THE QUEEN v. WU SIK KIN AND ANOTHER

--------

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

JUDGMENT

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

Sir Derek Cons, VP, delivered the judgment of the Court:

1. Wu Sik Kin and Wong Yiu Kwong, the 1st and 2nd Defendants below, pleaded guilty before Judge Cameron in the District Court to the offence of conspiracy to defraud; the 1st Defendant pleaded also to six counts of theft.

2. The two executed their fraud by a very simple scheme. They billed one particular customer of the firm, in which they were both senior clerks, for more than they entered in the ledgers of the company; they then pocketed the difference. Unknown to the 2nd Defendant the 1st Defendant exploited the scheme to his own private benefit, and to a considerable extent. He was able to do so because it was he who dealt with the cheques issued by the particular customer; hence the six counts of theft with regard to the cheques. The face value of those cheques was almost $1.7 million of which the 1st Defendant kept for himself just under $1 million. For what it is worth the 2nd Defendant told the probation officer that he got only $80,000.

3. In passing sentence the judge made express allowance for the clear records of both and to their pleas of guilty. He sentenced the 1st Defendant to four years' imprisonment, the 2nd Defendant to two. Against those sentences they apply for leave to appeal.

4. Their applications have been ably presented by their respective counsel. We note that neither counsel has dwelled at length on any mitigating factors. That is not surprising because these cases are very much run of the mill of their kind. Both Defendants were otherwise respectable workers who sought to make up gambling losses out of monies belonging to the firm. In that respect there is nothing to choose between them.

5. Miss Moosdeen for the 1st Defendant would suggest that the same observation would apply to the offences themselves. She says the judge was wrong to say that the 2nd Defendant played a lesser role in the conspiracy. We would not agree. Looking at all that happened it seems to us that the judge was quite correct to make the distinction between them.

6. Counsel have referred us to several authorities. They have analysed the facts and drawn our attention to the sentences that were passed. However we cannot say that the judge erred in the approach he took. Having regard to the sentences passed in the other cases, we are not persuaded that these two sentences were manifestly excessive. The applications must be refused.