HKSAR v. SHUM LOK MAN

HCCC 27/2025

[2026] HKCFI 955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 27 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to five charges at the committal proceedings before Mr. Jeffery SZE, Magistrate on 23 January 2025. He was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The charges are as follows:

(i)  Charge 1: “Theft”, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Between 7 April 2021 and 20 July 2021, he stole cash totaling HK$748,000 from Eddid Securities and Futures Limited (“the Company”).

(ii)  Charge 2: “Theft”, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Between 26 July 2021 and 25 February 2022, he stole a credit balance in the total sum of HK$4,455,544 from the Company.

(iii)  Charge 3: “Theft”, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Between 1 March 2022 and 20 June 2023, he stole a credit balance in the total sum of HK$14,021,786.05 from the Company.

(iv)  Charge 4: “Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”, contrary to section 25(1)  and (3)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455. Between 2 December 2021 and 7 June 2023, he dealt with HK$2,594,612, being proceeds transferred into the bank account of “WM Business Services Company” (“WM”)  operated by one CHAN Chun Yin (“CHAN”)  (a co-defendant at the committal proceedings).

(v)  Charge 5: “Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”, contrary to section 25(1)  and (3)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455. Between 24 November 2021 and 7 June 2023, he dealt with HK$1,320,000, being proceeds transferred into the bank account of “CAN Business Consultants Limited”, (“CAN”)  where WM (operated by Chan)  served as company secretary.

2.  This morning, the defendant appeared before me for sentence, having confirmed his pleas and the admission of Amended Summary of Facts.  

FACTS

3.  The facts are fully set out in the Amended Summary of Facts.  The following is a concise summary.

4.  The defendant was employed by the Company, initially as Finance and Accounting Manager and later as Assistant Vice President.  He held substantial financial control: he was the custodian of a cheque book for the Company’s Account 1 (no. 38256502048408)  and, from February 2022, the sole authorised signatory for the Company’s e-banking Accounts 2 (no. 01287300136833)  and 3 (no. 01287310698251)  under the user ID ‘VSHUM’.

5.  Between 7 April 2021 and 20 June 2023, the defendant stole a total of HK$19,225,330.05 from the Company:

(i)  HK$748,000 from Account 1 by cashing 14 cheques made payable to himself, using pre-signed blank cheques provided by the Company’s directors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

(ii)  HK$4,455,544 from Account 2 and HK$14,021,786.05 from Account 3 by abusing his sole authority to divert client withdrawal funds and create fictitious payment requests.

6.  The defendant laundered the stolen funds through multiple channels:

(i)  HK$14,505,718.05 to Arvin Consulting Limited (“ACL”), a company solely owned and controlled by him.

(ii)  HK$2,594,612 (the subject of Charge 4)  to WM, a sole proprietorship owned by CHAN.

(iii)  HK$1,320,000 (the subject of Charge 5)  to CAN, a company for which Chan was a signatory and company secretary.

(iv)  A further HK$57,000 was temporarily transferred to a former schoolmate and returned in cash on the same day.

7.  The defendant admitted in a video-recorded interview that he stole the money primarily to finance his gambling habit.  He estimated stealing around HK$11 million and stated that 99% of the stolen funds were gambled away.  With gambling winnings derived from the stolen funds, he purchased 4 luxury watches (including two Rolex watches, one Breitling watch and one Hublot watch)  and he purchased a Mercedes-Benz vehicle (EQA 250)  registered under ACL. He made half of the purchase payment with the stolen funds and another half with the gambling winnings he won with the stolen funds.

8.  The defendant approached Chan, an auditor, and offered him a commission (8.5% or 15%)  to use his accounts for transferring funds.  The defendant did not inform him that the money was stolen.  WhatsApp communications between them show they coordinated the transfers and discussed how to respond to potential anti-money laundering enquiries.  Between November 2021 and June 2023, Chan returned a total of HK$3,089,500 from these accounts to the defendant through transfer to ACL’s and the defendant’s personal accounts.

9.  The defendant was arrested on 2 August 2023.  He has no previous convictions.

BACKGROUND & MITIGATION

10.  The defendant was born in Hong Kong in April 1987, divorced, and is 38 years old. He holds a bachelor’s degree in finance and accounting. He was raised in a single parent family, and before his remand, he makes regular financial contributions to his mother. Since joining the workforce, he had stable employment and has been working in the field of finance and accounting. Prior to his resignation from the Company, he was earning a monthly salary of around HK$45,000.

11.  I was informed that during his remand, the defendant completed a certificate course on food hygiene.  He also completed seven theology courses.  

12.  Mr. Tim YU, counsel for the defendant, submits in mitigation that:

(i)  The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, saving court time and resources and demonstrating genuine remorse.

(ii)  He has a clear record and was previously of good character.

(iii)  He has expressed deep regret for his actions and has apologised to his former employer.

(iv)  He co-operated fully with the authorities and made full admissions in his interview.

(v)  He has reflected on his conduct during remand and is determined not to re-offend.

13.  I have read the defendant’s letter of mitigation, in which he states that he succumbed to greed and a gambling addiction, and expresses shame for betraying his employer’s trust.  He acknowledges the profound impact of his actions and the shame brought upon his family.

SENTENCING APPROACH

14.  Before sentencing the defendant, I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the background and the mitigation and the authorities submitted.

15.  The maximum penalty for “theft” is 10 years’ imprisonment.  For “money laundering”, the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment and a fine.

16.  In cases involving breach of trust by an employee, the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2008] 1 HKC 113 first laid down guideline bands based on the amount stolen which was later revised in HKSAR v NG Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017.  The revised guidelines are as follows:

(a)  Over $15 million – 10 years or more;

(b)  $3 million to $15 million – 5 to 10 years;

(c)  $1 million to $3 million – 3 to 5 years;

(d)  $250,000 to $1 million – 2 to 3 years;

(e)  Less than $250,000 – less than 2 years.

17.  The court must also consider the factors set out in R v Barrick (1985)  81 Cr App R 78 as applied in Cheung Mee Kiu, including: the degree of trust reposed; the period over which the offences were committed; the use of the stolen money; the effect on the victim; the impact on public confidence, the effect upon fellow employees and partners; the effect on the offender himself; his own history and those matters of mitigation special to himself.

18.  For multiple offences, the court should first determine an appropriate sentence for each charge, then apply the totality principle to ensure the overall sentence reflects the total criminality: HKSAR v Wong Chor Wo and another CACC 314/2006; Secretary for Justice v Yu Chun-hing [2022] 1 HKLRD 97, as applied in Secretary of Justice v Nones Carmelita Galay [2022] HKCA 1081.

19.  A timely guilty plea warrants a full one-third discount.

ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS

20.  In the present case, I judge that the following aggravating features are present:

(i)  Gross breach of trust: the defendant occupied a senior financial position with sole control over substantial company funds. His offences represent a blatant and sustained betrayal of his employer’s trust and as properly conceded by Mr. YU, his conduct has “undermined the integrity expected of those in financial control roles.”

(ii)  Substantial amount: The total stolen amount exceeds HK$19 million, placing the case at the top end of the guideline band.

(iii)  Sophistication and duration: The offending (thefts)  spanned over a period about 19 months and involved multiple methods: misuse of blank cheques, manipulation of e-banking systems, creation of false records, and laundering through several accounts.

(iv)  Money laundering: Charges 4 and 5 involve dealing with substantial sums (HK$2,594,612 and HK$1,320,000)  to conceal the illicit origin of the proceeds, undermining the integrity of the financial system.

(v)  Personal gain: The stolen money was used to fund his gambling habits and the purchase of luxury watches and vehicle, demonstrating greed and a lavish lifestyle financed by theft.

21.  In mitigation, I give full weight to the defendant’s timely guilty plea, clear record, co-operation with the police during investigation, and expressed remorse.  Before the hearing, I had also made enquiry through the police about the impact of the thefts on the Company, and I was told that although the Company suffered a substantial financial loss in this case, there was no adverse impact on their financial position.  

STARTING POINTS & SENTENCES

Theft charges (Charge 1-3)

22.  In mitigation, Mr. YU had set out the starting points for Charge 1-3 as 32 months, 66 months and 116 months respectively based on a strict mathematical approach.  He invites the Court however not to adopt too strict a mathematical approach in arriving at the starting points.  In support of this proposition, the defence refers to the following recent cases:

(i)  HKSAR v Leung Chi Yuen [2018] HKCFI 1190

(ii)  HKSAR v Tong Chi Ling Eric [2021] HKCFI 2839

(iii)  HKSAR v Chan Mei Ling Sydney [2023] HKCFI 2754

(iv)  HKSAR v Chan Yiu Choi [2025] HKCFI 1814

(v)  HKSAR v Tam Lai Yin [2025] 3 HKLRD 112

23.  Having gone through the above cases cited, Mr. YU observes that the sentencing judges in all the above cases did not impose a starting point over 10 years when the theft case involved more than HK$15 million.  In the cases of Chan Mei Ling Sydney and Chan Yiu Choi where the offences were involved over HK$15 million, the sentencing judges there adopted a starting point of 8 years.  This demonstrates that the sentencing judges have a wide discretion in determining the appropriate starting point for serious theft cases, despite the relevant sentencing guidelines.

24.  With reference to the case of Tong Chi Ling Eric where there was a theft charge involving about HK$1.2 million, the sentencing judge there adopted a starting point of 2 years.  For charge 1, it is submitted that in the present case which involves HK$748,000, it is not inappropriate to set the starting point to below 15 months.

25.  With reference to the case of Chan Mei Ling Sydney where there is a charge involving over HK$4 million, the sentencing judge there adopted a starting point of 5 years.  For Charge 2, it is submitted that the present case which involves about HK$4.45 million, it is not inappropriate to set the starting point to below 5 years.

26.  It is submitted that for Charge 3 in the present case which involves not more than HK$15 million, it is not inappropriate to set the starting point to below 7 years.

Money Laundering Charges (Charge 4-5)

27.  In HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012]2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal identified some of the significant features, for which the court should take into account in sentencing money laundering cases. They include the nature of the predicate offence, if known, and the penalty available for the predicate offence; any international dimension; the sophistication of the offence, including the degree of planning; whether there is one transaction or many and the length of time over which the offence was committed; whether the offender continues to launder funds after he has discovered as a fact that the funds are the proceeds of an offence or after he has discovered the nature of an offence which is serious; and whether a benefit has been received and if so, the nature and size of the benefit.

28.  In Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung(雲國強)  [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the Court of Appeal had held that the sentencing starting point is 3 years or so where the ‘black money’ involved is between 1 million and 2 million dollars,4 years or so where it is between 3 million and 6 million dollars, and could be over 5 years where it is above 10 million dollars.

29.  In considering the appropriate sentence for the two money laundering counts, Mr. YU prays in aid the following factors:

(i)  The predicate offence was theft, and not more serious crimes;

(ii)  the laundering activities were carried with the defendant committing the underlying predicate offence between 7 April 2021 and 20 June 2023;

(iii)  while the defendant’s money laundering activities may have some sophistication involving a number of bank accounts, it was not a converted or cleverly planned laundering scheme that can avoid detection. In fact, most of the money laundered was eventually directed to the defendant and was easily traceable;

(iv)  there was no international dimension involved; and

(v)  there was no criminal syndicate involved.

30.  Based on the above and subject to the further reduction for his full cooperation with the police, the defence proposes: (1) for Charge 4, the starting point should not be more than 36 months; (2) for Charge 5, the starting point should not be more than 42 months; and (3) Charge 4 should be served concurrently with Charge 5.

31.  Mr. YU submits that all charges should be run concurrently because: (1) the money laundering activities were committed during the thefts. The one-transaction rule should apply; and (2) the thefts and money laundering activities share proximity of time and were part of the same transaction.

32.  If the Court considers the sentence of theft not comprehended and reflected the criminality for the money laundering offences, the defence proposes not more than 6 months of the sentence for the money laundering charges should be made consecutive to the theft sentences.

33.  In considering the appropriate individual sentence and the overall sentence for all the five charges in this case, I bear in mind that the relevant sentencing principles and guidelines.  I am grateful to Mr. YU to have brought to my attention the authorities he has cited in mitigation but each case has its own facts and the circumstances of the offender and the offences are different.

34.  Having considered the above, I adopt the following starting points before discount for plea:

Charge	Amount	Starting Point
1	$748,000	2 years
2	$4,455,544	4 years 6 months
3	$14,021,786.05	7 years
4	$2,594,612	3 years 3 months
5	$1,320,000	3 years

35.  Applying an one-third discount for the guilty plea, the sentences become:

Charge	Sentence after discount
1	16 months
2	3 years
3	4 years 8 months
4	26 months
5	2 years

TOTALITY

36.  Taking a step back, I find that the overall starting point for the three theft charges should be 9 years and the overall starting point for the two money laundering charges should be 1 year.  The defence asks for a concurrent sentence in respect of all theft and money laundering charges.  I disagree.  According to HKSAR v Tam Lai Yin [2025] 3 HKLRD 112, it was held that whether the sentences for an offender who committed both money laundering and the predicate offence should be imposed concurrently or consecutively was determined by applying the totality principle. The court considered whether the sentence for one offence could comprehend and reflect the criminality for the other offence, or whether the commission of money laundering involved extra culpability.

37.  In my judgment, the money laundering in this case represents a distinct and serious step of deliberate processing of HK$3,914,612 through a third-party account to conceal its origin, and that involved extra culpability and must be marked by a consecutive sentence, making a global starting point of 10 years imprisonment (120 months).  

38.  For his full co-operation with the police and his hitherto clear record, I will further grant a 3 months’ reduction, bringing down the notional starting point of 120 months to 117 months and a resulting overall sentence of 6 years and 6 months imprisonment (78 months)  for 5 charges after the one-third discount on account of his plea.  

39.  Charges 1-3 represent a continuous course of theft from the same employer.  Charges 4-5 involve laundering the proceeds of that theft.  In order to achieve the above resultant sentence and to reflect the overall criminality while avoiding an excessive sentence, I order:

(i)  The sentences for Charges 2 and 3 shall be served concurrently but consecutively with the sentence for Charge 1, making a total of 6 years (72 months)  which will form the principal sentence.

(ii)  To reflect the additional criminality of laundering, 4 months of the sentence for Charge 4 and 2 months of the sentence for Charge 5 shall be served consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1-3.

(iii)  The remaining portions of the sentences for Charges 4 and 5 shall be served concurrently with each other and with the sentence for Charges 1-3.

40.  This results in a total sentence of 6 years and 6 months imprisonment.

CONCLUSION

41.  This is a serious case of sustained theft and money laundering involving a gross breach of trust, substantial sums, and sophisticated money laundering methods.  Despite the mitigation, a deterrent sentence is necessary to mark the gravity of the offending and to uphold the public confidence in the integrity of financial professionals.

42.  The defendant is sentenced to a total of 6 years and 6 months imprisonment.

43.  The prosecution also made an application under s.102 (2)(a)(i)  of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance(Cap. 221)  that the 4 luxury watches (exhibit nos. 13-16)  seized by the police at the defendant’s home be delivered to the Company.

44.  According to the Amended Summary of Facts, under caution, the defendant admitted, inter alias, that the monies that purchased these 4 watches were originated from gambling winnings after he had spent the stolen funds from the Company on gambling. It is only just and proper that the Company is entitled to the ownership of these watches to compensate in part of their financial loss suffered in this case. In any event, this application is not objected by the defendant and I so order accordingly.