The money – totalling $419,971 – went into bank accounts belonging to Rajah.
He said he had taken the money to repay credit card debt.
After pleading guilty to the charge, Rajah was sentenced to 31 months in prison.
He received a 5% discount off his sentence after District Court Judge Robyn von Keisenberg imposed a reparation order requiring him to pay back all of the money he took.
Judge Robyn von Keisenberg sentenced Thirusivan Rajah in September 2025. Photo / Supplied.
Rajah’s lawyer, Sam Walker, appealed against the reparation order to the High Court.
Walker said that the judge erred in imposing the reparation order, failing to have due regard to Rajah’s financial position.
Sentencing submissions included the information that Rajah still had $100,000 of debt and was concerned he would be bankrupted.
High Court Justice Pheroze Jagose said the Sentencing Act required the judge to impose a reparation sentence unless it would impose “undue hardship” on the offender.
He said there was nothing in the judge’s sentencing notes to suggest she carried out the necessary evaluation and, to that extent, she was in error.
Only asset is KiwiSaver account
A statement of Rajah’s financial situation showed his only asset was less than $100,000 in his KiwiSaver account.
During 2025, he had outstanding loans and overdrafts of about $100,000, plus another $16,000 of unsubstantiated debt.
Lenders had indicated they would try to recover the money he owed.
“I am satisfied Mr Rajah has no means to pay the victim’s loss,” Justice Jagose said in a recent decision.
“I also recognise at least his substantiated debts, and the fact of recovery action having been initiated, suggest he is likely to be adjudicated bankrupt in time.”
Reparation can be imposed as a way of compensating victims, which is less expensive than having them bring separate court action for the recovery of their losses.
In this case, Rajah was unable to make good on his offer to make amends, the judge said.
Justice Jagose said that it was inappropriate to impose a sentence of reparation, and to do so would make the sentence “manifestly excessive”.
Justice Pheroze Jagose allowed the appeal against the $419,971 reparation order. Photo / Doug Sherring
“It [reparation] is not an effective sentencing response in those circumstances, giving the victim speedy and inexpensive relief.”
He allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence omitting reparation.
The appeal was brought only against the reparation part of the sentence, and the 31-month jail term still stands.
Ric Stevens spent many years working for the former New Zealand Press Association news agency, including as a political reporter at Parliament, before holding senior positions at various daily newspapers. He joined NZME’s Open Justice team in 2022 and is based in Hawke’s Bay. His writing in the crime and justice sphere is informed by four years of frontline experience as a probation officer.