One Link Pacifica boss Gerrad Tauohu had on Tuesday denied the five counts of simple larceny charges against him.
This was after prosecution amended the seven counts of simple larceny against him to only five counts of simple larceny.
Tauohu was initially charged with the 38 counts of false pretence and one count of operating an unlicensed Financial Institution, of which, he previously pleaded not guilty to.
This is in relation to more than $460,000, on which, prosecution alleged he stole from One Link Customers who invested in the scheme between December 2019 and January 2020.
However, early this month the prosecution had withdrawn the 38 counts of false pretence and then filed seven counts of simple larceny.
The simple larceny charges now points to allegations that Tauohu bought vehicles and houses with money stolen from One Link Pacifica customers who invested in the scheme.
Those seven simple charges were again amended to only five counts of simple larceny, where Tauohu entered his not guilty pleas to them all, Tuesday.
Again the particulars of the charges relates to allegations Tauohu allegedly stole more than $460,000 from One Link members.
It was alleged that five One Link mentors who collected the money from the scheme’s customers for investment filed their complaints against Tauohu for non-repayment.
One Link customers were allegedly advised through the mentors by One Link directors to invest in the scheme.
They were allegedly promised that if they invest in the scheme they will be paid triple the amount they pay in a month’s time.
Tauohu, however, allegedly failed to repay One Link’s customers their money with its interest.
He then allegedly escaped to Malaita last April but was arrested shortly thereafter.
Following Tauohu’s not guilty pleas, Principal Magistrate Augustine Aulanga adjourned the matter to this Friday to settle the pre-trial conference documents.
Concerning the charge of operating an unlicensed Financial Institution, Mr Aulanga had ordered prosecution to confirm as to whether they will proceed with that charge or not.
The defence counsel had raised concerns with the way in which prosecution handled this matter, which continues to delay the progress of this matter.
He had stated that his client had been custody for over a year now due to the delay, on which, prosecution seems to be fishing for evidence all along.
By ASSUMPTA BUCHANAN BONGIDANI