HKSAR v. PANG CHAK TONG LAURENCE

DCCC752/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 752 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to two offences of theft, each contrary to section 9, and one offence of evasion of liability by deception, contrary to section 18(B)(1)(b) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.  You admit the facts and I convicted you.

3.  Defendant, you were a solicitor, and from 7 March 2003 to 31 December 2005, the sole proprietor of Laurence Pang & Co. You alone signed and issued cheques, and dealt with the bank account.  On 31 December 2005, the firm ceased to do business.

4.  I deal first of all with Charges 1 and 2.

The purchase of the first property

5.  On 16 April, Mr Leung Hong-yin (PW1), the director of both Seajet Investments Limited and Evergetic Development Company Limited purchased Flat 10, 35th Floor, Apartment Tower, Western Side Convention Plaza, 1 Harbour Road under the name of Seajet for $8.98 million.  Your firm represented Seajet.

6.  On 28 April 2004, PW1 gave a cheque payable to the firm in the sum of $784,850 drawn on Evergetic’s account for the payment of stamp duty of $336,850.  The firm issued a receipt.

7.  On 25 May 2004, PW1 issued another cheque payable to the firm and drawn on the same account, in the sum of $8,127,114.78.  The firm again issued a receipt.

The purchase of the second property

8.  On 14 May 2004, PW1 purchased a property, Room 1606, 16th Floor, Tower 2 Lippo Centre, Queensway under Seajet for $5.85 million, and the firm represented Seajet.

9.  On 25 May 2004, PW1 gave a cheque payable to the firm drawn on Evergetic account in $460,500 for the payment of stamp duty of $175,500.  The firm issued a receipt.

10.  On 11 June, PW1 issued another cheque payable to the firm, drawn on the same account, in the sum of $5,283,000 for completion.

11.  On 1 August 2006, PW1 became aware that the two properties had not yet been registered in the name of Seajet and the stamp duty remained outstanding.

12.  On 8 August 2006, PW1 instructed another firm of solicitors to settle the stamp duty.  This was done and the Inland Revenue Department issued a stamp certificate.

13.  Enquires to the IRD revealed a cheque for $336,750 dated 30 April 2004 payable to the Government of HKSAR for stamp duty on Property 1 was dishonoured.

14.  The firm made a successful application to defer payment for one month from the date of completion, which was on 31 May 2004. However, it was never paid.

15.  In relation to Property 2, no payment was ever made.

16.  I turn now to the third charge.

17.  In June 2005, Madam Fang Hong-yu (PW4), acting on behalf of GRTF Limited, sold an office, which is Room A4, 138–146 Jaffe Road, Wanchai for $1.32 million. The firm represented GRTF.

18.  Between 17 and 27 June 2005, Mr Leung Tak-ming (PW5), for the purchaser, deposited $132,000 into the firm’s account.  This was to be paid to GRTF after the deduction of solicitors’ fees.

19.  After the sale was completed, PW4 asked you, defendant, on 16 August 2005, to return the sum of money to GRTF.

20.  You used various excuses to delay payment, and payment was not made.  PW4 made repeated requests.  You issued three notes on 16 August, 14 November and 17 November 2005, promising to pay by a certain date. No payment has ever been made.

21.  On 18 November 2005 you gave PW4 a cheque drawn on your own account for $110,000.  However, it was dishonoured.

22.  Since then, you could not be contacted.

23.  The bank records of your account showed a balance of $93.58 as of 5 November 2005, and in debit thereafter.

Your arrest

24.  On 15 May 2010 you were arrested at Lo Wu leaving Hong Kong.

25.  Under caution, you denied the offences.

26.  You are a man of hitherto clear record.

27.  Mr Ho entered mitigation on your behalf.

28.  I was told you are now 71 years of age, and unemployed.  You were a graduate of Hong Kong University, qualifying as a solicitor in 1970.

29.  By 1980 you had your own firm.  At the height, it was one of the largest Chinese firms in Hong Kong, with over a hundred staff and occupying half a floor in the Landmark Centre.  There were branch offices at Tsuen Wan, Shatin and Yuen Long.

30.  You suffered ups and downs, but after the financial crisis, only downs.

31.  In 2003 you unfortunately suffered a stroke and your firm was downsized to only a handful of people.

32.  Whilst you handled $15.88 million in these offences, you only stole and retained the stamp duty.

33.  This was committed out of financial desperation.

34.  In 2005 you closed your firm.

35.  In 2008 you were divorced.

36.  Now, you have had to live on handouts from family and friends.  This has been your sole source of income.

37.  Mr Ho accepts this offence reflects badly on the profession.  It is a gross and obvious breach of trust.

38.  Mr Ho urges me to show mercy in view of your age.

39.  I turn now to the sentence.

40.  The total amount stolen or evaded amounts to just over $600,000, according to my calculations.  As far as I am concerned, there is no prospect of the victims ever being compensated.

41.  This is a gross breach of trust committed by a solicitor.

42.  I note that you are a person of hitherto clear record.  It is clear to me that you have suffered a complete fall from grace.

43.  I note also that from the commission of these offences, for a numbers of years, to put it neutrally, you made yourself unavailable.  The offences took place in 2005 and 2006, until your arrest in 2010.

44.  It is clear to me that only a custodial sentence is appropriate in these circumstances.

45.  My approach is to take the three offences as a course of conduct, and to decide what the appropriate level of criminality is for all three offences taken together.

46.  I, therefore, take as a starting point 3 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 2 years for your plea of guilty.

47.  I also take into account your age and, for what it is worth, your clear record.  There will be a further discount, as an act of mercy, of 4 months.

48.  You will, therefore, go to prison for 20 months on each charge, to be served concurrently.