HKSAR v. Sin Sai Hang

DCCC 731/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 731 OF 2015

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Theft". He was a warehouse worker. He had stolen about 340 mobile phones (total value: $773,500) from his employer.

Summary of Facts

2.MC Founder Limited ("MC Founder") is a supplier of Nokia mobile phones selling the products to major retailers in Hong Kong.  The company stored its stock at its warehouse situated at an industrial building in Kwai Chung.

3.Mr. CHIU (PW1) was the warehouse supervisor of MC Founder; whereas the defendant, a warehouse worker under PW1.

4.On 29 May 2013, PW1 conducted a stock check.  He discovered several hundred Nokia mobile phones missing (namely the 920 and 720 models).  PW1 made enquiries with his subordinates.  The defendant admitted to PW1 that he had taken several hundred Nokia mobile phones without authorization.

5.The defendant has confessed the same to another warehouse supervisor (PW2 Mr. WONG).  He has also asked PW2 if he could return the phones within 20 days.  PWs 1 and 2 reported to their superior.  The defendant was dismissed on the same day.

6.CCTV footage of the warehouse captured the defendant entering the premises during off hours (after 6:00 pm when the warehouse was closed) on 13, 14, 15 and 25 May 2013.  He was seen taking mobile phones from large boxes, cutting the labels on the boxes and putting the mobile phones into other boxes and bags.  He then left the warehouse with the boxes or bags containing the mobile phones.

7.PW1 conducted a thorough stock check.  He confirmed that 144 sets of Nokia 920 ($3,860 per set) and 351 sets of Nokia 720 ($2,275 per set) were missing.

8.The defendant was arrested on 4 June 2013.  He remained silent under caution.  He now admits (and the prosecution accepts) that he used his staff card to enter the warehouse during off-duty hours on 13, 15 and 25 May 2013 and stole a total of 340 sets of Nokia 720.

Mitigation & Sentence

9.The defendant is now 33 and has a clear record.  Defence counsel Mr. LEE informed me that the defendant's parents had a divorce long time ago; the defendant resides with his mother.  At MC Founder, the defendant was earning $9,000 per month.  After being dismissed, he became a casual worker earning the same monthly income.

10.Mr. LEE submitted that the defendant committed the offence because he was in need to money.  He owed a gambling debt in the sum of about $300,000 (principal only).  He had no means to repay his debt.  He therefore stole the mobile phones and sold them at $500,000.  Yet he was still unable to repay his debt in full and was adjudicated bankrupt a few months after the offence.  A letter written by the defendant was placed before me; its contents are duly noted. 

11.Time after time, the court has expressed in very clear terms that being in financial difficulty (however serious) is no mitigating factor for committing a crime.  The defendant foolishly resorted to illegal means to solve his financial problems, and his plan was doomed to failure.  There must have been proper ways for him seek help, for example, his family members or Individual Voluntary Arrangement.  If gambling was the cause of committing the present offence, he has no one but himself to blame. 

12.This case is a classic Barrick type of breach of trust situation.  The defendant stole goods in stock from his employer's warehouse.  According to HKSAR v NG Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017, if the amount stolen is between $250,000 and $1 million, the sentence should be 2 to 3 years' imprisonment.

13.The total value of the mobile phones stolen by the defendant is $773,500.  By accepting this figure, the prosecution has given him the benefit of doubt that he had only stolen 340 sets of Nokia 720, which is a lesser number than MC Founder's actual loss and a cheaper model.

14.Considering his age and clear record, I am prepared to adopt a slightly lower starting point of 30 months' imprisonment.  A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 20 months.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 20 months' imprisonment.