HKSAR v. LI KWOK HIN

HCCC 444/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 444 OF 2014

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to three charges of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

The three offences disclose that you stole a total of 276 pieces of jewellery between the end of 2011 and 24 June 2012. The thefts all involve what is commonly referred to as a breach of trust.

At that time you were one of the employees of a company called Emperor Jade Limited. You and another employee were the employees engaged in dealing with the company’s business of selling jewellery. You had been entrusted with the keys to the vault and the password to open the vault. You were, of course also entrusted to deal with the jewellery at the company.

The company was owned by one Madam Ng who is your aunt. You started to work at the company when you were aged 30 in 2004. You were arrested, when the offences came to light, on 24 June 2013. At that time you had held the position of a manager and had been working for the company for some 9 years.

In respect of Charge 1, you have admitted that you stole Madam Ng’s personal jewellery which she left in the company vault to the value of $8,193,000. This entailed 43 items of jewellery of which six were recovered from the pawn shops.

In respect of the 2nd charge, that concerned a theft from the company itself, of which you stole 228 jewellery pieces. The purchase price of these pieces were $16,992,244. Seventy of those stolen items were recovered; sixty-four were redeemed by Madam Ng’s son from the pawn shops; and six were recovered by the police from the pawn shops.

In respect of Charge 3, you had stolen five pieces of jewellery belonging to a company called Arslanian & Wright. The value of that jewellery was in the sum of $280,800. Four of those pieces were redeemed from the pawn shops, and the remaining piece of jewellery was seized from you.

In the period of about one-and-a-half years of these offences, you took the jewellery stolen and pawned them at various pawn shops in return for cash.

Upon your arrest, 79 pawn shop tickets were found. It could be seen that between 29 August 2012 and 21 June 2013 you received a total of $7,705,000 from the pawn shops as a result of pawning the stolen jewellery.

When the company discovered the theft in mid-June 2013, it was reported to the police. You frankly disclosed to the police your misdeeds. In brief, you admitted that you stole the jewels and did so to gamble. You wereimmediately dismissed by the company on 13 June 2013.

Between 17 June and 22 June 2013, Madam Ng’s son and the accountant of the company spent about $1.5 million to redeem 69 pieces of jewellery from different pawn shops. You were eventually arrested on 24 June 2013 the day after the company made a report to the police.

Defendant, you are now aged 41. You are of clear record. You have attained upper secondary level education in Hong Kong and were born in Hong Kong.

In respect of your gambling, Mr John Hemmings, your counsel, has submitted to me three separate reports. They are a psychiatrist’s report, compiled by Dr Robyn Meiyee Ho, dated 1 September 2015; a psychologist’s report dated 8 September compiled by Dr Pang Kwok Hoi, Paul; and a letter by the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals, Even Centre, Counselling Centre for Problem Gambling, dated 7 September 2015.

In short, at the time you committed these offences, you appear to have been sufferingfrom a major depressive disorder, which was common for patients with a gambling disorder.

Mr Hemmings informs me that your disorder, or depression, was caused, principally, as a result of the breakdown of the marriage of your parents. They were eventually divorced in 2010. Prior to this time, I am informed you had never gambled before and, as can be seen, you were a law-abiding citizen.

In the beginning when you stole the jewellery you were just borrowing the jewellery, and then when you won money from gambling you then bought back the jewellery. However, as is often the case in gambling, you ended up losing and it spiralled out of control which led you to steal more and more.

I am informed that all your family are here today and are supportive of you. Your parents are here reunited before you despite their separation.

This is, of course, a serious breach of trust offence. Your aunt had given you a job and you, unfortunately, did not cherish the opportunity given to you by her. You resorted to your thievish acts to support your gambling habits.

As Mr Hemmings has recognised, the Court of Appeal have laid clear guidelines for sentencing for breach of trust cases in theft. These were laid down originally in Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776 and revised in Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1018.

The sentencing guidelines are as follows:

(1) For offences involving $15 million or more, a starting point of 10 years or above is appropriate.

(2) For amounts involving 3 to 15 million dollars, 5 to 10 years.

(3) For an amount involving 1 million to 3 million, 3 to 5 years.

(4) For an amount involving 250,000 to 1 million, 2 to 3 years.

(5) And involving 250,000 or less, below 2 years.

The loss to this company was substantial. In total it was $25,466,044. Although 69 pieces of jewellery were recovered, Madam Ng’s son paid out $1.5 million to redeem those pieces.

The recovery of these pieces of jewellery therefore, warrant no credit to the defendant.

The only effective mitigation, defendant, is your plea of guilty for which you will receive the customary one-third deduction.

I will take an overall global sentence on totality, and then I shall pass individual sentences for each charge.

In adopting the guidelines in Cheung Mee Kiu and Ng Kwok Wing, for the $25 million value of jewellery stolen, had you been convicted after trial, I would have taken a starting point of 11 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

Giving you the one-third discount, defendant, that will be sentenced to a term of 7 years 10 months.

I must now give you the sentence for each charge, individually.

For Charge 1, defendant, the value of the jewels was $8,193,000. I would have adopted a sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment after trial. Giving you credit for your plea of guilty, that term will be reduced to one of 5 years 4 months’ imprisonment.

In Charge 2, the value of the jewellery was $16,992,244. Had you been convicted after trial, I would have adopted a starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment. Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, that term will be reduced to one of 6 years 8 months’ imprisonment.

In Charge 3, the value of the jewellery was $280,000. Had you been convicted after trial, I would have adopted a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment. Giving you credit for your plea, that term will be reduced to 1 year 4 months’ imprisonment.

As the overall term to which I have sentenced you is 7 years 10 months, I order that 1 year and 2 months of Charge 1 is to run consecutive to Charge 2, and the remaining terms are to run concurrent to each other.