HKSAR v. WONG KA WA

DCCC 787/2025

[2026] HKDC 370

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 787 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Before me, Mr Wong pleaded guilty to 4 charges of Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.  Particulars of the 4 charges are that he, on A, in Hong Kong, stole a chose in action in the sum of B owed by Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Asia)  Limited to C, property belonging to the said C.

3.  For Charge 1, A is 20 August 2021; B is $138,945.86 Hong Kong currency; C is Yirun Technology Limited.

4.  For Charge 2, A is 23 August 2021; B is $29,170.57 United States currency; C is Loosam Trade Co Limited.

5.  For Charge 3, A is 23 September 2021; B is $112,387.63 United States currency; C is Yuanfangda Trading Co Limited.

6.  For Charge 4, A is 24 September 2021; B is $71,923.69 United States currency; C is Hewei Trade Co Limited.

Facts admitted by Mr Wong

7.  Mr Wong was employed by Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Asia)  Limited (“ICBC”)  to be a Senior Branch Service Manager at Kwai Fong branch of ICBC.  He was responsible for various customer service duties at that branch, including but not limited to verification of client identity and verification of client signatures on bank documents.

8.  PW1 was a compliance officer of ICBC responsible for managing suspicious transactions with ICBC bank accounts.

9.  ICBC had an anti-money laundering computer system named the “AML TM System” which monitored client account activities and would alert ICBC upon detection of suspicious activities which could potentially be money-laundering related.

10.  Upon detecting suspicious monetary activities in client bank accounts, ICBC would then terminate the said bank account and refuse to provide further services to the said bank account.  The balance in the said bank account would be returned to the account owner via registered mail in the form of a cashier order.  Should the delivery fail to reach the owner of the bank account, the bank would keep the said cashier order in the safe of ICBC (at the branch of account opening)  for six calendar months.

11.  In the event where the client of the closed bank account is redeeming the balance of the closed bank account after six calendar months, ICBC could return the balance to him/her via the following methods: (i)  Re-issuing a cashier order to him/her; (ii)  transferring the balance to another bank account owned by him/her; and (iii)  any other transfers according to the instructions of the client (including but not limited to transfers to other specified bank accounts owned by other ICBC clients).  All of the mentioned methods could only be done upon verification of the client’s identity and signing a compensation form issued by ICBC.

12.  On 18 October 2021, PW1 was alerted to two suspicious transactions, which happened during August to September 2021, by the “AML TM System” where two sums of money in the sums of US$112,387.63 and US$71,923.69 were transferred to an ICBC bank account numbered 70-303-0018-272 (“A/C 1”), jointly owned by the couple Ms Tang and her spouse.  Upon investigation, it was revealed that A/C 1 was in fact managed and controlled by their son ie Mr Wong.

13.  Further investigations by ICBC revealed that the two sums of transactions in fact related to two cashier orders previously issued by ICBC pursuant to the returning of account balance after closure of the relevant accounts.  The first cashier order was issued by ICBC on 12 January 2018 to Yuanfangda Trading Company (“VTC1”)  (“C/O 1”)  in the sum of US$112,387.63.  The second cashier order was issued by ICBC to Hewei Trade Company Limited (“VTC2”)  on 22 March 2018 in the sum of US$71,923.69 (“C/O 2”).

14.  Further investigations by ICBC revealed that VTC1 and VTC2 both opened their bank accounts in August 2017 at the Kwai Fong Branch of ICBC, but given the suspicious patterns of transactions, their accounts were terminated and the balances were returned to them via the form of a cashier order (ie C/O 1 and C/O 2).  Since the deliveries of the cash orders failed, C/O1 and C/O2 were returned to the Kwai Fong Branch of ICBC for safekeeping.

15.  Investigations further revealed that authorization in the form of signed compensation forms (dated 23 and 24 September 2021)  were given before the relevant transfers were made into A/C1.  ICBC also discovered that the verification of signatures of the compensation forms related to C/O 1 and C/O 2 was conducted by Mr Wong.  The signatures on the compensation forms did not match up with the signature templates provided by the authorized signatures of VTC1 and VTC2 from ICBA bank record.

16.  ICBC later discovered that two additional sums of suspicious monetary transfers were received by A/C 1 in the sums of HK$138,945.86 and US$29,170.57.  It was subsequently revealed that the two sums of transfers were related to two separate cashier orders: (i)  a cashier order issued by ICBC on 6 October 2018 (“C/O 3”)  to Yirun Technology Limited (“VTC3”)  and (ii)  a cashier order (“C/O 4”)  issued by ICBC on 21 September 2018 to Loosam Trade Company Limited (“VTC4”).

17.  Investigations further revealed that VTC3 and VTC4 opened bank account at the Kwai Fong Branch of ICBC in April and May 2017, their accounts were later terminated and the account balances returned to them via the form of cashier orders (ie C/O 3 and C/O 4).  Compensation forms in relation to these cashier orders were signed on 20 and 23 August 2021 respectively by personnel proclaimed to be representatives of VTC3 and VTC4, the signatures on the compensation forms do not match up with the signature template of VTC3 and VTC4 from ICBC’s bank record.  The person who verified the signatures of the relevant documents was Mr Wong at the material time.

18.  C/O 1 to C/O 4 were all located inside the safe at the Kwai Fong Branch of ICBC for safekeeping before the relevant transactions took place.

19.  Bank record of A/C 1 limited to 2 July 2021 to 12 November 2021 was obtained.  It was revealed that the general value of transactions in A/C 1 remained to be low except the deposit and withdrawal of the four sums of money relating to C/O 1 to C/O 4 on 20 August 2021, 23 August 2021, 23 September 2021 and 24 September 2021.  Bank record confirmed that the deposits were then swiftly deposited into HSBC bank accounts numbered 004-054-1-019-667 (“A/C 2”)  and 004-031-050-784-001 (“A/C 3”), both solely owned by Mr Wong.

20.  A document named the “Clear House Automatic Transfer System Application Form” (“CHATS Form”)  has to be signed by the client prior to the authorization of any bank transfers at any ICBC branch.  Two CHATS Forms authorizing the transfers from A/C 1 were seized; it was discovered that a Ms Fan (“PW2”)  had signed on the CHATS Forms.  Enquiries with PW2 revealed that Mr Wong had approached PW2 on 23 August 2021 and again on 23 September 2021 relating to the verification of CHATS Forms pertaining to the transfer of funds from A/C 1 to another account owned by Mr Wong under the reason of family financial management.  PW2 complied with Mr Wong’s request and signed on the said CHATS Forms as a result.

21.  Mr Wong was on duty at the Kwai Fong branch of ICBC on 20 and 23 August 2021, and on 23 and 24 September 2021.

22.  Mr Wong was subsequently arrested.  Under caution, Mr Wong stated, “I did not want to do so but I did so because I was heavily indebted.”

23.  A house search at Mr Wong’s residence uncovered C/O 1 to C/O 4 and the relevant CHATS Forms.

24.  During a subsequent cautioned VRI conducted with Mr Wong, he stated the following:-

(a)  He commenced his employment with ICBC in December 1991;

(b)  He was the senior service manager at the Kwai Fong Branch of ICBC at the material time;

(c)  He was around HK$1.5 million in debts at the material time;

(d)  He took C/O 1 to C/O 4 from the safe at the branch;

(e)  He transferred the sums of money into his own bank accounts via A/C 1;

(f)  He personally filled out the compensation forms in relation to C/O 1 to C/O 4 in order to authorize transfers to A/C 1; and

(g)  He had forged the signatures on the relevant compensation forms.

25.  Mr Wong now admits that at the material time, he stole four choses in action in their respective sums owed by ICBC to VTC1 to VTC4, property belonging to the said VTC1 to VTC4.

Criminal record

26.  Mr Wong has a clear record.

Antecedents

27.  Mr Wong is aged 64 (59 at the time of the offences), educated to Secondary 5 level, unemployed since November 2021.  Mr Wong is married and lives in Kwai Chung.

Mitigation

28.  Mr Ricky Law, with him Ms Lee Lok Man, both of counsel, mitigated on behalf of Mr Wong.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

29.  Mr Wong is a man with clear record.  He has a wife (50)  and one son (34)  who is an automobile mechanic.  Mr Wong has one previous marriage with no children.

30.  Mr Wong’s father (92)  lives in a nursing home.  Mr Wong’s mother (85)  lives alone.  Mr Wong regularly took them to medical treatments.

31.  Mr Wong had worked in ICBC for about 20 years and was promoted to Senior Branch Service Manager in 2013 due to excellent performance.  In late 2021, he was dismissed due to discovery of the offences.  Before his dismissal, he had a monthly income of HK$33,000, of which HK$6,000 he paid to his ex-wife as maintenance, HK$4,000 to his wife and HK$6,000 to his parents for their respective living expenses.

32.  After his dismissal, Mr Wong faced severe financial difficulties.

33.  At the time of the offences, Mr Wong was already in financial difficulties due to gambling habit.  He was indebted to the tune of about HK$1.5 million.

34.  Mr Wong is deeply remorseful and is willing to accept full responsibility.

35.  The Court of Appeal enunciated the sentencing bands for theft cases involving a breach of trust in HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 as follows:

(a)  Over HK$15 million: 10 years or above;

(b)  HK$3 million to HK$15 million: 5 to 10 years;

(c)  HK$1 million to HK$3 million: 3 to 5 years;

(d)  HK$250,000 to HK$1 million: 2 to 3 years; and

(e)  HK$250,000 or below: 2 years or below.

36.  As confirmed by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Chong Hung Shek [2019] 2 HKLRD 937 at para 51, adopting a global starting point is wrong in principle[1].  The correct approach would be to first arrive at a starting point for each charge, then derive the total sentence.  Further, as per Chong Hung Shek at para 52, the amount of the theft as particularized in the charge would be the amount used to determine which sentencing band [is] to be used.  See Chong Hung Shek at paras 51-52:

“51. Here, by imposing global sentences, the Judge has erred in principle and it falls to us to sentence the applicant afresh.

52. The complaint of the applicant that the Judge should have used the actual loss suffered when choosing the sentencing band from which to draw her starting point, can be quickly answered. The charge particularized the amount of the fraud. It is that amount which determines which sentencing band should be used as it is in respect of that amount that the defendant is convicted and for which he must be sentenced. The actual loss, whether caused by the nature of the fraud, the time at which it is detected or because restitution is made, is simply a matter of mitigation.”

37.  It was submitted that the appropriate starting point for each of the charges would be as follows:

(a)  Charge 1: HK$138,945.86, imprisonment of 2 years or below;

(b)  Charge 2: US$29,170.57, imprisonment of 2 years or below;

(c)  Charge 3: US$112,387.63, imprisonment of 2 to 3 years; and

(d)  Charge 4: US$71,923.69, imprisonment of 2 to 3 years.

38.  Mr Wong was arrested in November 2021 and was not prosecuted until April 2025.  He had made full admissions under caution upon his arrest and was wholly cooperative during police investigation.  It was submitted that there was some delay in prosecuting this case from November 2021 to April 2025 which the court should take into account in sentencing Mr Wong according to HKSAR v Chu On Chi [2007] 4 HKLRD 310 and HKSAR v Chiu Chi Wing, unreported, CACC 243/2012, 18 October 2013.

39.  In Chu On Chi, at paras 9 and 13, the Court of Appeal held that even though time was needed for the police to collect the relevant evidence, the 21 months’ delay in prosecuting the case was extremely serious.  The offences with which the appellant were the same as those to which she admitted upon arrest, and she had not been charged with further offences as a result of police investigation.  The prosecution failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.  As such, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant be released immediately.

40.  The mitigating factors for sentencing involving a delay in investigation and/or prosecution were laid down in Chiu Chi Wing, at para 37.  The factors relevant to this case are as follows:

“37. The seven factors identified by Buss JA, which were stated not to be intended to be exhaustive or inflexible, were:

……

Thirdly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it is caused by the offender’s obstruction or lack of co-operation with the State, prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies, but the offender’s reliance on his or her legal rights is not obstruction or lack of co-operation for this purpose.

……

Sixthly, delay (not being delay of the kind described in the second, third and fourth guiding principles)  will ordinarily be a mitigating factor if:

(a)  The delay has resulted in significant stress for the offender or left him or her, to a significant degree, in ‘uncertain suspense’; or

……

Seventhly, delay caused by dilatory or neglectful conduct by the State, prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies may result in a discount of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed on the offender, if the court thinks it an appropriate means of marking its disapproval of the conduct in question.”

41.  There was a period of around three and a half years between the arrest and the laying of charges, during which Mr Wong suffered immense mental stress and pressure due to unknown circumstances of police investigation.  Mr Wong did not abscond but chose to remain and look after his family, including his parents of old ages, displaying commitment to his family.  It was submitted that such circumstances should be taken into account as a factor for mitigation according to Chiu Chi Wing.

42.  The charges against Mr Wong bear similar facts covering the same timeframe.  Mr Law invited the court to consider the totality sentencing approach, such that the sentences should run wholly or substantially concurrently.

43.  In conclusion, Mr Law invited the court to reach a most lenient sentence in the region of 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment having taken into account the principle of totality.

44.  Mr Law submitted on behalf of Mr Wong a mitigation letter written in Chinese by Mr Wong himself.  The contents generally are that Mr Wong is extremely regretful and is worried that without his contribution, the living condition of his wife would be difficult.  Mr Wong asked the court to be lenient with him.

Sentence

45.  For a mitigation based on “Delay in Prosecution” to be successful, the delay has first to be undue or unreasonable.  Then there has to be something extra, either in the form of an abrupt interference with a defendant’s ongoing rehabilitation attempt or causing additional stress to the defendant over and above that would be normally expected for someone awaiting legal process.

46.  Prosecution submitted a Chronology of Events dated 23 February 2026 in answer to the allegation of “Delay in Prosecution”.

47.  From the table of events as drawn up on the document, there were two lapses of time which stood out as being the longest: one was between October 2022 and October 2023 (about 1 year), the other was between October 2023 and March 2025 (about 1½ year).

48.  I asked the prosecution for elaboration regarding those two time lapses.

49.  For the former, the time lapse was apparently used by the police for liaising with ICBC for the issuing of a letter of no consent and the ICBC’s ongoing claim under a Garnishee Order which was eventually issued in 2024.

50.  For the latter, the time lapse was used for consideration and settlement of legal advice.  Prosecution told me the prosecutions division prioritizes cases with imminent court dates.

51.  Having heard the explanation, I am not satisfied that there was undue or unreasonable delay in this case.  But the overwhelming reason why this mitigating factor is not made out is there was no evidence of any rehabilitation attempt by Mr Wong nor was there evidence he suffered additional stress in the interim period.

52.  The Court of Appeal authority of Chung Hung Shek cited by Mr Law did not, with respect, seek to prevent consideration and adoption of a global starting point; the practice that was deprecated there was the imposition of the same global sentences on all of the charges without passing an appropriate sentence on each of the charges and then making an order as to consecutiveness and/or concurrency.

53.  The total amount stolen in the present case came to just over HK$1.8 million.

54.  According to the tariff set out in Ng Kwok Wing for breach of trust cases, of which this is one, the appropriate starting point would be 3 to 5 years (within the $1 million to $3 million band).  A strict arithmetical approach would yield a starting point of 45.6 months.

55.  Given there were multiple offences over a period of one month, I will adopt in the case of Mr Wong a global starting point of 48 months’ imprisonment.  In doing so, I have taken into account the principle of totality.

56.  Mr Wong pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors that I can see which will have the effect of reducing his sentence further.  I should perhaps mention a defendant in a responsible position as Mr Wong was in would almost always have a clear record.  For this reason, a clear record counts for little in terms of mitigation.

57.  I will impose an individual sentence on each of the charges and make appropriate orders to arrive at the global sentence.

(Mr Wong, please stand)

58.  On Charge 1, the sentence is 16 months’ imprisonment.

59.  On Charge 2, the sentence is 16 months’ imprisonment.

60.  On Charge 3, the sentence is 22 months’ imprisonment.

61.  On Charge 4, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

62.  I order that the sentences on Charges 1 and 2 are to run concurrently. I order that the sentences on Charges 3 and 4 are to run concurrently.

63.  I order that 10 months of the concurrent sentences of Charges 1 and 2 are to run consecutively to the concurrent sentences of Charges 3 and 4, making a final sentence in this case for Mr Wong of 32 months’ imprisonment.