HKSAR v. CHAN CHOI CHING, VERA

 DCCC593/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 593 OF 2009

----------------------

---------------------- 

-----------------------------------

Reasons for Sentence

-----------------------------------

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to five charges of theft and she has admitted the facts and has been convicted of those offences

2.  The facts show that the defendant was employed as a clerk of the sales department of the R & Son Jewellery Limited.  She was in that employment between 19 March 2007 and left on 7 December 2008.  She had duties that enabled her to access the safe where the samples of jewellery were kept.  She sent samples of the jewellery overseas and she also would assist in checking samples of jewellery out for exhibitions held in Hong Kong.

3.  In January 2009 the company became aware that at least 13 pieces of jewellery were missing from the safe and eventually the police were informed.  It was found later that the defendant had pawned at least 10 pieces of jewellery at five different pawnshops in Hong Kong between 27 December 2008 and 25 February 2009.  Those jewelleries were recovered from the pawnshop and a further three pieces of jewellery were recovered from three other locations, those being the homes of her father and mother and also the office where she worked.  The defendant also told about other pieces of jewellery, which had been disposed of. 

4.  Now, the jewelleries concerned are set out in the five charges and during the course of the hearing, evaluation was able to be assigned to the jewellery in each of the charges. 

5.  The 1st charge concerned a diamond ring, which was recovered from the defendant’s father’s residence; that was valued at $10,630.  The 2nd charge concerned a heart shaped diamond pendant recovered from the defendant’s mother’s premises; that was valued at $9,630. 

6.  The 3rd charge concerned a diamond ring, which had been pawned; that was valued at $57,960.  The 4th charge concerned four diamond rings; two diamond earrings; a diamond pendant and a diamond necklace.  Four of those items were found to be pawned and another item, a diamond ring was recovered from the residence of the defendant’s father.  The items of the 4th charge were valued at $400,000. 

7.  And the final charge, the 5th charge, concerned 5 pairs of earrings, a brooch and two rings and a pendant and all these items had been pawned.  They were totally valued at $433,460.  The grand total of jewellery involved in all these thefts is $911,660.

8.  Of course these offences involved a breach of trust as the theft was from her employer.  The dates of the charges show that the offences were committed over a period of around 13 months and that 13 properties have been recovered. 

9.  The defendant does not have any criminal record but this offence meant that she’s in breach of a binding over order. 

10.  I will now turn to the defendant’s personal circumstances.  She is education to Form 4.  At the time of arrest she was a housewife living with her family.  She is a divorced lady and she has, according to the mitigation, two sons and they are aged 8 and 5.  She is currently aged 32 years and unfortunately her father and mother have been divorced for some time.  I have had the opportunity of seeing letters both from her family and also from the defendant and I conclude from them that the defendant, herself, has strong family support and she is much valued by her own family.  I also gather from this that the defendant shows remorse before the court.  Her plea shows remorse as does her actions following her arrest.

11.  Now, the counsel for the defendant has related that the defendant has had a difficult period following her divorce and she tells me through her counsel that she was not properly supported during the marriage.  She had been responsible for the maintenance of her own family and her sons, and, as a result of this, eventually she borrowed money from credit card companies and she borrowed at least $200,000 and she was being pressed by them for repayment. 

12.  Perhaps the most significant mitigating factors are her clear record; her plea and remorse and the fact that she is the mother of young children who will undoubtedly feel her absence from them strongly. 

13.  As far as offences of this kind are concerned, there are certain matters I must bear in mind.  One is that they do involve a breach of trust and the total value of the goods taken is almost $1 million.  The items taken over a period of time, which was over a year, so there was a degree of persistence in the way the offending took place.   

14.  Now the guidelines for sentencing show that in cases involved a breach of trust where the value is from $250,000 to 1 million, the starting point should be between 2 to 3 years.  Now, in this case the amount of items taken puts this figure at the higher end of the guideline sentence.

15.  I do note that these five offences were committed over a period of time and to a certain extent overlap.  What I have decided to do in this case is to simply adopt an overall starting point and give the defendant the benefit of the one-third discount for her plea of guilty and them impose concurrent sentences on each of the five charges. 

16.  I consider the appropriate overall starting point, given the value of the goods, and the period over which the offences took place is 3 years’ imprisonment.  I will then reduce the sentence to 2 years’ imprisonment on each charge having regard to the defendant’s plea of guilty.  On each charge there will be a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently giving an overall total of 2 years’ imprisonment.

17.  As far as the binding over order is concerned, these offences seem to be of a very different nature.  I will take no action on the binding order and it can remain in force.