HKSAR v. LI CHUN WAI

DCCC145/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 145 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to seven charges of theft. The offences were committed between 3 December 2009 and 10 August 2010. The total amount stolen was $3,794,358.80.

2.  At the time of the commission of the offence, the defendant was working for a law firm called S Cheng & Yeung, and he was employed as a clerk by that firm. One of the partners for convenience would sign some blank cheques and keep them in the safe in the account office of the firm. Only that partner and his accounting clerk had the key and code for the safe. However, the key was kept in an unlocked drawer and the code in a file.

3.  An annual staff audit revealed that there were abnormal transactions in relation to the cheques of the company. It was discovered that a total of $3,794,358.80 was paid to the defendant’s personal account from seven bank accounts of the firm by 32 cheques. A sum of $520,000 was later deposited to the firm’s Bank of China account on 23 August 2010 in order to settle part of the missing sum.

4.  On 30 September 2010, the partner made enquiries with the defendant who admitted that he had stolen the cheques from the safe and drew cheques payable to himself. The defendant and his family had repaid a total sum of $262,100 to the firm and signed a note on 2 October 2010 to confirm the repayments. However, thereafter, the defendant went missing and the matter was reported to the police.

5.  On 20 December 2010, the defendant was arrested at the departure hall of the Hong Kong-Macau Ferry Terminal and in a subsequent video-recorded interview he remained silent.

6.  The defendant has a clear record. He was educated to Form 5 standard. He is 20 years of age but was only 19 at the time he committed these offences. Since the commission of the offences, he has been working as a computer technician. He is single and lives with his parents.

7.  I adjourned the case on the last occasion so that I could have the advantage of a background report on the defendant. The report reveals that the defendant used to live with his father and elder brother at a Home Ownership Scheme flat in Tsing Tai Court, and on the arrival of his Chinese stepmother and young half-brother for reunion with his father, the defendant and his elder brother moved to the elder brother’s newly purchased flat in 2008.

8.  Paragraph 2 of the report shows that the accused and his elder brother were born to a broken family. His parents divorced after his birth, and since then, the children were entrusted to the care of parental grandparents at their home in Wong Tai Sin. His father engaged in oil painting canvas trading on the mainland. I am told that the children returned to the father’s Home Ownership Scheme flat during the middle schooldays. However, the father-son relationship remained distant after the father got remarried and built his new family in Shenzhen. The defendant’s mother also remarried but maintained contact during weekends.

9.  According to the report, due to the minimal parental supervision, the accused’s academic performance had been poor throughout his middle education, but they comment that he was nevertheless a talented member of the school basketball team, and he managed to pass some of the subjects in his HKCEE.

10.  Paragraph 5 of the report says that unfortunately, the accused once visited the casino for fun with his mother and brother, and since then, he had frequented the MGM Casino in Macau after work twice a week. He also claimed to have visited those mahjong parlours in Mongkok. After losing heavily at the baccarat table, he was tempted to steal from his company repeatedly with the hope of recovering the loss at the casino.

11.  The defendant told the probation officer that he very much regretted to have let his parental grandmother down and preferred to withhold his arrest from her. I am told that the defendant’s father felt guilty for parental negligence due to his engagement in trading in Shenzhen. The report states that the father-son relationship was so distant that the accused did not even know the name of his stepmother or young half-brother. The probation officer states that his involvement in gambling arose out of boredom and disorientation, and under the stress of recovering the heavy loss, he soon became a compulsive gambler to steal from his employer repeatedly to try his luck on the baccarat or mahjong tables.

12.  The report concludes that family support and psychological service are necessary to assist the defendant to rid him of his vice habit.

13.  The offences which the defendant has committed are very serious, and the amount involved is substantial. I am aware that the defendant and his family have tried to repay some of the money and so far, $782,100 has been repaid. I am conscious of the fact that the defendant was only 19 at the time these offences were committed, and the most serious of the charges is Charge 6 which relates to the theft of $3.4 million. That alone would attract a sentence of 5 to 8 years.

14.  The offences involved a gross breach of trust. There was little sophistication about the way in which the offences were committed and he was bound to be discovered.

15.  In respect of the first five offences, I take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 12 months and order that those sentences run concurrently.

16.  As regards Charge 6 which is the most serious offence, I propose to take a lower starting point than that recommended in view of the defendant’s age and the mitigation. I propose to take a starting point of 4 and a half years and reduce that to 3 years to reflect his guilty plea.

17.  In respect of Charge 7, I take a starting point of 2 years and reduce that to 16 months to reflect the guilty plea, and I order that all the sentences shall run concurrently. So the defendant will go to prison for a term of 3 years.