HKSAR v. Wong Chung Suen

DCCC 211/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 211 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a total of seven charges of theft.

2.The charges involve a company called Sourcing Solutions International Limited, by which the defendant was employed as a member of the accounting staff, and she was responsible for preparing company cheques to pay for its expenses.

3.In October it was found that six of those company cheques had been cashed from the company’s HSBC account, amounting to a total of $666,488, and each of those cheques formed what became the 2nd to 7th charge of the indictment; the 1st charge referring to the theft of the actual chequebooks from which they came.

4.Investigations revealed eventually that the defendant used those cheques to pay for online purchases on Facebook.  It was found the defendant had made a total of six purchases online using the cheques, and the amounts of payment corresponded to the amounts payable in the cheques.

5.Fortunately, with the exception of one of those transactions, the money has been returned to the company.  At the present moment, the outstanding amount is $114,188.

6.The defendant made admissions under caution about taking the chequebooks and signing the cheques and passing them off.  She did say that she did not collect any of the goods purchased, and she thought the money would be returned to the victim company, her company, if she failed to take the goods.  With the exception of one of the cheques, that appears to have been the case.

7.The defendant’s antecedents have been admitted. She was an accounts clerk, so she obviously is a person of previous clear record.  She is aged 30 years old, of university education, and had been employed as an accounting clerk.  She is single, but I understand she is in a relationship.  She was living with her parents and younger brother.

8.I have a medical note from a Dr Lin, who observes that as of this time, the defendant is six weeks and one day pregnant.

9.As far as the mitigation is concerned, I am pointed to the actual loss to the victim, which is quantifiable as $114,188, which is the actual loss, and I am informed that that amount can be repaid by way of a cheque subsequent to any compensation order that I will make, so that is a matter that must be taken into account in terms of restitution.  As far as the other sums of money are concerned, they have been recovered by the victim company.

10.It mitigation it is also said the defendant is pregnant.  She is of previous clear record.  She had a diploma in business accounting.

11.The items she apparently purchased were high‑value items such as handbags, which she did not really need, and it has been put to me that the real motivation for committing these offences is some form of relief of anxiety in an inappropriate way.

12.As far as the approach to sentencing is concerned, the offences took place over a period of about five days.  They involved the use of company cheques of the company she worked for, so they involve a substantial and serious breach of trust.

13.There is guideline sentencing for offences of theft involving breach of trust.  A guideline case is Chun Mei Ku which the level of sentencing is largely dependent upon the amount obtained by way of the thefts.

14.In this case, the amount that has been obtained by way of the cheques, or the value, is $660,000‑odd, which puts it in the range of $250,000 to $1 million, and on the face of it, the figure would lie somewhere within the middle of that range of sentencing.

15.When determining where I should take a starting point for sentence in respect of that guideline, I take into account what the actual loss to the company has been and the fact that the defendant has a clear record, and so what I shall do is take an initial starting point for sentence at the bottom of that guideline, which is 24 months’ imprisonment.

16.From this, I must deduct a further figure to reflect the restitution that is going to be made, and I understand will be made today as the result of any compensation order I make.  That is a substantial sum by way of restitution and will mean that the victim company is fully compensated.  I shall deduct from the 24 months’ starting point a figure of 6 months’ imprisonment to reflect that.

17.I now have a starting point for sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.  A further one-third deduction from that is appropriate, leaving a final sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment for all these charges.

18.What I shall simply do is order a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment to be served on each charge concurrently; a total of 12 months’ imprisonment.

19.So for Charges 1 to 7, a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

20.There will also be a compensation order of $114,188 in favour of the victim company, which is Sourcing Solutions International Limited, cash; payable forthwith.

(Discussion re compensation order)

21.I will amend the compensation order so it will read as follows:  $100,000 deducted from bail, that is by consent, and then the balance forthwith.