NG YAT HING v. R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1993, No. 382
(Criminal)

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Yang, CJ:

1. On 13 July 1993, the applicant pleaded guilty to nine charges of theft before His Honour Deputy Judge O'Donnell, and was sentenced to a totality of two years and four months' imprisonment. For Charges 2, 3, 5, 9, 11 to 15, the sentence on each charge was two years' imprisonment, and the sentences for Charges 1, 4 and 10, two years and four months on each charge because the amounts involved were larger.

2. Briefly, the facts are these. The defendant was the accounts clerk of a company called Gemex since early 1991. Between October 1991 and February 1993, she stole a large number of cheques belonging to Gemex. On 53 occasions, she completed cheques drawn on the Gemex's account at the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank and forged the signatures of the Manager and Divisional Manager on those cheques. The total amount stolen by this means came to $6,276,000, of which $685,715.78 was recovered. On each occasion except one, the cheques were made payable to a company called Perfect Coins and were deposited into the margin investment account in the name of her mother and brother, the remaining cheque was made payable to her father's company. The funds were then paid into the margin investment account in the name of her father.

3. The judge, in assessing sentence, took into account her plea of guilty, her clear record and her good background as shown in the Probation Officer's Report. However, this in our view is a serious offence, committed over a long period of time, and it involved a very large sum of money, only a fraction of which was recovered. The applicant, in her address to us this morning, informed us that the management system, or the lack of it, of the companies involved, i.e., Gemex and Perfect Coins, was such that she was led to commit the offence, or that she was given the facilities to commit these offences. However, in our view, the fact remains that she had committed a very serious breach of trust, particularly having regard to her position in Gemex as an accounts clerk. She has also told us her own personal background as well as that of her family. We are of the view that the totality of the sentence is manifestly inadequate for the reasons we have already given. We would therefore allow the application, treat the application as hearing of the appeal and allow the appeal. We quash the sentence imposed in the lower court and increase it by one year on each count. The totality is now therefore three years and four months.