HKSAR v. LAU CHUNG MING

DCCC 1106/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1106 OF 2013

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant, Mr Lau Chung Ming, pleaded guilty to 13 charges of theft, namely charges 1-3, 5-10 and 15-18, 1 charge of fraud, namely charge 4, and 3 charges of obtaining property by deception, namely charges 11, 13 and 14. Mr Lau was an insurance agent of American International Assurance Company (Bermuda) Limited (“AIA”). The victims of his crimes have been his clients.

2.  It can be seen that he commenced to engage in fraudulent practices back in November 2005.  This was the starting date of the 1^st charge.  He persisted in his dishonest conduct all the way up to 2011.

3.  The defendant stole or defrauded his victims the total amount of US$12,836 and HK$3,060,677.  I am told that the defendant returned about HK$156,000 to some of his victims.  In other words, the victims were out of pocket in the tune of about HK$3 million in value.

4.  The schemes deployed by the defendant required planning.  For example, in August 2008, the defendant took the trouble to set up a company by the name of “AIGA Asset Trade” and opened a bank account for it.  This company and its bank account were used, in relation to the offence under charge 6, to lure one of his trusting clients, a person by the name of Leung King Sheung, to part with his money, no doubt in the mistaken belief that this “AIGA Asset Trade” was connected with the reputable insurance company, the AIA Group.

5.  Moreover, in furtherance of his crimes, the defendant created false blank deposit confirmation forms and used such false instruments to cover up his dishonest activities.

6.  He told numerous lies to his clients.  He made up stories about different deposit schemes or share investment schemes.  In relation to charge 9, he used an erasable pen to ostensibly put down as payee the name of AIA on a cheque given to him by his client, a person by the name of Heung Chi Wang, and the defendant would later change the payee to AIGA Asset Trade, thereby misappropriating his client’s funds.

7.  There is plainly a degree of sophistication in his fraudulent schemes.

8.  There is no doubt in my mind that when he committed these offences, he was in breach of the trust reposed in him by his clients.  Instead of dealing with his own clients with honesty and diligence, he brazenly abused their trust.

9.  In his most helpful mitigation submission, learned counsel Mr Michael Leung informed the court that the defendant is a married man 46 years of age.  He has a clear record.  He holds a degree in Public and Social Administration.  Until sometime last year, he was an insurance agent, earning some HK$80,000 per month.  He was declared bankrupt last year.

10.  According to learned counsel, the defendant himself was cheated of some HK$3 million.  In his desperate attempt to make up his losses and to repay his loans, he started his fraudulent activities.  I was told that he tried to invest some of the stolen assets in the stock market, resulting in his losing everything.

11.  The defendant then confessed to his wife and surrendered himself to the police.

12.  The defendant’s wife wrote a letter to the court.  I accept that the defendant was a very filial son-in-law, willing to look after his mother-in-law when she was sick.

13.  Mr Lau turned himself in and confessed his crimes.  He pleaded guilty and I accept that he has demonstrated true remorse.  I must give him credit for bravely accepting his wrong-doing.

14.  This is a breach of trust case.  The amount of money misappropriated totaled over HK$3 million.  I also have to take into account that the defendant was engaging in this type of wholly dishonest activities for over 5 years.

15.  I am of the view that a global starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment would have been appropriate.  However, taking into account the main mitigating factor raised by learned counsel, namely the responsible steps taken by the defendant in surrendering himself to the police voluntarily, I shall reduce the global starting point by 6 months, to 4½ years.

16.  As the defendant pleaded guilty to these 17 charges, I shall give him the customary 1/3 discount.  The total sentence would therefore be 3 years’ imprisonment.

17.  For each of the 17 charges to which the defendant has pleaded guilty, I shall impose a starting point of 3 years.  They will be reduced by 1/3 to individual sentences of 2 years each.  The sentences for charges 1-11 will be served concurrently.  The sentences for charges 13-18 will also be served concurrently.  However, 1 year of the sentences for charges 13-18 is ordered to be served consecutively to the 2-year sentence for charges 1-11.  Therefore, the result will be for the defendant to serve a total of 3 years of imprisonment.