HKSAR v. Cheung Wai Lun

DCCC 934/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 934 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge and facts

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to a charge of theft. He was a serving police sergeant at times acting as the Duty Officer in the Report Room of Wan Chai Police Station.  As the Duty Officer, he would be given the key to the safe containing bail money and was responsible for the custody of the bail money.

2.On 2 May 2016, as the Duty Officer he received $1,093,237 cash from his predecessor.  One part of the money, $23,237, was put into a box.  The other part, $1,070,000, was put into 5 tamper proof bags. Later on the same day, his colleague checked the safe and found the 5 bags together with $1,070,000 missing.  The matter was reported to the superior. 

3.CCTV footages of different locations suggested that he had taken the bags and gone to Macau via Hong Kong Macau Ferry Terminal at Shun Tak Centre.

4.On 1 August 2016, he was arrested by the Hong Kong police after surrendering himself to the Mainland authority.  In the subsequent police enquiries, he revealed that he had owed a lot of debts and wanted to make winnings by gambling in Macau to repay the debts.   

Personal background and mitigation

5.He is now 43 years of age, of F. 5 education level.  He has a clear record.  He joined the police as a constable in 1992, promoted to a sergeant in 2015 but was dismissed in 2016.  Consequently, he missed out on a lump sum pension accumulated up to $2 million, a sum he would get assuming he properly completed his police career.  His wife is applying for a divorce.  She works as a MTR station assistant.  His daughter is a self-supporting university student. 

6.He still owes $1.03 million to finance companies and the police credit union.  It represented losses brought about by the gambling habit of his wife and himself, apart from speculative investments.  

7.Ms. Liang in mitigation asks me to consider a starting point of 3 years, give him the one-third discount and also some discount for his loss of pension, which she seeks to draw strength from the case of HKSAR v Lam Yuk Ming, Anita DCCC 484/2016.  As immediately pointed out by Mr. Lee for the prosecution, the present Defendant was not in any way entitled to his pension yet whereas in respect of her own part of MPF, it was Lam’s own contribution as the employee.  

Sentencing considerations

8.The Court of Appeal in HKSAR vCheung Mee Kiu[2006] 4 HKLRD 776 as emended by HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 indicates that the sentencing range for breach of trust involving $1 million to $3 million is 3 to 5 years.

9.Inthe case of Lam Yuk Ming, Anita, the defendant was a clerk in a solicitors’ firm.  She produced client vouchers for the partners to sign in a ploy to transfer the payments into her own bank account. There were 2 charges as 2 bank accounts of the firm were used.  Over a period of 16 months in 74 transactions, she embezzled over $2.6 million in total between the 2 bank accounts.  There was a repayment of 54% of the loss to the firm.  The learned judge took a starting point of 54 months, to be reduced by 3 months for her possible loss of bearing when she committed the offence, then a one-third discount for her plea of guilty, and 4 months for the compensation to the firm, comprising her own MPF contribution balance and other monies raised by her.  The overall sentence was 30 months for both charges, based on a concurrent sentence.   

Sentencing this Defendant

10.I take a starting point of 3 years.  It was a pitiable fall from grace but it was not anything out of his expectation as an experienced police officer.  After the one-third discount, the sentence is 2 years.