‘Despicable’ Bambi Pimental jailed for 12 years

Gareth Finighan

Created: Dec 31, 2024 08:06 AM (Updated: Jan 01, 2025 01:31 PM)

No remorse: Bambi Pimental stole more than $700,000 from her employer (File photograph)

A book-keeper who stole more than $700,000 from her employer has been jailed for 12 years after being given maximum custodial sentences for theft and fraudulent false accounting.

At a hearing yesterday, Bambi Pimental was jailed for ten years for theft and a further two years for accountancy fraud, with those terms to run consecutively.

She was also given a ten-year custodial sentence after being found guilty of a third charge of using criminal property, with that term to run concurrent to the other two.

Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe described Pimental’s actions — both during her crime spree and subsequent trial — as “deplorable”.

He said he had presided over countless criminal matters and “heinous, violent crimes”, but had never seen “more despicable crimes” than those committed by Pimental.

At her trial in October, a court heard how Pimental, 54, took the money while subcontracting as a book-keeper for the roofing firm JW Gray and Company between June 2016 and June 2020.

Pimental was an acquaintance and neighbour of the company’s owners, Jonathan and Susan Gray, who agreed that she would be responsible for paying company invoices and salaries — including her own.

Prosecution witnesses testified that more than $700,000 of company funds were transferred into Pimental’s bank accounts over four years.

Account records showed that other payments were made that were not related to the business, including a $27,512 transfer to Disney Resorts in five instalments in 2019, and $11,828 to a boating equipment company in Florida.

Many transfers were either listed as happening before the date of their actual transfer or after, with two being listed as taking place in 2014 when Pimental did not start work with the company until 2016.

Pimental denied wrongdoing and insisted that she had only paid herself what she was owed.

She alleged that her employer, Mr Gray, had “set her up” to get the deeds to her house.

Pimental added that while she gave herself multiple loans over the course of her employment at the company, she had been given “blanket permission” by Mr Gray to do so, but was asked to keep the arrangement from Mrs Gray because the couple were having marriage problems.

The thefts eventually came to light after Mr Gray conducted a detailed audit of his company’s books.

Mr Justice Wolffe did not state in court the full reasons for his ruling, but he read out a statement in which he condemned Pimental’s behaviour.

He said she had “spewed” a “fragile web of lies” during the trial and added: “I have presided over many trials where witnesses have lied but she took her lying to a whole new level.”

Mr Justice Wolffe said that Pimental was “remorseless and heartless” in her treatment of the Grays, who had “showered her with unconditional kindness and trust”.

The judge also condemned Pimental for presenting “audaciously fabricated” invoices during the trial in her defence, and “having the temerity to malign the jury” once guilty verdicts had been returned.

Describing her conduct during the trial as “deplorable“, he said: “If there was ever an example of an offender abusing the sacrosanct tenets and principles of the criminal justice system then the defendant would be the poster child.”

Pimental, wearing a grey prison uniform, remained emotionless during today’s hearing and spent much of the time writing notes.

In addition to her jail sentence, the disgraced book-keeper may have to pay back the money she stole from the Grays depending on a means assessment. She could also be ordered to pay further fines.

Mr Justice Wolffe pointed out that Pimental had sold her $1.4 million home. He added: “We don’t know where that money went to.”

The judge said: “Clearly I feel strongly about how this matter came to be and that is why a fine may also be imposed.”

The issue of reparations was deferred until the February arraignments session.

Mr and Mrs Gray gave testimony at the trial and were in court for sentencing.

After Mr Justice Wolffe delivered his ruling, Mr Gray told The Royal Gazette: “I was quite gratified to hear that the judge was so unhappy with the way the defence presented evidence, because I thought some of the things that were said were dreadful.

“The judge was obviously of the same mind. He was clearly unhappy when the defendant presented a stack of clearly false documents.

“The lack of remorse is something that is troubling. She [Pimental] wasn’t just an employee, we were friends — not social friends, but we felt a friendship and a fondness for her and we helped her out.

“This is just such a treacherous thing and I think my biggest problem in the early times was that … frankly I felt ashamed that I had allowed it to happen.

“As the principal of the company, my employees and shareholders suffered as a result of this act being done under my nose, so I carry a certain amount of guilt.

“I have had to mentally forgive her — and that’s for me, to allow me move on — but it will always be in my mind. We’re going to feel that for a long time.”

Mrs Gray said: “It was just a waste of everybody’s time — she should have just pleaded guilty to start with.

“This experience has changed me. It’s changed my view on trusting people and I feel bad that I feel that way. But when you go through this it’s an emotional roller coaster, not only for us but for our two daughters because they’ve gone through this as well.

“We’re a core group and they have felt and seen through all of this. Our friends have as well, but we have a good support system.”

Mr Justice Wolffe’s statement

“Having presided over countless criminal matters involving offenders who were convicted of rather heinous violent crimes I can say without fear of contradiction that I have not seen more despicable crimes than those committed by the defendant. Nor have I dealt with a more remorseless and heartless defendant.

“Not only did the defendant not take unequivocal responsibility for habitually pilfering an enormous sum of money from two people who showered her with unconditional kindness and trust, but she also entered the witness box doggedly determined to shamelessly lie and fabricate evidence against them in order to escape her dastardly deeds.

“To make matters worse — if they could even be made worse — the defendant had the unmitigated temerity to malign the very jury which was tasked with the monumentally difficult task of assessing the depths of her deceit during the trial and no doubt when they were in the deliberation room considering their verdicts.

“This would have involved the jury wading through reams of documentation which clearly revealed beyond a reasonable doubt the manner in which the defendant effectuated her crimes and the extent to which she was prepared to go to conceal them.

“Yet, in her social inquiry report, the defendant not only repeated the fragile web of lies that she spewed at trial but she brazenly went on to say the following about the jury: ‘I had jurors who were not smart enough or understanding. I’m mad at the jury that I had.’

“In actuality, the jury were indeed more than smart enough to dissect and see through the obfuscation and errant lies which the defendant attempted to serve them.

“The fact that the jury were able to do this is what really rankles the defendant.

“But it was the defendant’s deplorable conduct at trial which was entirely intolerable. There was no doubt that the defendant possessed an unrelenting intention to employ every dishonest means necessary to extract a not-guilty verdict from the jury.

“I primarily speak of the grossly unfair extent to which the defendant attempted to publicly impugn the good characters of the Grays. What she did was far outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour for any individual. Accusing Mr Gray of making the allegations in order to get her house and stating that the Grays’ marriage was shaky and that is why Mr Gray did not want to tell Mrs Gray about her pay increases, were all bull-faced lies which were soundly rejected by the jury.

“I also speak of the defendant audaciously adducing into evidence fabricated invoices which she continuously lied that she submitted them to the Grays at various times while she was doing bookkeeping work for them.

“It must have been cringing for the jury to have been handed invoices which obviously were devoid of any authenticity and/or provenance.

“I have presided over many trials in which witnesses, for both the prosecution and the defence, have incessantly lied.

“However, the defendant took her lying to a whole new unprecedented lower level by not only orally telling falsehoods but by also taking the time and energy to create false documents, which she then put before the jury claiming them to be genuine.

“As the jury exited the courtroom after delivering its verdicts it was immediately evident that the entire trial was an uneconomical use of the court’s time and resources.

“For the overwhelming majority of matters which proceed to and through trial there are cogent and justifiable reasons for a defendant to advance a particular defence.

“However, if there ever was an example of an offender abusing the sacrosanct tenets and principles of the criminal justice system then the defendant would be the poster child.”