HKSAR v. LEE FUNG PING FLORA

DCCC 581/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 581 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of theft. 

2.   The facts show that Tung Wah Group of Hospitals BMCPC Dental Health Centre for Senior Citizens (the dental clinic) is a clinic located in Yau Ma Tei to provide dental services to elderly people at a concessionary rate.  Payment for all the services have to be made by cash. 

3.   At the time of the offence, between 2004 and 2012, there were only three people working in the dental clinic: one dentist, one dental assistant and the defendant being the clerical assistant. The defendant was the only person responsible for all clerical and administrative matters, including keeping records and handling payments of patients. 

4.   After treating each patient, the dentist would write down the treatment provided and the charge thereof on the patient’s record.  The defendant would then put such data into the computer system.  The system would automatically calculate the charge of treatments received by the patient.  The defendant would then receive payment and issue receipt.

5.   In July 2012, the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals conducted the first audit check of the dental service clinic since its opening.  It was revealed that the patients’ records, as written by the dentist, did not match the accounting records.  Internal investigation was conducted, which revealed the defendant had stolen more than $1 million.  The defendant made confessions during the investigation process that she had stolen money being the fees made by patients.

6.   Further audit checks revealed a discrepancy of HK$1,334,595 involving 3,079 transactions of 1,201 patients between March 2004 and July 2012.  During the eight years, the defendant stole money on 8, 19, 296, 396, 457, 573, 422, 590 and 318 occasions in each year respectively. 

7.   Briefly, she stole the money from the dental clinic by not recording the patient’s treatment or recording a lower-priced treatment in the computer system.  She did not issue proper receipts and pocketed the difference between the actual payments of patients and the charges recorded in the computer system. 

8.   The defendant was arrested on 14 September 2012.  Under caution, she admitted she stole money from the dental clinic out of greed.  She said she sometimes paid back money into different patients’ account when her financial situation permitted.  She had already spent all the money stolen.

9.   Pursuant to an agreement made with the Tung Wah Group after the arrest, the defendant made a repayment of $1.3 million on 15 April 2014.

10.   The defendant is aged 50.  She has a clear record.  Her solicitor, Mr Yeung, tells the court that the defendant is married with a daughter studying in the university.  She herself received education up to Form 5.  She earned $8,500 a month when she left the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals. 

11.   It is said that not only that the defendant did not destroy the evidence of the offence, she indeed made remark in the patient’s record with the intention to repay the money she stole to her employer.  In 332 transactions, not to the knowledge of her employer, she paid the dental clinic more than the payment received from the patients, totalling $124,159. 

12.   It is admitted the defendant stole the money out of greed.  She used the money in her family expenses.  She is now very remorseful.  She has made full restitution of the money she stole. 

13.   Mr Yeung refers me to HKSAR v Leung Shuk Man, CACC 230/2001, where the defendant, having made full restitution, was given a 50-per-cent reduction of sentence.  He submits that the starting point in the present case should be in the region of 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment. 

14.   A letter written by the defendant is handed up this morning.  I have duly considered its contents, in which the defendant expressed her remorse.

15.   This was a breach of trust case.  In HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776 and HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017, the Court of Appeal gave guidelines on the appropriate range of sentence for theft, which is based on the amount involved.  For an amount from 1 million to 3 million dollars, the range of sentence is 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment.  In the present case, the total amount of stolen money was about $1.3 million. 

16.   The amount of money involved is not the sole factor to be considered.  As stated in R v Barrick [1995] 81 Cr App R 78, the court should also take into account matters including the period over which the thefts have been perpetrated. 

17.   The thefts in the present case took place over eight years, including 3,079 transactions of 1,201 patients.  That was a very long period of time. 

18.   Taking this factor into account, the appropriate starting point, in my view, should be 3½ years’ imprisonment. 

19.   Mr Yeung asks the court to consider that the defendant repaid some money to her employer in more than 300 transactions, totalling about $124,000. 

20.   I do not think that the starting point should be lowered on this ground.  As agreed by both parties, the stolen money stated in the charge has discounted the money she repaid over the years. Despite the defendant’s claimed intention to repay her employer by making remarks on the patient treatment records, which is not disputed by the prosecution, her employer had lost a total of $1.3 million when the offences came to light. 

21.   The prosecution accepts that the defendant has made full restitution.  For this, the defendant should be given a further discount on top of the one-third discount for her plea of guilty.

22.   Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the defendant’s previous good character and the full restitution, I am of the view that the overall discount she should receive is 50 per cent. I will, therefore, reduce the sentence from 3½ years to 21 months’ imprisonment. 

23.   I do not see any other effective mitigating factors. 

24.   The defendant is, therefore, sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment.