HKSAR v. YUEN KWOK KEUNG

DCCC564/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 564 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant is convicted after trial of a charge of theft. It was found that between 2002 to 2009, defendant had been dishonestly making double claims for a total sum of about 492,000 to the accounting firm where he was an equity partner. The ways were that while being given a corporate credit card to settle business-related expenses, defendant nevertheless went on to claim cash reimbursement of some 300-odd transactions on the very same items.

2.  For sentence, the Court of Appeal has laid down the relevant guideline, HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776.  For a sum between 250,000 to 1 million, 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment shall be imposed.  However, the amount shall not be the sole consideration.  The court shall also take into account the following matters as stated in R v Barrick [1995] 81 Cr App R (also see HKSAR v Lee Lai Kit Kitty CACC379/2008), including the quality and degree of trust, period of offending, the impact of offence on the public, the effect upon fellow employees and on the offender and other mitigation special to himself. 

3.  The serious side of this case is of course the prolonged period of offence together with quite some number of transactions involved and that the defendant had been in breach of trust imposed by other partners. 

4.  However, Mr Plowman SC has quite rightly pointed out that there is no evidence of any serious impact on public confidence nor significant impact upon the partnership.  Mr Plowman SC further clarified the partnership is unlikely to be dissolved upon these incidents, which I agree.  On the contrary, there are in fact quite many other partners,  former and present partners write in and plead for leniency by letters for the defendant.

5.  Defendant is 55 years old.  He has been an accountant for more than 30 years and an equity partner for this firm for nearly 20 years.  No doubt he had been contributing a lot particularly in developing and expanding business in the PRC, bringing fortune to the firm when comparing the amount now in question.  Nonetheless, that could hardly be an excuse for the appropriation.  Despite the substantial number of transactions involved, it was, however, representing only a relatively small portion of all the trips and expenses involved.  And I do understand that this incident will cause a great concern to himself and that it is clearly unlikely that he will re‑offend these matters again.

6.  So taking into account all the circumstances, I find it appropriate to adopt a starting point of 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.  Considering further that full restitution has been made and defendant has been placed under great strain of excessive responsibility in the firm and that the defendant is of clear record, a further 3 months’ imprisonment shall be deducted.

7.  Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment accordingly.