HKSAR v. WOO CHOI PING, TAMMY

DCCC 134/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 134 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of theft. She worked in a shipping company Pacific Lines Limited, as a cashier since 1987 and then promoted to senior cashier, responsible for issuing cheques and arranging loans from banks.

2.  Between 2005 and 2012, it was revealed that defendant had a total of 160 transactions stolen 4,488,671 from the company, and she also stole 33,096 from TTS International Limited owned by Mr Teo, also the managing director of Pacific Lines.  

3.  Defendant simply attached a Scotch plastic tape onto the payee part of the cheques for the boss to sign and then she would tear off the tape and either typed her name or “cash” on it.  Defendant either cashed the cheque by herself or through the office assistant whom believed it was legitimate, or that the defendant would simply directly deposit the cheque to her own account, and there was even once deposited into her husband’s account in the sum about $32,000.  

4.  It was not until 2012 when the financial director of Pacific Lines found that there was a suspicious loan of 3 million obtained from the bank without her knowledge.  Upon checking defendant’s drawer, relevant cheques and bank documents for the loan of 3 million were found.  Confronted, defendant admitted making the said 3 million loan to cover up her stealing as she needed money for huge expenses and she had stolen money from Pacific Lines for a few years of about 3.7 million.

5.  Defendant was then terminated and later on she met Mr Teo and repaid 300,000 to the company.

6.  Under arrest and caution, defendant admitted stolen from Pacific Lines and she also applied loan for the company without approval.  Relevant documents were prepared for directors to sign, and they signed without paying any attention.  Defendant was responsible for obtaining loan and she used the loan to cover up her stealing. She would stick the plastic tape onto the payee part and type in some legitimate names.  After signing by authorised signatories, she would take away the tape and put down her own name to deposit the cheques.    She stole 3.7 million from Pacific Lines and 1 million from Mr Teo.  As the boss trusted her, they did not check the cheques and documents before signing.  Defendant committed the offence out of greed, as it was easy for her to do so whenever she needed money. And now she has already repaid 300,000 to Mr Teo.

7.  Defendant aged 49 and she has a clear criminal record.  Miss Lai for the defendant submits that she pleaded guilty and had shown full remorse for what she had done, and she also suffered from adjustment disorder resulting from all these proceedings.  And, unfortunately, her husband was also diagnosed suffering lymphoma, now undergoing treatment.

8.  There were quite some letters from family members, friends and present employer pleading for leniency, saying that defendant was all along responsible wife and mother, good colleague and hardworking person.  Defendant’s letter also stated that she regrets so much for what she had done and is also very shameful and now pleads for leniency.

9.  Miss Lai also submits that the crime was revealed in 2012 but it took more than one year till she was charged.  However, given the total amount and more than a hundred transactions involved, no doubt it did need some time for the police to undergo investigation.

10.  Theft is a serious offence.  The Court of Appeal had in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776 and HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing CACC 398/2007 laid down the guidelines for sentencing in this kind of case involving breach of trust.  For theft of the amount between 3 million to 15 million, 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment be imposed.

11.  For the present case involving 4.48 million, the lower range, perhaps 5½ years’ imprisonment may be adopted.  But one must also consider other factors as listed in R v Barrick [1995] 81 Cr App R 78.    

12.  In the present case the degree of trust reposed upon the defendant was high, and there were more than 6 years involving 160 transactions of theft perpetrated.  Defendant alleged that money was originally used to salvage husband’s business.  No doubt considering the amount involved, the impact on the company must be high and the facts of the present case were serious.

13.  However, taking into account that the defendant had a clear criminal record and she had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and also repaid $300,000 and that the employee’s contributions for MPF of about 220,000 may be deducted, considering all this mitigation and circumstances, I would adopt 5 years’ imprisonment as starting point for Charge 1, to be reduced to 40 months’ upon guilty plea.

14.  For Charge 2 involving about $33,000, 12 months’ imprisonment should be taken as starting point, reduced to 8 months upon guilty plea.

15.  On totality principle, I consider that the overall sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment be appropriate. 

16.  Thus, the sentence is as follows:

Charge 1: 40 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 2: 8 months’ imprisonment;

Both sentence be run concurrently. Therefore, the total sentence for two charges is 40 months’ imprisonment.