-invoicing fraud. Name of his employer was suppressed.
He created false invoices over an eight year period for work never done, channelling payments into bank accounts he controlled.
At trial, Rajah told the court this money was used to pay credit card debt.
He offered his $100,000 Kiwisaver balance as compensation.
Sentencing Act makes it mandatory for judges to take into account any offer of reparations.
When imposing the reparations order, the trial judge made a slight reduction in Rajah’s term of imprisonment: five per cent.
Three months on from this September 2025 sentencing, Rajah appealed the reparations order stating his full financial circumstances were not known at time of sentencing.
An early payout of his Kiwisaver balance is unlikely; a reparations order probably will not qualify as ‘financial hardship’ justifying release of the money.
He claimed bankruptcy looms, with other creditors pressing him for payment; debts he cannot meet whilst in prison, unable to work.
In the High Court, Justice Jagose said this fresh evidence indicates Rajah has no means to pay a $420,000 reparations order. Reparations were cancelled.
Reparation orders operate as a short cut for victims, saving them the time and expense suing to recover money stolen.
It is still open for Rajah’s former employer to take civil action, seeking to recover losses caused by Rajah’s fraud, Justice Jagose said.
Rajah v. Police – High Court (11.12.25)
26.047