A former First Citizens Bank employee who was arrested and charged with larceny in 2012 will receive compensation for malicious prosecution.

On Monday, Justice Ricky Rahim ordered the State to pay Kimoy Chong Sing-Christian a total of $178,000 with interest to run from May 18, 2018, to the date of his judgment.

Sing-Christian was accused of knowingly approving loan applications that contained fraudulent documents and disbursing the loan sums to the applicants. She appeared in court for four years before the case was dismissed in 2016 because the officer who charged her did not appear in court nor did the prosecution have the file and there were no prosecution witnesses. In her malicious prosecution claim, Sing-Christian’s attorneys argued there was no reasonable or probable cause for WPC Bailey to charge her. They also argued that the police failed to investigate whether she adhered to FCB’s protocols, especially since she did not know the loan applicants.

It was also argued the charges against her affected her employment prospects, her family and social life as well as her psychological well-being.

The State defended the claim, insisting that fraud squad officers relied on statements from people who identified Sing-Christian by name and by the bank, which reported fraudulent activity after someone using a false job letter collected a cheque. The State also denied WPC Bailey deliberately missed court but had only failed to appear when she was in another court, on vacation or sick leave or on special assignment.

Sing-Christian gave evidence of the process for approving loans at the bank, and even if she, as the interviewing officer, failed to detect a fraudulent document, the recommending officer - a supervisor - or the approving officer -who holds a managerial post - would detect it.

She also maintained it was not her duty to ensure the documents were authentic but that the required documents were submitted in the application.

In his ruling, Rahim pointed out that at the start of the trial, he pointed out that the defence appeared to be relying on caution statements from some of the alleged loan applicants who were also charged with related offences. He said he was assured there was “other evidence” that formed the basis for the charges against Sing-Christian.

“However, having seen the other evidence it is abundantly clear that the position remained the same.”

As he analysed the evidence, he said he found that Bailey could not have had an honest belief she had enough evidence to charge Sing-Christian. He also said the laying of the charges was unreasonable.

“Of course, the refusal of the defendant to examine this issue with some measure of scrutiny from the time the issue was brought to its attention and the insistence on a trial in the face of an overwhelming paucity or more aptly, absence of evidence to charge the claimant has resulted in the waste of judicial time and resources in trying the issue of reasonable and probable cause.”

He also found there was malice on the officer’s part.

“