HKSAR v. LUI YU ON AND OTHERS

DCCC 1444/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1444 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  This case involved a serious and flagrant breach of trust. D1 was convicted of 23 charges of theft offence after trial. The embezzlement commenced when D1 was promoted to personnel manager of CLT Management Ltd. (“CLT”).

2.  Being the personnel manager of the CLT D1 was responsible for the administration of the payroll of the CLT and its three associated companies.

3.  He abused his privileged and trusted position to steal from these companies. As a result, a total sum worth approximately HK$1.37m was stolen from his employer. The criminality of D1 was aggravated by an abuse of confidence reposed on him by his employer. There was no sign of remorse and regret on D1’s part.

4.  The whole affair was very much premeditated and with considerable plots. It was being carried out over a period of about 8 months and on numerous occasions. The plots were effectively formulated and completed by D1 with his active persistence.

5.  Guidelines for theft charges involving breach of trust were set out in the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v. Cheung Mee Kiu CACC 99/2006 which are applicable to this case. The nature of the present case was similar to Cheung’s case, which involved an employee who stole money from his employer. The appropriate range of sentence for the following financial bands after trial was as follows:-

HK$1m to HK$3m	3-4 years
HK$250,000 to HK$1m	2-3 years
less than HK$250,000	less then 2 years

6.  In this case the total loss incurred was slightly under HK$1.37m. Had the overall criminally been reflected by a single charge and by applying the guidelines, a starting point of 3-4 years would have been appropriate .

7.  Total loss incurred by Jet Honour: HK$427,441.87

Charge 1	HK$19,406.45
Charge 4	HK$19,786.00
Charge 6	HK$9,864.20
Charge 9	HK$20,304.50
Charge 12	HK$63,919.98
Charge 15	HK$79,933.85
Charge 18	HK$99,345.28
Charge 21	HK$114,881.61

8.  Total loss incurred by Ryan: HK$543,573.26

Charge 2	HK$19,406.45
Charge 5	HK$19,786.00
Charge 7	HK$9,864.20
Charge 10	HK$20,304.50
Charge 13	HK$105,607.96
Charge 16	HK$99,522.25
Charge 19	HK$124,146.60
Charge 22	HK$144,935.30

9.  Total loss incurred by CLT: HK$9,864.20

Charge 8

HK$9,864.20

10.  Total loss incurred by Profit Wise: HK$388,327.88

Charge 3	HK$9,318.23
Charge 11	HK$9,864.20
Charge 14	HK$85,226.64
Charge 17	HK$77,777.41
Charge 20	HK$92,263.96
Charge 23	HK$113,877.44

11.  Having fully considered all the circumstances of the case including the background of the offences and that of D1, the sentence in form of imprisonment for each offence is as follows:-

Charge (1)     6 months 

  (2)     6 months 

  (3)     6 months 

  (4)     6 months 

  (5)     6 months 

  (6)     6 months    

  (7)     6 months

  (8)     6 months

  (9)     6 months

 (10)    6 months

 (11)    6 months

 (12)    6 months

 (13)    9 months

 (14)    6 months

 (15)    6 months

 (16)    9 months

 (17)    6 months

 (18)    9 months

 (19)    12 months

 (20)    9 months

 (21)    9 months

 (22)    12 months

 (23)    9 months

12.  Some of the offences were committed on the same day though inter-connected but were against different companies, this court will therefore consider each of them to be a separate and distinct offence.

13.  When applying the principle of totality, proportionality of punishment in a multi-charges case is duly observed. This court will ensure that the ultimate sentence to be served is proportionate and appropriate to the overall culpability/total criminality of the offender.

14.  Thus, partially consecutive sentences of imprisonment should be imposed to give effect to the appropriate totality.

1 month

of the sentence on each of charges 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17 shall run consecutively to Charge 1.

2 month

of the sentence on each of charges 13, 16, 18, 20, 21 and 23 shall run consecutively to Charge 1.

3 month

of the sentence on charges 19 and 22 shall run consecutively to Charge 1.

The remainder is to run concurrently. The total term of imprisonment to be served shall be 38 months.