HKSAR v. WONG WAI PO

DCCC 253/2018

[2018] HKDC 874

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 253 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of “Theft”, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

Facts

2.  At the material times, Mr Leung was the deputy branch manager of one of the branches of Bank of Communications Co. Ltd. as particularized in the charge.  Ms Lam was the operation manager of the branch while the defendant was the senior cash management officer of the branch.

3.  There was a large safe inside the storeroom of the branch.  The 3 passwords of the large safe were separately kept by Mr Leung, Ms Lam and the defendant.  The key to the gate was kept by the defendant.

4.  On 23 January 2018 at 5:45 pm after bank opening hours, Mr Leung and the defendant opened the storeroom and the large safe.  Mr Leung then checked the amount of cash stored in the large safe.

5.  After finishing the check, Mr Leung left the storeroom for other bank matters. At around 6:15 pm, Ms Lam double checked the amount of cash and confirmed correct.  The defendant was responsible for locking the large safe. 

6.  At 7:30 pm, the defendant left the branch carrying a black rucksack.

7.  On the next day, Mr Leung and another staff checked the large safe and found HK$1,000,000 missing from the safe.  The matter was reported to the police.

8.  On 24 January 2018 at around 11:20 pm, the defendant was arrested.  Under caution, he said “Understand, sorry, I took that $1 million out of greed.”

9.  Records show that the defendant left Hong Kong for Macau at around 8:17 pm on 23 January 2018 and returned to Hong Kong at around 8:39 am on 24 January 2018.

Mitigation

10.  The defendant is aged 29 and lives with his family. He has a clear record prior to the present case.  It was submitted that the defendant had been working diligently and committed the present offence due to financial difficulties.  After he had stolen the money, he went to Macau for gambling and lost most of the money.  He has applied for a bankruptcy order and is unable to compensate the bank for the loss for the time being.  Mitigation letters show the defendant had all along been a hard-working and responsible person. He also took part in charitable or community service.  He has support from his family and girlfriend.

11.  In mitigation, the defence also referred to several cases[1] and urged the court to impose a lenient sentence on the defendant.

Sentence

12.  The present case is a serious case of theft involving breach of trust.  The amount of money stolen is HK$1 million.

13.  The Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guideline for theft involving breach of trust (see HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 770 and HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017).  For theft of HK$1 million to HK$3 million, the sentence ranges from 3 to 5 years.

14.  Given the amount involved is HK$1 million, the appropriate starting point is 3 years.  The sentence is reduced to 2 years for the defendant’s plea.  Whilst I accept the commission of this offence is completely out of character and the defendant would not be able to escape detection, I do not consider this to be a factor justifying a reduction of sentence.  On the other hand, I note the defendant had taken part in some charitable or community service, I consider this to be evidence of positive good character.  In the circumstance, I am prepared to grant him a further reduction of 3 months for positive good character.  Apart from that, there is no other mitigating factor justifying further reduction of the sentence.  I hereby sentence the defendant to 1 year and 9 months’ imprisonment.