HKSAR v. LAW KWAI YING

DCCC 426/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 426 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of theft. Defendant had been working as an accounting officer of Cornwall Contracting Company Limited for about 30 years. Her duties included preparation of payroll, MPF, overtime expenses, leave application and other financial accounting documents of the company. For cheque payments, defendant was required to prepare the details, including the date, payee, amount and together with payment voucher for the boss, Mr Yung, to sign.

2.  In April 2013, Mr Yung was informed by the Inland Revenue Department that the payroll expenses in the submitted financial statements were much higher than that stated in the employer’s return of remuneration.  It was suspected that the company had overstated the payroll expenses.

3.  As a result, Mr Yung engaged an accountant to review the matter, and it was found that certain accounting records provided by the defendant for the preparation of the financial statement for the company were overstated or falsified.

4.  In about August each year, defendant would provide all the relevant financial documents and payment vouchers for the accountant to prepare the report.  Defendant would also fill in the company’s return and submit it to the IRD.

5.  For the period between 3 May 2006 and August 2012, 193 cheques were drawn from the company’s bank account in HSBC.  The amount on each cheque was found overstated and exaggerated, and the cheques were deposited into 14 bank accounts in defendant’s name, and the total amount drawn dishonestly by the defendant is $6,961,975.62.

6.  Mr Yung talked to the defendant on 3 occasions, where the defendant admitted stealing moneys from the company.

7.  In a video-recorded interview, defendant admitted that she was the accounting officer of the company for about 30 years, responsible for preparation of payroll, MPF, overtime expenses, leave application and relevant cheques on behalf of the company.  She had opened 14 bank accounts and prepared all the information in the cheque books and the relevant vouchers of the company and submitted to Mr Yung for endorsement, and she was also responsible for the preparation of the company’s return each year.

8.  Defendant, aged 52, clear record.  Mr Khosa submits that the underlying reason for the defendant’s committing the present offence was that she had suffered from a serious skin disease since 2003 and then colon cancer, and she just tried every way to cure by spending enormous sum in the medical expenses.

9.  Defendant admitted that she was very stupid and shameful for what she had done, and her husband’s letter also stated that the defendant was not going for luxury nor material spending but just because of the illness and thus asked for the court’s leniency. 

10.  Mr Khosa also submits some bank statements showing that defendant is now still in heavy debt and cannot possibly make any restitution.  Defendant pleaded guilty and admitted her wrongdoings in the earliest stage, and she hopes for a lenient sentence. 

11.  Theft is a serious offence.  The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776, HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing CACC 398/2007 and HKSAR v Lee Lai Kit Kitty CACC 379/2008 had set down the guidelines whereupon for theft in the amount between 3 million to 15 million, 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment should be imposed.  The court would also take into account other matters, including the quality and degree of trust reposed, the period of theft perpetrated, the use of money, the effect on the victim, the impact on the public and/or public confidence, the effect upon fellow employees and on defendant and also other relevant matters.

12.  In the present case, the amount involved was substantial, nearly 7 million.  It was a breach of trust by the defendant for a period of 6 years between 2006 and 2012 where 193 cheques were dishonestly drawn in favour of the defendant for her 14 bank accounts.

13.  From the Annex 1 submitted, it was shown that the amount of the cheques were altered in similar ways.  For examples, the original amount of the cheque was 1,152 on 3 July 2006, it was altered to 41,152; on 22 January 2008, the original amount of the cheques was just $2,000, but it was altered to 32,000.

14.  Defendant was the accounting officer of the company and the degree of trust reposed in her was high.  No doubt it would affect the financial condition of the company as well.  The facts were serious.

15.  For the amount of about 6.9 million, the appropriate starting point could be about or more than 6½ years’ imprisonment.  However, considering all the above mitigating factors, including the special personal circumstances of the defendant, particularly her ill health, and defendant pleaded guilty in the earliest opportunity, saving the court’s costs and time by pleading guilty and a person of clear record.  Taking all these matters into account, I would consider the appropriate starting point be 5½ years’ imprisonment, to be reduced to 44 months upon guilty plea.

16.  Therefore, defendant is sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment.