HKSAR v. YUNG KA YEE, OLIVIA

DCCC 1469/2024

[2026] HKDC 372

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1469 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of theft, as such, the Prosecution agreed to leave Charge 3 (Fruad)  on file, this Court orders Charge 3 not to be proceeded with without the leave of the Court.

Charge 1

2.  Theft of HK$4,456,500 between December 2011 and January 2019 (about 8 years).

Charge 2

3.  Theft of HK$3,024,000 between January 2017 and December 2019 (about 2 years).

Summary of facts

4.  PW1 was the person in charge of a group of companies of which the Defendant was the employee.

5.  The Defendant was employed in 2003 and promoted to the post as an Administrative and Accounting Manageress in 2010 with a monthly salary of HK$25,000.

6.  The Defendant was responsible for the payroll affairs of two of the companies.

7.  In December 2019, PW1 found out that there was an extra payment of $90,000 as salary paid to the Defendant.

8.  PW1 then instructed the accountants to check the irregularities.

9.  On the other hand, the Defendant also admitted to PW1 that she stole the funds of $4,140,000 from the companies.  The Defendant further signed a confession letter to PW1 that she stole the companies fund because she had been suffering from a mental disorder.

10.  The Defendant had since made a restitution of HK$2.6 million to PW1.

11.  In June 2021, the accountants informed PW1 that the Defendant had embezzled HK$7,480,500 between December 2011 and December 2019.

12.  When the Defendant was arrested in November 2021, she admitted under caution that she embezzled the funds for payment of her credit card debts.

Background of the Defendant

13.  She is now 48 years old with a clear record.  She is married with a son of 14 years old.

14.  The Defendant studied architecture in New Zealand, but without obtaining the professional qualification.  Upon her return to Hong Kong she worked for PW1 who was an architect.  In 2000, PW1 started to run his family business and asked the Defendant to be his assistant.

15.  The Defendant is genuinely remorseful, she could not repay PW1 anymore as she has exhausted all her resources, nonetheless, she wishes to apologize to PW1 for what she had done in the course of her employment with the company.  

Pre-sentencing report

16.  The victim impact report informed this Court that PW1 suffers from mood disorder with symptoms of depression and anxiety since the present incident.  He has since received treatment to deal with his pain and anger as he experiences intense anger as a result of being betrayed by the Defendant of whom he had trusted and known for more than 20 years.

Sentence

17.  The maximum sentence for a theft charge is 10 years’ imprisonment.

18.  There is no doubt that this is a very serious case of breach of trust.

19.  The Defendant worked with PW1 since 2003 before she started to steal from his company in 2011 when she was entrusted with the payroll of the family business.

20.  She abused her position by adding extra salary payroll payment to herself in the schedule with bank authorisation which has been signed by PW1.

21.  By doing so, PW1 did not know what the Defendant had done to the regular payroll schedule.

22.  In each charge of theft, it was clearly a premeditated crime.

23.  In Charge 1, it covered a substantial period of 8 years, involving a sum of about 4.5 million.

24.  While Charge 2 covered a period of 2 years, involving a sum of about 3 million.

25.  A total of 7.5 million.

26.  The defence refers to the case of HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing[1] that the starting point should be in the bracket of 5 to 10 years when the stolen funds was between 3M to 15M.

27.  When the Defendant is charged with more than one offence of theft, the overall sentence will be greater.

28.  The defence also referred to the following cases:-

(a)  SJ v Nones Carmelita Galay[2]

The domestic helper Defendant stole from her employer’s a total worth of about 6 million luxury items, such as jewellery and watches. The domestic helper Defendant was sentenced to 4 years and 4 months after plea.

(b)  HKSAR v Ng Justin[3]

(i)  The accountant Defendant pleaded guilty to 10 charges of theft from 5 victims companies over a period of 2 years 2 months, involving a total sum of about 9.4 million, the last charge was committed while on bail.

(ii)  The learned Judge considered that a global starting point of 7 years with numerous aggravating factors to enhance the starting point, the total sentence arrived at 9 years and reduced to 6 years after plea.

29.  In sentencing process, this court needs to take into account of the impact of this incident on PW1 who has experienced substantial financial loss and he also suffered the loss of a long term trusted relationship (he treated the Defendant as his own daughter).  That level of trust was beyond employer and employee relationship.

30.  PW1 considered that as a serious betrayal, it has a profound impact on him emotionally.  He suffers from mood disorder, depressive mood and anxiety.

Charge 1

31.  It covers a period of 8 years.  This is a substantial period of time.  That means PW1 let the Defendant has a freehand and trusted her completely to handle the company fund.  That I consider as an aggravating factor.

32.  The sum being embezzled was about 4.5 million

33.  I take a starting point of 5 years and 9 months. I enhance the starting point by 6 months due to the aggravating factor as 8 years is a long period of time.  The total sentence arrives at 6 years and 3 months, given 1/3 discount, it reduces to 4 years and 2 months (50 months).

Charge 2

34.  It covers a period of 2 years.  As discussed, the defence also considered that as an aggravating factor.   I take a starting point of 5 years, enhance the sentence by 3 months, it arrives at 5 years and 3 months, reduces to 42 months after 1/3 discount.

Totality

35.  I order 10 months from Charge 2 to run consecutively to charge 1.  The total sentence arrives at 5 years’ (50 + 10 = 60 months)  imprisonment.

Deduction of Sentence

36.  The Defendant was arrested in November 2021 and was charged in August 2024.  She was brought to Court last December 2025.  During this period of time, the Defendant has proactively found herself a job to reestablish herself. At the same time, she and her family continues to suffer tremendous stress while awaiting for the outcome of this case.

37.  As such, I reduce the sentence by 2 months.

Restitution

38.  The Defendant has made a repayment of 2.6 million to PW1.  It involved the Defendant’s father to sell his own house, that accounts for about 1/3 of the total sum (7.5 million)  being embezzled.

39.  I reduce the sentence by 3 months.

40.  The Defendant’s final sentence is now reduced to 55 months imprisonment (60 - 2 -3).

41.  The Defendant is ordered to serve a period of 55 months imprisonment.