Sentencing — theft — theft by a person in a special relationship — fraud — cryptocurrency — Bitcoin — name suppression — threats — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 200 — Kiro v R [2016] HZHC 1550 — Richards v Police [2018] NZHC 2288 — D P v R [2015] NZCA 475 — R v Liddell [1995] 1NZLR 538 (1994) 12 CRNZ 458 — Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 125, [2017] 1 NZLR 310 — Fagan v Serious Fraud Office [2013] NZCA 367 — J M v R [2015] NZHC 426 — Stuff v R [2021] NZCA 86 (2021) 29 CRNZ 658 — Huang v Serious Fraud Office [2017] NZCA 187 — R M v Police [2012] NZHC 2080 — Stephens v R [2021] NZHC 1902 — X (CA 226/20) v R [2020] NZCA 387 — R v N [2012] NZHC 2042 — Durrant v Police [2019] NZHC 582 — Bitossi v R [2014] NZCA 595 — D (CA443/2015) v Police [2015] NZCA, 2015 27 CRNZ 614 — R v Powell [2019] NZHC 3420. The defendant appeared for sentence on charges of theft and theft by a person in a special relationship. He had stolen some $246,413 worth of cryptocurrency from accounts maintained by his then-employer. The defendant subsequently returned the cryptocurrency to the liquidator after his employer went into liquidation. He submitted that his motivation for the offending was to demonstrate to his employer the lack of adequate security over the cryptocurrency. Although the defendant returned all the property that he had stolen, the offending damaged the reputation of his former colleagues and exposed them to online abuse and threats. The defendant showed little remorse for his offending and blamed his former employer for not listening to his warnings. The offending was aggravated by magnitude and sophistication, the number of victims (over 200), the amounts involved, and a significant breach of trust. The start point for sentence was three years three months' imprisonment. In mitigation the defendant was of previous good character, admitted the offending and made repayment, and pleaded guilty. The final sentence was 19 months two weeks' imprisonment, which the Court converted to nine months' home detention. The defendant also sought final name suppression, citing death threats, the risk of reprisal by investors in his former employer, and negative effects on his business interests and partners. The Court found that the threats cited were vague and not aimed at the defendant specifically. Further, to order suppression would cast suspicion on the defendant's former colleagues. The application was declined. Judgment Date: 18 March 2022.