COURT: Defendant, these are my reasons for sentence. You have pleaded guilty to seven counts of theft, contrary to Section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. The charges concern the theft of choses in action, namely, debts owed by HSBC to your employer, Sanitus Building Materials Limited (“Sanitus”), committed over a period of more than six years, between 11 August 2017 and 2 December 2023.
The amounts involved in the seven charges are as follows: Charge 1, $1,197,261.07; Charge 2, $8,514,825; Charge 3, $47,077,703; Charge 4, $760,900; Charge 5, $139,534; Charge 6, $1,007,258 and Charge 7, $4,801,268.34, amounting to a total of $63,498,749.41.
The Facts
The facts admitted by the defendant are as follows.
Sanitus was set up in 1991 by PW1, Mr Ip, and was in the business of supplying building materials. PW1 and his wife were the directors. The company maintained an HSBC account (“Sanitus’s Account”), which required two signatories for cheques or cash withdrawals. E-banking was activated in around 2010, requiring simultaneous passcodes from two security devices held by two separate groups of employees, three by the Accounts Department, (“Group A”), and two by the other departments (“Group B”).
The defendant joined Sanitus in August 2016 as Accounts Manager and was responsible for all accounting and salary matters. She held one of the Group A security devices. She knew that her colleagues stored the devices in unlocked drawers. She used Ms Lam’s Group B security device, by taking it after office hours, and eventually kept it after Ms Lam ceased employment in early 2023, so as to make unauthorised bank transfers.
Over more than six years, the defendant embezzled over $63 million from Sanitus’s Account by seven different modi operandi: reaping over payments via a currency exchange shop named Jem Lei Dat Co (“JLDC”) (Charge 1); making unauthorised remittances under false pretences using false vouchers (Charges 2 to 3); paying her flat rent (Charge 4); purchasing travel packages for herself and family (Charge 5); purchasing medical services for herself and family members (Charge 6); and transferring money to various personal Hong Kong bank accounts (Charge 7).
The thefts were facilitated by the defendant’s systematic creation of forged vouchers, which were booked in Sanitus’s accounting system under false pretences of settling the invoices of PRC clients. These forged vouchers were later seized at the residence of a male surnamed “Tong.”
In mid-2023, following the sale of Sanitus’s office, the defendant proposed keeping the $13.5 million sale proceeds in a time deposit. By December 2023, Sanitus did not have sufficient funds to pay for the goods. When PW1 pressed the defendant, she could not be reached. On 8 December 2023, the defendant sent PW1 a WeChat audio message saying that she was in a place where extradition law was not applicable, and she had embezzled about $15 to $20 million for personal use. In recorded phone conversations on 8 and 10 December 2023, the defendant admitted taking Ms Lam’s security device and having embezzled more than $20 million, saying the money was for her children and for her business.
The defendant returned to work on 11 December 2023 but failed to repay some money as promised. On 19 December 2023, PW1’s colleague discovered that the hard disk of the defendant’s desktop computer had been removed. The case was reported to the police. The defendant was arrested on 20 December 2023.
In video-recorded interviews conducted on 21 and 22 December 2023, the defendant made admissions under caution, including that she was a bankrupt, that she had embezzled Sanitus’s money since about November 2020 for her son’s education and for business, and that she used Ms Lam’s security device to make unauthorised transfers. She admitted that all remittances from Sanitus’s Account via JLDC since 13 November 2020 were unauthorised.
Background and Mitigation
The defendant is 46 years old and was born in Hong Kong. She was divorced in about 2016 and has a daughter aged 20 and a son aged 18. They both are students. Her son suffers from ADHD. Her father is 84 years old, and her mother is 82 years old. She was the sole breadwinner of the family. She received education up to High Diploma in Management and joined Sanitus in August 2016 as Financial Controller, earning about $26,500 per month. The defendant has a clear record.
In mitigation, counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant pleaded guilty to all seven charges at the earliest opportunity and should be entitled to the usual one-third discount. Counsel submitted that the defendant committed the offences due to heavy financial pressure arising from business investment involving infrastructure projects in the PRC, family living expenses and medical expenses.
Counsel emphasised the defendant’s remorse, her admissions under caution, her community volunteer service, her efforts during remand to study social science degree, her attendance of religion classes in prison and her future plan for her business after release. I was also told that the defendant’s health deteriorated during remand. Counsel asked this court to consider totality principle and exercise leniency.
Letters in mitigation from the defendant and her family members, proofs of the defendant’s academic, employment, voluntary service, medical and future business plan have been placed before this court and hence considered by this court.
Sentencing Considerations
The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for each single offence of theft is 10 years’ imprisonment.
The defendant was an Accounts Manager and later Financial Controller of Sanitus when she committed each of the seven thefts. In doing so, she was in breach of trust reposed in her by an employer and as such causes her stealing to be more culpable.
It is trite law that the court needs to consider the factors set out in R v Barrick when sentencing cases involving a person in a position of trust who have exploited that position to steal, including: the quality and degree of trust; the period of the offending; the use to which the money was put; the effects upon the victim; the impact on public confidence; the effects on fellow employees; the effects on the offender; the offender’s history; matters of mitigation special to the offender; and any help given to the police.
The reference sentencing guidelines are those laid down in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu and revised in HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing. In Ng Kwok Wing, the Court of Appeal held that the bands in Cheung Mee Kiu require revision to ensure logical consistency and revised the guideline bands as follows:
(a) 15 million or more, 10 years or above;
(b) 3 million to 15 million, 5 to 10 years;
(c) 1 million to 3 million, 3 to 5 years;
(d) 250,000 to 1 million, 2 to 3 years;
(e) 250,000 or less, below 2 years.
As the Court of Appeal stated in HKSAR v Wong Chor Wo, CACC 314/2006, the correct sentence should always be imposed for each individual offence where there is a multiplicity of offences before the court, and the question of totality then considered. In the Secretary for Justice v Nones Carmelita Galay [2022] HKCA 1081, the Court of Appeal held that when confronted with multiple offences over a prolonged period of time, the sentencing court should conduct a sequential evaluation of the offending, and then each time an offence is repeated, that is a matter to be taken into account. I adopt this approach.
I bear in mind the Court of Appeal in Nones at paragraph 76 observed that the sentencing court is bound by the head offence of 10 years’ imprisonment for a single offence of theft. Where the sums involved are exceptionally large, consecutive sentences across multiple charges may be called for to properly reflect the totality of the offending, I refer to the case of R v Clark.
Individual Starting Points
I address the charges in chronological order.
Charge 1, between 11 August 2017 to 21 November 2018. This falls within band C. By arithmetic interpolation, the starting point is 3 years and 2 months, ie, 38 months.
Charge 2, between 12 July 2018 and 7 March 2019. This falls within band B. By arithmetic interpolation, the starting point is 7 years and 3 months, namely, 87 months.
Charge 3, between 7 March 2019 and 14 November 2023. This falls within band A. The sum involved is substantial and the offence spans over 4½ years. However, the starting point for a single charge of theft is constrained by the statutory maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. I adopt a starting point of 10 years, 120 months.
Charge 4, from 21 April 2022 to 7 December 2023. This falls within band D. By arithmetic interpolation, the starting point is 2 years and 8 months, namely, 32 months.
Charge 5, between 12 August 2022 and 29 August 2023. This falls within band E. The starting point is 1 year and 1 month, 13 months.
Charge 6, between 8 December 2022 and 20 October 2023. This falls within band C. By arithmetic interpolation, the starting point is 3 years, ie, 36 months.
Charge 7, between 8 August 2019 and 2 November 2023. This falls within band B. By arithmetic interpolation, the starting point is 5 years and 9 months, ie, 69 months.
Aggravating Factors
This case presents the following aggravating factors.
First, the quality and degree of trust reposed in the defendant was significant. As the Accounts Manager, she was responsible for all the accounting matters and had access to the company’s bank account, security devices and accounting systems.
Second, the thefts were premeditated and carried out with care over a prolonged period of time. The defendant created forged vouchers to conceal the unauthorised transfers under false pretences of settling invoices of clients. She employed different modi operandi and stored forged vouchers outside office.
Third, the stolen money was used for the defendant’s personal benefits, including her flat rent, travel packages and medical expenses for herself and family members and her business investments.
Fourth, the total amount embezzled, over $63 million, is staggeringly large. It caused Sanitus serious financial harm.
Fifth, when Sanitus were told by the defendant of her conduct, she did not immediately return to the office to assist Sanitus to prepare financial reports notwithstanding PW1’s persuasion. The defendant even broke the repayment promise she had made to PW1. The hard disk of the defendant’s desktop had also been removed, such that the staff of Sanitus could not make a copy of the defendant’s computer records.
Mitigating Factors
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, for which she is entitled to the full one-third discount.
I note that the defendant made admissions under caution in her video recorded interviews. However, there is no evidence that she provided assistance to the police in recovering the embezzled funds. Counsel for the defendant informed this court that there is no repayment plan.
As for the personal and family circumstances of the defendant, including her financial pressures and family responsibilities, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that such matters carry little weight where serious offences are involved (see paragraphs 84 to 85 in the case of Nones). I have sympathy for the defendant’s personal circumstances, including the demands of raising two children as a single parent, one of whom suffers from ADHD. However, many people face financial difficulties but do not resort to crime. The defendant even deployed the stolen money to her own business. This was undoubtedly a serious and prolonged course of dishonest conduct. I do not make any reduction on this account.
The defendant’s clear record is noted. However, as the Court of Appeal held in Nones, a one-third discount for a timely guilty plea is the high watermark, and remorse and a previous clear record are subsumed in such a discount. I do not give any additional discount.
Totality
Having decided on the individual starting points, I stand back and concede the overall criminality. The total amount stolen is $63,498,749.41. If the overall criminality were reflected by a single charge, and applying the Ng Kwok Wing guidelines, the starting point for a sum exceeding $15 million is 10 years or above. Given that the total sum significantly exceeds the $15 million threshold, and having
regard to the duration of the offending for over 6 years, the nature of the theft and the aggravating factors, a total sentence well in excess of 10 years is warranted. This is achieved through consecutive sentences across multiple charges.
In the recent case of HKSAR v Chan Yiu Choi [2025] HKCFI 1814, a global starting point of 10 years was adopted for $26.4 million stolen over 4 years by an accountant. In Nones, a global starting point of 10 years and 6 months was found appropriate on review for $14.6 million stolen by a domestic helper over 15 months. The present case involves a significantly large amount, around $63.5 million for over a long period of time, for over 6 years. Having considered all the circumstances, I find that an overall global starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
After the one-third discount for the defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence is 8 years’ imprisonment.
I have stood back and considered the sentence as a whole. The sentence is undoubtedly severe. However, having regarded the seriousness of the offences and the defendant’s culpability, I am satisfied that the sentence is fair, just and balanced to the offences as well as to the defendant.
Sentence
Applying the one-third discount to each individual starting point, the sentences are as follows:
Charge 1, 25 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 2, 58 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 3, 80 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 4, 21 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 5, 8 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 6, 24 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 7, 46 months’ imprisonment.
The sentence on the 3rd charge, namely, 80 months’ imprisonment, shall form the base. 16 months of the 2nd charge shall be served consecutively to the 3rd charge. The sentences on all remaining charges shall be served concurrently with the partly consecutive sentences on the 2nd and the 3rd charges.
You are therefore sentenced to a total of 8 years’ imprisonment.