A book-keeper convicted of stealing more than $700,000 from a client maintained her innocence at a sentencing hearing yesterday.

Bambi Lee Pimental, 54, told the Supreme Court that she earned the money she was found guilty of taking — and that she had volunteered for numerous charities and had many clients who were happy with her services.

“I also believe that the jury were not always paying attention and were restless and that didn’t go in my favour,” she added.

The court heard that Pimental has indicated that she would launch an appeal against her conviction.

Pimental was found guilty of theft, fraudulent false accounting and using criminal property while subcontracted as a book-keeper by the roofing firm JW Gray and Company between June 2016 and June 2020.

During the two-week trial, jurors heard that a total of $706,436.62 was transferred into Pimental’s bank accounts over a four-year period.

An accountant who investigated the transactions told the jury that the cash going into the defendant’s three accounts did not match the amount of money she should have been making.

The court heard that $27,512 had been paid to Disney Resorts in five instalments in 2019, while another $11,828 was given to Smith and Wick, a boating equipment company in Florida.

Jonathan Gray, Pimental’s primary employer, said that he looked into his business accounts after his company “never seemed to have much money” despite cost-saving efforts, only to see the transfers.

In a recording made by Mr Gray, Pimental could be heard claiming that there must have been a “mistake” before later saying that she wanted to “pay it off” and work for free.

However, she claimed in court she had only paid herself what she was owed and alleged that Mr Gray had “set her up” to get the deeds to her house.

Pimental claimed that after she was confronted, Mr Gray demanded that she hand over the papers for her home and, when she refused, asked for the deeds to a condo.

While she admitted that she gave herself multiple loans over the course of her employment, she told the court Mr Gray had given her “blanket permission” to do so.

A jury found Pimental guilty of all three charges by unanimous verdict after about 2½ hours of deliberation.

Adley Duncan, for the Crown, called for Pimental to face 20 years behind bars.

He told the court that the defendant had stolen a very large sum from a client who trusted her over a four-year period.

“This wasn’t money stolen from a large mega-corporation,” he said. “This is essentially a mom-and-pop operation run from their home.

“She sat in their house for a period of years, smiling to their face and stealing over $700,000.”

He argued that while a social inquiry report described Pimental as being at low risk of committing further offences, her lack of remorse or acceptance that she had done anything wrong raised concerns.

Mr Duncan said that Pimental had failed to accept any accountability and indicated to the social inquiry report writer that the jurors were “not smart enough”.

He also noted a victim impact statement from Mr Gray, which said Pimental made unfounded allegations against him during the trial which were hurtful and humiliating.

Mr Duncan added: “As a businessman who already had a large amount of money stolen, his reputation was still being challenged by the person who took the money.”

He called for a sentence of ten years for theft — the legislated maximum — with two years for false accounting and ten years for using criminal property.

However, he also called for the sentences for theft and use of criminal property to run consecutively, which would bring the total time behind bars to 20 years.

Victoria Greening, for the defendant, argued that a consecutive sentence would fly in the face of legal principle, as all the charges stemmed from the same set of facts.

“To put it bluntly, where there are offences of fraud or dishonesty, it’s par for the course for the proceeds to be disposed of,” she said.

Ms Greening also said that while the court could use the social inquiry report to learn about the defendant’s personal circumstances and risk of committing further offences, it should not be used to suggest that there were aggravating factors that could fuel a harsher sentence.

She suggested a sentence of no more than seven years for theft, less than two years for false accounting and no more than ten years for using criminal property, with all three sentences running concurrently.

“When she comes out of prison, she will have lost everything and will have to start her life over again financially, socially, personally and in other ways,” Ms Greening said.

Questioned about the possibility of a restitution order, Ms Greening told the court that she understood a civil claim had been launched against Pimental.

She said that a condominium owned by the defendant’s partner had been sold with the proceeds to be disbursed in part to the victims in the case.

Mr Justice Juan Wolffe indicated that he would consider restitution in imposing sentence.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers