HKSAR v. LEUNG CHIU LING, LANCE

DCCC1091/ 2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1091 OF 2009

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant faces 31 charges of theft, contrary to s.9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. All charges are for the theft of things in action, namely shares owed by Good Harvest Securities Company Limited to Poon Suk Yee (PW 1) (13), Poon Wai Ling (7), or the defendant herself holding the shares on trust for Poon Ming Chu (11). The dates of the offences spanned the time period between 2000 and 2007. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges.

Facts:

2. The defendant admitted to the summary of facts. I shall not repeat them here in full details.  In gist, whilst working as an agent at Good Harvest Securities, the defendant without the permission of the 3 witnesses, on 31 occasions stole from the witnesses.

Previous

3.  The defendant is of clear record.

Mitigation:

4.  Mr. Yeung told me that the defendant is 57 years old. Her husband passed away in 1997, leaving her with their young daughters and no savings. In order to support the family, the defendant had incurred debts in the amount of over $100,000. The defendant committed the offences over the years in order to repay those debts. The prosecution had very fairly indicated that they would have no quarrel should the lower figures in the table of the summary of facts be adopted as the value of the shares the defendant had stolen and for her to be sentenced on that figure. The defendant is presently unemployed and she is supported by her two daughters. The defendant’s mother is very old now and lives in an old people’s home, relying on the defendant and therefore the defendant’s daughters for their support.

5.  Although the defendant is willing, she is however not in a position to compensate the victims in this case.

Sentencing tariff

6.  It is not disputed by the defendant that this is a breach of trust case and as such the case of HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu, CACC99/2006 applies. The defendant’s legal representative also rely on the case of HKSAR v Chan Kai Chung, CACC12/2001, the sentence in that case is in line with the tariff in Cheung Mee Kiu. For the purpose of our present case, the tariff for theft of between HK$250,000 to $1 million is that of 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment.

Sentence

7.  The defendant did not use the money she had stolen to sustain a lavish or extravagant lifestyle, the money was used to repay the debts that was incurred in order to support her family. The Defendant has a clear record and has pleaded guilty to all the charges.

8.  On the other hand, the offences were committed over a long period of time and on 31 different occasions. Putting aside the amount stolen, the breach is a serious breach compared to similar cases. There is also the added consideration that the reputation of Hong Kong as an international finance centre needs to be rigorously protected.

9.  Having considered all the circumstances, I will deal with the defendant’s sentence as follows. Taking the lower figure of the table in the summary of facts, the total amount stolen is HK$573,025.09 (p.7 of the summary of facts), which would be within the $250,000 to $1 million band of the Cheung Mee Kiu tariff.

10.  I will adopt a starting point of 2.5 years’ imprisonment for each of the 31 charges. The full 1/3 discount is granted for the defendant’s guilty plea, reducing the sentence to that of 20 months’ imprisonment on each charge. Taking into account the principle of totality, I will order that the sentences be served concurrently. The defendant is therefore sentenced to a total of 20 months’ imprisonment.