HKSAR v. WONG LIN TAK

DCCC 448/2021

[2021] HKDC 1615

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 448 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a single charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. This is a case where the defendant stole from his employer some goods whilst at work and sold them for money.

Facts

2.  At all material times, the defendant was employed by Qiteng Electronic Technology Limited (“the Company”)  as a warehouse worker.  On 23 February 2021, the manager of the Company conducted a stock check and found 1893 pieces of Intel CPU (“the CPU”)  missing.

3.  On the next day on 24 February, when being asked about the CPU, the defendant admitted that he stole and sold them out of greed.

4.  The case was reported on 25 February and the defendant was arrested on the same day.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that he stole the CPU from the warehouse and had sold them to repay his debt incurred from gambling.  In subsequent cautioned interview, the defendant further admitted that he stole the CPU whilst at work on 11 February 2021 and sold them for HK$250,000.  He had spent all the money.

5.  The Company suffered a loss of HK$716,310 as a result of the theft.

Criminal record

6.  The criminal record of the defendant shows he appeared in court on two occasions amassing 32 convictions, all but three being as to theft.  The three were fraud, burglary and attempted theft.

The defendant’s background and mitigation

7.  Counsel for the defendant told the court that the defendant is now 33 years old, single.  His father is aged 70, retired.  His mother is aged 60, working as an elderly home attendant.  His brother is aged 35 and is gainfully employed.  The defendant completed a diploma in accountancy in Hong Kong in 2008.  He had worked as an auditing clerk and accountant, curtains salesman and business souvenir gifts salesman in the past.  Prior to his arrest for the present offence, he was a warehouse worker earning HK$15,000 per month. 

8.  Counsel for the defendant informed the court that the defendant committed the present offence because he was heavily indebted to six to seven finance companies, in the amount of HK$300,000 due to gambling.  He was constantly harassed by debt collectors when he was not able to repay the debt. Then he stole the CPU from the Company and sold them in an attempt to make good the money.

9.  Counsel for the defendant prayed in aid the defendant’s immediate confession to the crime and full co-operation with the police.  Counsel submitted that the defendant made a frank admission to the manager even when there was no actual evidence against him.

10.  Counsel further submitted that although the Company suffered a financial loss of HK$716,310 as a result of the theft, the defendant had only gained HK$250,000 from the sale of the stolen CPU.  The defendant has spent all the money on repaying his own debt and is unable to pay any restitution.

11.  Counsel accepted that the guidelines in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776 and HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing and Anor, CACC  398/2007 are applicable to this case.

12.  Counsel submitted that although the defendant had 32 convictions, he had only two court appearances and was last released from prison between July and September 2019.  He managed to stay law abiding for about 1.5 years before he committed the present offence.  Counsel urged the court not to enhance the sentence for his previous record.

Consideration

13.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for the offence of theft is 10 years’ imprisonment.

14.  This is a case of theft from employer, which involves a requirement of trust and a breach of his duty to his employer.  The sentencing guidelines as laid down in the case of Cheung Mee Kiu, as updated in the case of Ng Kwok Wing apply.  For theft of HK$250,000 to HK$1,000,000, the range of sentence is 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment.

15.  The defendant’s commission of the theft was straightforward.  He acted alone.  He made immediate frank admission when confronted by the manager of the Company.  He was very co-operative with the police and admitted everything under caution.

16.  Taking into account the above factors and the amount of financial loss of the Company resulting from the theft, an arithmetic application of the guidelines would lead to a sentence of around 30 months’ imprisonment.

17.  I adopt a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment.

18.  Although the defendant has only two court appearances and was able to stay away from trouble for 1.5 years before committing the present offence, he has a total of 32 convictions for offences which are either identical or similar to the present offence.  In my view, this is an aggravating feature.  I enhance the starting point by 3 month’s imprisonment to 33 months’ imprisonment on this basis.

19.  The only real mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s plea of guilty. 

20.  Giving the defendant full credit for his guilty plea, he is sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment.