HKSAR v. KWOK SIN TING CYNTHIA

DCCC342/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 342 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one count of theft.

2.  She worked for a company from 2000 to 2010.  The company was run by a couple and their son.

3.  Defence counsel said in court that the couple were elderly people.  They had trained the defendant to be the accounts clerk of the company.

4.  In the course of her duty, the defendant had to prepare cheques for the bosses’ signature.  She exploited the situation and gave the bosses more cheques to sign than necessary.  From November 2003 to October 2010, the defendant handled 278 cheques dishonestly.  She banked in a few for a total of $87,500 and cashed the rest for $2,036,120.  The total amount involved was thus $2,123,620.

5.  In October 2010, the bosses’ son discovered the situation.  The defendant was finally arrested in December 2010.

6.  She had confessed to the bosses.  She had written confession notes to them and begged for a chance.  She also made full admission to the police that she could not make any repayment.

7.  The defendant is aged 36.  She has a clear record.  Defence counsel said she is a good daughter to her parents.  She is the main breadwinner of the family.  Her job in the company was hard, yet she only earned $8,000 per month, even after having worked in the same company for 10 years.

8.  Counsel says the system of the company was a loose one and the defendant was tempted to commit the crimes.  She had now spent all the money for credit card payments, cosmetics, clothes, facials and trimmings. Now she cannot repay the victim any amount.

9.  Counsel asked the court to consider giving the defendant a suspended sentence so that she can go to work to earn money to repay the victim.

10.  This is no doubt a serious case of breach of trust.  It might be the case that the victim company, being a small one, did not have a good system in place.  Yet, it cannot afford the defendant any justification to abuse her position and to abuse her bosses’ trust in her.

11.  Over a period of seven years, the defendant dishonestly obtained money on numerous occasions, appropriating over $2.1 million. The money was all spent on things unessential. Now she cannot repay the victim a cent.

12.  I find it ludicrous that the court in such circumstances should consider any suspended sentence.  Immediate imprisonment is the only option, despite the defendant’s clear record and plea of guilty.

13.  Counsel correctly draws my attention to the guideline set down by the Court of Appeal.  The leading cases are Ng Kwok Wing and Cheung Mee Kiu.  Actually, Ng Kwok Wing, CACC 398/2007 came after Cheung Mee Kiu, CACC 99/2006.  Now, the courts generally accept that Ng is a clearer and more logical decision than Cheung Mee Kiu.

14.  According to the case of Ng Kwok Wing, theft of 1 million to 3 million dollars in breach of trust situation would attract imprisonment of 3 to 5 years.

15.  In the present case, the defendant stole $2.1 million-odd in total.  I would adopt 4 years’ imprisonment as the starting point.

16.  The only mitigation in this case is the defendant’s plea of guilty.  I give her one-third discount for that.

17.  I thus send her to prison for 32 months.