HKSAR v. MOK SIN CHI, TERENCE

DCCC515/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 515 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to three charges of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.  The facts of the case are very straightforward. The defendant started to work as a part-time member of staff with the victim company in 2004.  In 2006, he was employed full-time by the same company.  His role was that of an accounting clerk. 

3.  This company only had three employees in Hong Kong.  There was PW2 who was the assistant general manager, and a company director who was an authorised signature of the company’s bank accounts but never in Hong Kong.  

4.  PW2, the assistant general manager, would receive from the director pre-signed cheques to deal with the company’s business.  He would in turn then pass those pre-signed blank cheques to the defendant.  He himself clearly did not have much involvement in the dealings of the company’s bank accounts.

5.  Over three years between January 2006 and November 2009, the defendant stole just over $4 million from the company by issuing cheques to himself, a total of 49 cheques.  It was not until January 2010 when the Hong Kong Inland Revenue Department made enquiries with the company did this matter come to light.  When PW2, the assistant general manager, asked the defendant to assist the Inland Revenue’s enquiries, the defendant then confessed to having stolen this amount of money from the company.

6.  When the defendant was arrested he admitted stealing this amount and using it to gamble on the stock market.  He lost almost all that money.  This period of time would coincide with the global financial crisis. 

7.  There are three charges, the defendant has pleaded to three charges but the fact is he stole this amount of money by misusing pre-signed cheques.  A global approach to sentence is appropriate. 

8.  The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty today.  It demonstrates his remorse.  In addition, he has fully cooperated with the police during the course of their investigation.  They were not required to investigate each and every cheque issued by the company, the defendant provided a list of the cheques that he misused and the amount that corresponded to each cheque.

9.  He was until today a man with no criminal convictions.  He is 36 years old and has recently married.  Clearly, from the facts, temptation was too great in this case.  The defendant was left to his own devices; the company left him with no checks and safeguards in the company accounting system; he was handed blank pre-signed cheques and he could not resist misusing them.  However, the sum of money stolen is large.  Moreover, these offences took place over a long period of time. 

10.  The facts point to a classic breach of trust scenario.  Several recent authorities have set out guidelines for the courts.  The authority of Cheung Mei Kui, CACC99/2006 applied the English guidelines to Hong Kong.  Since then the authority of Ng Kwok Wing, CACC398/2007 and Yeung Chiu, CACC105/2009 have fine-tuned the guidelines of Cheung Mei Kiu. 

11.  In essence, a theft of between HK$3 million and HK$15 million will attract a sentence of between 5 and 10 years’ imprisonment.  Guidelines are for guidance, they are not strait- jackets.  A starting point can be adjusted upwards or downwards to a certain degree based on mitigation and circumstances of each individual case.   

12.  In this case, there is no excuse to say that the defendant could not resist temptation, but the company certainly made it very easy for the defendant to steal this amount of money, unchecked over a long period of time.

13.  After considering mitigation, the defendant’s clear record and plea today, as well as the sum of approximately $4 million stolen, globally I will take a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment to reflect mitigation and clear record. 

14.  Defendant, please stand up.

15.  You have pleaded guilty, you will be entitled to a discount of one-third for this plea.  This would leave a total sentence of 3 years and 4 months, which I find appropriate when considering the sum involved here.  As there are three charges, I intend to impose the following sentences:

Charge 1: I impose a sentence of 3 years and 4 months;

Charge 2: a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment;

Charge 3: a sentence of 1 year imprisonment.

All three charges will be served concurrently. That is a total of 3 years and 4 months.