HKSAR v. Chan Mei Ching, Nikita

DCCC 292/2019

[2019] HKDC 1514

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 292 OF 2019

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to a charge of fraud on her employer. 

Facts

2.At all material times, the Defendant was a shipping clerk of Amazing Toys Limited (“Amazing”) which had regular business dealings with different shipping companies.  On each occasion, after goods of Amazing had been entrusted by Amazing to the shipping companies for shipping, the relevant shipping company would send an invoice to the Defendant for settlement of the freight.  The Defendant would then pass the invoice to her superior, Madam Hoh, who was a director of Amazing.  Madam Hoh in turn would according to the amount of freight specified in the invoice, issue a cheque in the amount of the corresponding freight, payable to the Defendant drawn upon the account held by Amazing with the Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited.  The Defendant would then cash the cheque and deposit the amount of freight due into the relevant shipping company’s bank account via ATM to settle the relevant invoice.

3.APL Logistics SCS Hong Kong Limited (“APL”) was one of the shipping companies that had business dealings with Amazing.  On 21 September 2018, Mr. Sy, who was another director of Amazing, conducted Amazing’s audit checks and found that Amazing had substantially overpaid APL as shipping fee than the previous year. Feeling suspicious, he enquired of the Defendant, who admitted to him that she had defrauded Amazing by editing the invoices of APL and claiming larger amounts.  After consideration, Mr. SY made a report to the police on 2 October 2018.

4.On 3 October 2018, the Defendant surrendered herself to the police.  Under caution, the Defendant apologized and admitted to have stolen money from her company. 

5.On the same day, the police conducted a video-recorded interview with the Defendant, who under caution said something, including the following:

(a) The Defendant had been a shipping clerk for Amazing since September 2015;

(b) APL submitted its invoices to Amazing via emails;

(c) Since August/September 2017, the Defendant started editing the invoices submitted to Amazing by APL;

(d) On each occasion, the Defendant used “Paint” to edit the invoices to a larger amount;

(e) The Defendant then passed the edited invoices to Madam Hoh who would in turn issue cheques of the company payable to the Defendant;

(f) The Defendant then cashed the cheques and settled the invoices by depositing money into APL’s account via ATM;

(g) The Defendant had deposited the extra money into her own HSBC account;

(h) The Defendant had deleted all of the emails and edited invoices.

6.Madam Pang, the manager of APL stated that between 1 April 2017 and 30 September 2018 (“the Period”), there were 74 shipping records between Amazing and APL.

7.Upon comparing the cheques issued to the Defendant by Amazing for paying freight due to APL with the actual invoices provided by APL, Mr. Sy confirmed that:

(a) On 48 occasions during the Period, the Defendant had edited invoices submitted by APL to Amazing for payment on 48 occasions, total sum defrauded being $477,750.01;

(b) On 50 other occasions during the Period, the Defendant had forged invoices of APL and submitted the same to Amazing for payment, total sum defrauded being $825,257.85;

(c) Amazing therefore had been defrauded into paying $1,303,007.86 in total to the order of the Defendant.

8.The Defendant had repaid Amazing a total sum of $99,000.

Mitigation

9.The Defendant is 36 years of age, of F. 5 education level.  She has a clear record.  Her parents are divorced.  She is single and lives alone.  She keeps 8 abandoned cats, incurring about $5,000 per month. 

10.After deducting the Defendant’s compensation, her employer’s net loss was $1,204,007.86.

Sentencing considerations

11.The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu[2006] 4 HKLRD 776 (later emended in HKSAR v Ng Kwok-wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017) states that the guideline sentence for loss of $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 shall be 3 – 5 years. 

Sentencing the Defendant

12.Over 1 year 6 months, the Defendant had fraudulently tampered with APL’s invoices on 98 occasions, resulting in her employer’s loss of $1,303,007.86.  After her compensation in the sum of $99,000, the net loss was $1,204,007.86. 

13.I take 3 years 3 months as the starting point.  After a one-third discount for her plea of guilty, the sentence is 2 years 2 months.  I deduct 2 months for her compensation paid to her employer.  The sentence is 2 years.