A former Chief Executive Officer of a major company has been remanded after being convicted of two counts of indecent assault against his employee.
His name suppression stands in this case for now based on a separate court order.
In this case, Justice Waleen George has found the former CEO guilty on both charges.
The offences were committed on the 25th of June and the 13th of September 2019.
During the trial, the victim gave evidence that around May 2019, she had an appointment at the former CEO's office for a job.
She said that during the appointment, the then CEO asked her about being engaged too young and when she stood up to leave, he hugged her and sniffed her hair and neck for five seconds before she left.
She said that she went blank and didn't know what happened.
The former employee mentioned that a few days later she had an interview and started working for the company after which the incident occurred again.
The judgement was delivered two years after the trial concluded.
The sentence hearing will be held on the 12th of next month.
This is the former CEO's second case.
In the first case, he was charged with one count of indecent assault, where it was alleged that on the 15th of May 2019, the former CEO indecently assaulted a woman by hugging her and sniffing and kissing her neck whilst rubbing her back.
On 1st November 2021, the court found the man guilty as charged.
He was then sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, suspended for 2 years.
In that case, the former CEO appeal the conviction and sentence, and said there was no reliable or credible evidence against him, the complainant was the most evasive and untruthful witness with no credibility, the complainant had become good friends with the former CEO and had pictures taken with him and also sent him emails and was previously hugged by the man without any complaint, and the woman's complaint was 7 months after the alleged incident and was in similar terms as reported by Lynda Tabuya in her Facebook post of 6th December 2019.
His appeal against conviction in that case was allowed by the court.
