HKSAR v. SO WUN SHUN, KERVIN

DCCC 401/2022

[2023] HKDC 227

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 401 OF 2022

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges: -

a. Charge 1: - theft

b. Charge 2: - attempted to knowingly mislead a police officer by giving false information.

The Facts

2.  On 11 January, 2022, the defendant was instructed by PW1 who was the financial manager of the company to pick up one million cash for their employer.

3.  The defendant reported to PW1 that he had been robbed.

4.  PW1 found the situation very suspicious and asked him to report the matter to the police.

5.  The police reviewed the CCTV footage and discovered the information provided by the defendant were inconsistent with the CCTV footage.

6.  Upon further enquiry, the defendant admitted that he had stolen the cash and kept them at home.

7.  The defendant was arrested for theft. Under caution, he admitted that he had stolen the money belonged to the company as he was in need of money.  He had no intention to mislead the police.

8.  The one million cash were recovered from his home.

Criminal record

9.  He has a clear record.

Mitigation

10.  The defendant is now 30 years of age.

11.  Before the commission of the present offence, he commenced cohabitation with his girlfriend. The defendant then faced with financial burden, however, he was embarrassed to discuss his financial problem with her.

12.  It was out of greediness and stupidity that he committed the present offences.

13.  The one million cash have been fully recovered.

14.  There are a number of letters from his family and girlfriend to tell me that the defendant is a sporty and kind hearted person.  In his own letter to this court, he indicates his remorse.

15.  In further mitigation today, the defendant was ashamed that he has let his family down, he brought disgrace to himself and his family.

Sentence

16.  This is a classic case of breach of trust. The defendant was employed as an accounting clerk in the victim company and he was entrusted with a duty to pick up the one million cash for the company.

17.  He lied to the company that the one million cash had been robbed.

18.  According to the case of HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776, when the stolen amount is 1 to 3 million, it falls into the sentencing bracket of 3 to 4 years.

19.  As such, the appropriate starting point for charge 1 is 3 years, given 1/3 discount, it reduces to 2 years’ imprisonment.

20.  As to charge 2, the maximum sentence is one of 6 months, I take 4.5 months as the starting point to reflect the culpability of the defendant, given 1/3 discount, it comes down to 3 months’ imprisonment.

Totality

21.  I also order that two months from charge 2 be run consecutively to charge one.

22.  The sentences: -

a. Charge one: - 2 years’ imprisonment.

b. Charge two: - 3 months, 2 months to run consecutively to charge one.

c. The total sentence is 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.