|
HCCC 395/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 395 OF 2013
-----------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
LAI Oi-yan |
|
| ------------------ |
| Before: |
Hon Andrew Chan J |
| Date: |
29 July 2014 at 2.57 pm |
| Present: |
Ms Liza S H Yip, Counsel on fiat, and Mr Paul Ho, ADPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr David A S Khosa, instructed by Ivan Tang & Co, for the accused |
| Offence: |
(1) to (5) Conspiracy to steal (串謀偷竊) |
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
COURT: The defendant was convicted after trial by jury of two counts of conspiracy to steal. The defendant, who worked as a general banking officer for HSBC at the time, abused her position by gaining access into the bank’s computer systems and taking away detailed customer information. She then forwarded that information to one criminal syndicate.
As a result, false passports bearing these customers’ particulars were made. Persons impersonating these customers, armed with these false passports, went to different branches of the bank and successfully transferred a total of HK$15.5 million away. As a result, the bank had to make full compensation to its two customers.
Evidence also revealed that minutes before these thefts, the defendant had been monitoring these two customers’ accounts closely. Although there was no evidence to point to the fact that the defendant was the mastermind behind this scheme, evidence did suggest that she continuously played a role in these thefts.
The defendant received over HK$1.5 million reward for her effort. The whole scheme was a sophisticated one and involved detailed planning. The defendant played a significant and pivotal role in the whole operation. Without her participation, the theft could not even begin. This case involves a serious breach of trust.
The defendant is 26 now and has a clear record. Before the present incident, she had been all along working in the banking and financial industry after completing her secondary school education. Apart from greed, I cannot see any reasons for her committing these two offences.
Although the defendant was charged for conspiracy, the thefts, however, had been carried out. For the purpose of sentencing, I believe the guidelines set down in Hong Kong SAR v Lee Lai Kit Kitty, CACC 379/2008, are relevant and applicable. For the theft of the $11 million from Miss Xia’s account, a starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment will be adopted. For the theft of the $4.5 million from Mr Zhang’s account, a starting point of 5½ years’ imprisonment will be adopted.
Given that the defendant was convicted after trial, no further discount would be given. Having considered the total amount of loss in this case, I am of the view that 2 years’ imprisonment imposed on Count 2 should run consecutively with the 8 years imposed on Count 1.
In conclusion, the defendant is sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.
|