HKSAR v. NG MEI FA

 DCCC503/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 503 OF 2008

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant, Ng Mei-fa, was originally charged with 42 counts of offence.  The first six counts of theft allege that the defendant stole money, chose in action, a total amount of $42,679,134.30 (this amount based on the amount in the cheques), over a period of 6 ½ years as from 17 February 2000 to 14 August 2006.  The remaining 36 charges of using false instruments concern 36 statements of monthly budget estimates.

2.  The defendant was convicted after trial of four counts of theft, namely, Charges 2, 4, 5 and 6, and acquitted of the rest of the charges.  The court found the defendant to have stolen the amount of $11,593,929.30 for Charge 2, $200,000 for Charge 4, $120,000 for Charge 5, $400,000 for Charge 6.  These charges cover the same period of time, i.e. from 21 July 2003 to 14 August 2006, slightly over three years.

3.  The facts relevant to sentencing can be summarised as follows:  At all material times, the defendant was employed as a manager of the victim company, Hong Kong Garwin.  The shares of the company were held by a gentleman, Mr Takahashi(80 per cent of the shareholding), and by the defendant’s husband- Mr Ho(the remaining 20 per cent).  They also operated a factory in Panyu in the mainland.  The factory was funded by Hong Kong Garwin. 

4.  The defendant would go to see Mr Takahashi on a monthly basis to obtain the money for the factory.  During the monthly meetings, she would provide Mr Takahashi with information, including monthly budget estimates setting out the needs of the factory for the coming month.  Part of the funds would then be given in the form of cash cheques and the other in TT (telegraphic transfer).  The defendant was under an obligation to transfer the money to the factory for its use, however, during the period in question, she either delivered none at all or just only part of it to the factory.

5.  For Charge 2, she was supposed to deliver cash to the factory for the entire period in question a sum of $25,453,929.30, but she skimmed off almost half of the amount(45.5 %).  As for the other three charges, she had not delivered any of the money at all.

6.  The defendant is now aged 52 and has hitherto been a person of good character.  Not intending to go behind the court’s verdict while on the other hand stressing the defendant’s insistence on her innocence, defence counsel only emphasised his client’s personal circumstances.  Her personal background has been fully set out in the background report.

7.  The defendant’s case could be regarded as a typical successful story of a Hong Kong person.  She did not receive much education.  She came from a humble origin.  She had to go out to work to support the family at an early age, and she has been hardworking all her life, and she has struggled to get all that she once had- a factory of her own. 

8.  Now I come to the sentence.  This is not a case of petty embezzlements.  You had been constantly milking the company of a substantial sum of money over a relatively long period of time-three years.  The sums add up to a little over 12 million.  You had the implicit trust of Mr Takahashi but, unfortunately, you had abused it. 

9.  On the facts before the court, Mr Takahashi did not check all the information such as the budget estimates you presented to him to obtain the funds, and indeed, many of these estimates contain mistakes which anyone who would care to look at it would easily find out.  In many of these estimates, the amount did not even add up to the total.  In some cases, the mistakes were too obvious.  In one case, a sum of $200,000 was added onto the total by simply writing a No. 5 over the digit “3” at the 100,000.  In another case, the total has a decimal place which none of the individual items had any.

10.  For all this money, you were under an obligation to convey it to the factory for its use.  On each occasion, you either failed to deliver up the cash to the factory or skimmed off part of it.

11.  You have a rather touching story how you struggled to become a successful person.  Hong Kong people could have felt proud of you had you not done the wrong thing; but, unfortunately, you were unable to resist the temptation of all this cash given to you.  Now your story becomes a sad one.

12.  Looking at the size of the money you stole, the high degree of trust placed upon you which you breached, the time in which you committed all these offences, this is a serious case of breach of trust.  From your mitigation as well as the background report, I detect no sense of remorse on your part for what you did. 

13.  The beauty of our legal system, let me tell you, you have the right to disagree with my decision and there are channels available for you to get redress, but I want to make it clear to you, I will not increase the sentence just because you insist on your innocence.

14.  As I said before, this is a serious case of breach of trust, and there are sentencing guidelines for this type of offence.  In Cheung Mee Kiu’s case CACC 99/2006, the higher court in paragraph 22 of that judgment set the following guidelines: in the second bracket, 3 million to 15 million, the term for consideration is 5 to 9 years. 

15.  Guidelines are never meant to be straitjacket, but I cannot lose sight of the comment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Tong Fuk Sing CACC 99/216, the Court of Appeal had this to say:

“Where the Court of Appeal has laid down guidance for sentence, it is not sufficient for a sentencing judge merely to pay lip service to it before departing from it.  Sound reasons for such departure should be given.”

16.  Having heard all the mitigation put forward on your behalf, I see no good reason to depart from the guideline I have just mentioned.  For Charge 2, I sentence you to 7 years; Charge 4, 18 months; Charge 5, 12 months; Charge 6, 2 years; all terms to run concurrently with each other.  The total term is one of 7 years.