HKSAR v. KOO WILLIAM WILLY

DCCC 152/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 152 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to four charges of theft.

2.  Dubbing House International Limited (the company) is a private limited company owned by Wong Kai-ming (PW1) and Lam See-chung (PW2).  Both of them are also directors of the company.

3.  The company has a current account with the Shanghai Commercial Bank.  The defendant has been employed by the company since year 2000 and became the accounts clerk of the company from 2008.

4.  On 30 December 2014, PW1 found out many of the cheque stubs of the company cheque book were blank.  Upon PW1’s enquiry, the defendant confessed to him that he had been stealing from the company since December 2012 for gambling in Macau.  PW1 escorted the defendant to surrender to the police station.

5.  Under caution, the defendant confessed to the police that as he owed a lot of credit card debts due to gambling, he stole the company’s money for his daily living and settling of his gambling debt. 

6.  Subsequent investigation revealed that the defendant stole a total sum of HK$5,702,761 from the company.

7.  

8.  Between 1 June 2012 and 29 December 2014, a total of 457 cheques with the defendant as the payee were presented and cashed.  Most of the cheques had forged signatures of PW1 and PW2.  The total amount of money stolen by these cheques was $5,666,921 (Charge 1). 

9.  On 29 July 2013, 17 September 2013 and 30 May 2014, PW1 gave HK$17,340, 12,000 and 6,500 respectively in cash to the defendant to deposit into the company’s account.  The defendant did not do so (Charges 2 to 4).

10.  The defendant has one previous conviction for theft in 1999 when he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment. 

11.  In mitigation, Mr Cheng, solicitor for the defendant, tells the court that the defendant is a 50-year-old singleton living in a public estate.  He suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure.  The court is told that the defendant committed the offences because of his gambling habit.  He lost all the money he stole in gambling in Macau.  He is now very sorry for what he has done but he is unable to compensate his employer.  He offers his apology to his employer.

12.  Mr Cheng asks the court to consider that the defendant has co-operated with the police all along and he pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity.

13.  Accepting that this was a breach of trust case, Counsel for the defendant refers me to the sentencing guidelines in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 476 and HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 101, which adjusted the guidelines in the former case.  The relevant band of sentence for theft involving 3 million to 15 million dollars is 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment.

14.  Breach of trust involving a substantial amount of money is a serious offence.   Apart from the amount of money stolen, all surrounding circumstances of the case must also be looked at (see R v Barrick [1985] 81 Cr App Rep 78 and R v Trevor Clark [1998] 2 Cr App Rep 137). 

15.  Undoubtedly, this was a blatant breach of trust case.  The defendant’s employer reposed high degree of trust in the defendant. Being employed as an accounts clerk, he used the cheque book of the company. Yet he breached his employer’s trust and committed the offences over a period of two and a half years on more than 450 occasions only to satisfy his gambling habit.  No restitution has ever been made.  His employer has suffered a very substantial loss.

16.  Charge 1 involves about $5.6 million.  I take 6 years’ imprisonment as the starting point. 

17.  Charges 2 to 4 involve small sums of money.  I take a starting point at 6 months for each of the offences.  On the totality principle, these sentences should run concurrently with the sentence in Charge 1.

18.  The defendant is entitled to one-third discount for his guilty plea.  There are no other mitigating factors in this case.

19.  The defendant is sentenced as follows:  Charge 1, 4 years’ imprisonment; Charges 2 to 4, each sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment, all sentences to run concurrently with each other and also concurrently with the sentence in Charge 1.   The total term of imprisonment is therefore 4 years’ imprisonment.