|
DCCC793/2009
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 793 OF 2009
----------------------
----------------------
| Date: |
25 September 2009 at 10.19 am |
| Present: |
Mr Alvin Chui, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Yu Kim-fung, of Johnny K K Leung & Co., for the Defendant |
-------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
------------------------
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of theft.
2. The particulars of the offence are that between 2001 and 14 May 2009, she stole moneys from her employers in the sum of $3,198,339.68.
3. At the time, the defendant was employed as an accounts clerk for a company called Lee Hing Metal Ware Manufactory Limited and she had been employed by the company since 2000.
4. I am told that in addition to preparing the accounts for the company, she would also write the payee and the amount on cheques for the proprietor, PW1, which he signed every Monday.
5. In April 2009, the manager of the company was instructed to assist the defendant in supervising the preparation of books as the company wished to switch to a different auditing firm. The manager discovered that there were discrepancies in the company’s account. One of the cheques, which according to the records had been cancelled, was found in fact to have been cashed and the payee was unknown.
6. The defendant was confronted about the discrepancies and, when asked to provide an explanation, she said that she had overspent. Apparently, what she used to do was to write the name of the payee with a pencil. After the cheques were signed, she would photocopy the cheques and then keep the photocopies on file. She would then erase the names of the payees and fill in her own name before cashing the cheques.
7. She told her employers that she had stolen about $1 million and promised to make repayments, and did in fact repay $100,000. Subsequently, the defendant further confessed that she had taken a few million dollars from the company and did not know how to remedy the situation. She later surrendered to the police in May of 2009.
8. She was very co-operative with the police and admitted everything when she was arrested. Police made enquiries and 56 cheques drawn on the company’s account were found and they had all been paid into the defendant’s bank account. According to the defendant, she deposited the cheques into her own HSBC account, and bank statements showed the cheques being deposited by using the cheque deposit machine.
9. The defendant has a clear record. I am told that she is 36 years of age and she was educated to Form Five standard. She was born in Hong Kong and she has worked previously as a cashier and a clerk. Her parents are still alive and she has three elder brothers and a younger sister. I am told that she is married and has a son who is now 8 months’ old.
10. I am told that she earned $8,000 per month and from that she gave $3,000 a month to her parents. I am told that she had a problem with relationships and had to buy her way to obtain friends.
11. I am told that how she got into trouble, was that in 2001 she was asked by a friend to act as a guarantor for a loan. The friend disappeared and she was asked to repay $600,000. Instead of seeking assistance, she decided to consider different ways in how she might deal this problem. She was required to repay $10,000 per month in capital and interests and it took 6 years to settle that debt.
12. For the rest of the money, she used it to provide goods and services and for entertainment for herself and friends. She was unable to control her impulsive spending and could not resist salesmen and she often ended up with goods which she did not need or which were useless.
13. The defendant has a clear record and she has been very co-operative with the police. She has repaid $110,000. I am told that fortunately the company are not in financial problems because of this act of theft.
14. I am told that she comes from a simple law-abiding family, many of whom are in court today. By involving herself in this offence, she has destroyed the image she had with the family and she now faces making a petition for bankruptcy.
15. I am told that she understands that this offence is a very serious offence, it involves a breach of trust.
16. For this type of offence, the guidelines laid down in the case of HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu apply.
17. The appropriate sentence for thefts involving $1 to $3 million is 3 to 5 years; for $3 to $15 million, the appropriate sentence is 5 to 9 years. The amount involved in this case is just in excess of $3 million.
18. I have taken into account all the circumstances and the mitigation that has been put forward.
19. This is a sad case. It was a very foolish thing for the defendant to have done. It was almost inevitable that the theft would be discovered since she paid the amounts into her own bank account. It was merely a question of time before the theft came to light. I accept that she was put in a very difficult position by her so-called friend who left her with a $600,000 debt to settle.
20. Taking into account all the circumstances, I have decided that the appropriate starting point in this case is 4½ years. The defendant will be given credit for her guilty plea and that will be reduced by one-third, to 3 years’ imprisonment.
|