HKSAR v. CHEUNG OI PING

DCCC964/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 964 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to seven charges of theft and one charge of attempted theft. In total you have pleaded guilty to eight charges. The theft charges are contrary to Section 9 of the Theft Ordinance and the eighth charge of attempted theft is contrary to the same Ordinance and Section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance.

2.  The facts can be very briefly stated.  Whilst you were an accounts clerk working for a company called Ta Chung Shipping Company, otherwise known as Ta Chung, you forged the signatures of the shareholders and signed cheques to the amount of $1.91 million of which $1.6 million of seven cheques were honoured, that is, the cheques of charges 1 to 7.  The last charge, the attempted theft, was a cheque which was dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient funds and that was in the amount of $220,000.  The offences were committed in May and June 2012.  

3.  You had commenced working for this company nine months prior to May, that was in August 2011. You were unauthorised to sign any cheques and thus stole the monies involved.

4.  Clearly this case is one of a breach of trust.  Whilst working as an accounts clerk you were given the duties of keeping the cheque books safe and preparing the cheques for the shareholder’s signatures.  You breached the trust placed in you and stole cash the sum of $1.69 million and attempted to steal a further amount of $220,000.

5.  You had deposited these cheques into either your own account or an account of a male person called Hong Lok-pong.  The amount you deposited into your own account was an amount of $1.11 million and the amount you deposited into Mr Hong’s account was $580,000.

6.  You are aged 43.  You have one previous conviction of which there 11 similar charges related to theft.  In October 2009, you were sentenced to 2 years 4 months’ imprisonment on each charge.  I am told by your solicitor Mr Yuen that the facts were similar to this case whereby you were an accounts clerk working for a company, signed forged cheques and stole a similar amount of money.  You were released from prison on 5 May 2011.  Three months later you acquired the job with this present company and later became involved in these offences.

7.  I have taken into account the mitigation said on your behalf by Mr Yuen and also the very detailed letter you have written to me.  In brief, the reason for you committing this offence was because of your unhappy married life, the fact that you lived with your in-laws whom you did not have a cordial relationship with and to relieve you of your pressure and stress you then turned to gambling.  As you incurred high debts in gambling you stole this money to repay back your gambling losses.

8.  This also occurred on the last occasion which I am told were offences committed between 2007 and 2009. You committed the present offence again because you reached an extremely low point of your life and felt that you were treated very harshly by your husband and your in-laws.  You have a daughter who is aged 17 and you say you deeply care for her and as a result of your imprisonment this will affect her upbringing.  You now have made every intention to turn anew and with the help of the clergymen in the prison, you have assured me you will turn anew when you are released from custody.

9.  I do not need to tell you that for these types of offences there are clear tariff guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal.  You have been sentenced for exactly the same offences on the previous occasion.  The sentences for these offences were laid down firstly in the case of Cheung Mee Kiu and then more clearly set out in Ng Kwok Wing correcting the bands and more recently in the case of HKSAR v Yeung Chu, CACC105, [2009]. 

10.  The band to which this case falls in is band 3.  That is for an amount stolen of between $1 million and $3 million, the range of sentence after trial is between three to five years’ imprisonment.  In the case of Yeung Chu the amount involved was similar to the present case, that is, in Yeung the amount was $1.7 million and in this case the amount is $1.6 million.  In arriving at that amount I have taken into account the fact that you have made restitution of $300,000. 

11.  In those circumstances, defendant, taking into account the case of Yeung and taking into account the principle of totality and an overall starting point, I consider a total of 4 years’ imprisonment to be appropriate had I convicted you after trial.  Defendant, that is my overall starting point, however you have pleaded guilty and I giving you the usual one-third discount, you will be sentenced to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. 

12.  However as you have pleaded guilty to eight separate charges I shall sentence you for those eight charges separately in the varying amounts.

13.  On Charge 1 you are sentenced to 1 year 4 months’ imprisonment; Charge 2, 1 year 4 months’ imprisonment; Charge 3, 1 year 4 months’ imprisonment; Charge 4, 1 year 6 months’ imprisonment; Charge 5, 4 months’ imprisonment; Charge 6, 4 months’ imprisonment; Charge 7, 2 months’ imprisonment; Charge 8, 1 year imprisonment.  To reflect the total overall sentence, after your plea of guilty, of 2 years 8 months, I order Charges 1 and 2 to run consecutive to each other and the remaining charges to run concurrent to each other making a total of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment to which you are sentenced.