HKSAR v. YEUNG WAI HUNG

DCCC715/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 715 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.  Particulars of the offence are that the defendant between May 2010 and May 2012 stole HK$480,000 from his employer, Maxim’s Caterers Limited.

3.  The defendant worked at the same branch during this period of time of Starbucks Coffee in Chater Road, Central.  Over this period of 2 years he stole relentlessly from his employer,  be it daily or at least monthly.

4.  The crime was discovered when a colleague noticed that the defendant did not ring up the till when selling items.  He did not make a record of the sales transaction or at least an accurate record of the sales transaction.  Then, I am sure, the defendant would pocket what was not recorded in the till. 

5.  This period of 2 years comes from the defendant’s own admission.  When the matter came to light, the defendant was interviewed by several managers of Starbucks Coffee, and he admitted in writing that he estimated he had stolen between twenty to thirty thousand dollars each month from Starbucks for the past 2 years.  He himself said the total amount might be around $720,000. 

6.  After this confession, the matter was reported to the police, and under caution the defendant repeated his admission.

7.  The prosecution ultimately, because I assume Starbucks could not give an accurate figure of the loss suffered, took $20,000 per month on the defendant’s own admission as a starting point for the amount in the charge.

8.  The defendant is a 28-year-old man with a previous clear record.

9.  I have been told that he was educated up to a Form 5 standard and has worked in sales since he left school.  When he left Starbucks Coffee, he was earning $35 an hour. 

10.  The defendant is single, lives with friends and has been unemployed since this offence was uncovered.

11.  I do take into account the defendant has pleaded guilty and had a previous clear record which is good mitigation.  However, I also take into account that this theft took place over 2 years, a long period of time.  For this to go undetected for 2 years, Starbucks clearly had no check system to ensure that employees were not tempted to steal from the till.

12.  Defendant having worked there for such a long period of time would have known that he was not in danger of being discovered and would have kept stealing.  In short, the defendant was tempted by the ease in which he was able to steal without detection.

13.  This is a classic breach of trust case, and the guidelines for breach of trust cases are clear.  And I will follow the guideline set out in HKSAR v Cheung Mei Kiu CACC99/2006.  The Court of Appeal considered relevant English guidelines and principles and set out a guideline applicable to Hong Kong.  And the relevant band in this case would be where $250,000 to $1 million is stolen, a term of imprisonment of between 2 to 3 years would be appropriate. 

14.  Defendant, please stand up.

15.  I will follow the guidelines of this authority. I have taken into account the facts of the case, the amount stolen in the charge, your plea and your background and take a starting point of 2 years and 3 months. 

16.  You have pleaded guilty today and you are entitled to a discount of 9 months for your plea.  You are for this offence sentenced to 1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment.