|
DCCC 508/2025
[2026] HKDC 16
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 508 OF 2025
--------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
| Before: |
His Honour Judge E Yip |
| Present: |
Ms Sabrina See, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
|
Mr Andrew Christopher Leung, instructed by Johnny K K Leung & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
----------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
----------------------------------------
The Charge
1. The Defendant, Chin Chok Loon (“the Defendant”), pleaded guilty to one charge ofTheft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210). The plea was indicated at the time of listing for the proceedings.
2. The offence arises from the Defendant’s dishonest appropriation of cash belonging to his employer,Circle K Convenience Stores (HK) Limited, between 3 June 2024 and 6 June 2024, in the total sum ofHK$341,985.30.
Facts of the Case
3. At the material time, the Defendant was employed as the branch manager of a Circle K convenience store situated at Hennessy Road, Causeway Bay. As branch manager, he was entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the daily operations of the store and, in particular, of ensuring that the cash revenue of each business day was properly tallied and handed over to the security company engaged by Circle K on the following day.
4. On a routine audit, the district manager of Circle K discovered discrepancies between the cash revenue that ought to have been received and that which was in fact delivered to the security company. These discrepancies covered the period from 3 June 2024 to 5 June 2024 and amounted toHK$283,085.30. Further investigation revealed that an additionalHK$56,400of revenue from 6 June 2024, as well asHK$2,500kept in the store safe, were also missing.
5. The total amount of missing funds was thereforeHK$341,985.30.
6. On 7 June 2024, when confronted by the district manager, the Defendant admitted that he had taken all the missing sums. He explained that he had done so for the purpose of unfreezing his online investment account. His employment was immediately terminated and the matter was reported to the police.
7. Upon arrest on the same day, the Defendant admitted under caution that he had committed the offence. In a subsequent cautioned interview, he gave a full account of his actions. He confirmed that he alone was responsible, that he had deposited the stolen cash into his personal bank account, and that the total amount taken was HK$341,985.30.
Personal Circumstances and Mitigation
8. The Defendant is 54 years old. He has no previous convictions and is therefore a first offender. He has a degree in commerce and had been gainfully employed for many years, including employment with Circle K since 2018.
9. The Court has considered the Defendant’s personal circumstances as set out in the mitigation. He is single, lives alone in Hong Kong, and has no immediate family here. He suffers from HIV and is required to take medication on a daily basis.
10. The Defendant explained that he committed the offence because he believed he needed to deposit further funds to unfreeze a cryptocurrency investment account. He was subsequently scammed and lost not only the stolen money but also his own prior investment.
11. The Defendant admitted his wrongdoing at the earliest opportunity, both to his employer and to the police. He has expressed remorse, and his early guilty plea has saved the court time and spared witnesses from having to testify.
Sentencing Considerations
12. This is a clear case oftheft involving a breach of trust. The Defendant was the branch manager of the store. He was entrusted with day-to-day control over the store’s cash revenue and was expected to act honestly and responsibly in safeguarding his employer’s property. His poor judgment upon being deceived by others does not justify stealing from one’s employer.
13. The Court accepts that his medical condition had been a matter of personal hardship and anxiety for him but this does not qualify as a mitigating factor.
14. Although the period over which the theft occurred was relatively short, namely a few days, the Defendant had abused the trust reposed in him to appropriate a substantial sum of money for his own purposes. Such conduct must be treated with appropriate seriousness.
15. The Court has been referred to the relevant authorities concerning theft involving breach of trust. The applicable sentencing guideline indicates that where the amount involved is betweenHK$250,000 and HK$1,000,000, the normal starting point after trial falls within the range of2 to 3 years’ imprisonment, subject to adjustment depending on the circumstances of the case.
16. Having regard to the amount stolen beingHK$341,985.30, the Defendant being the branch manager in breach of trust, the relatively short duration of the offence, the Court takes astarting point of 27 months’ imprisonment.
17. The Defendant indicated a guilty plea at an early stage and pleaded guilty before this Court. He is entitled to the full one-third discount. Applying a one-third discount to the starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment, the sentence is 18 months.
|