HKSAR v. Ng Chi Ming

HCCC 270/2019

[2019] HKCFI 3035

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 270 OF 2019

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

On 12 August this year, the defendant, who is now aged 55, pleaded guilty to four charges of theft of cash amounting in total to $9,147,962. This was the property of Zhu Guoxin. All of these offences were committed on the same day, 6 August 2018.

The victim Zhu lived and worked in Macau as a casino promoter earning commission on referrals of largely mainland clients to gamble in Guangdong Halls, which is a VIP club operated in many Macau casinos. And it was because mainland customers tried to avoid bringing into Macau large sums of cash which they would borrow from Zhu’s account with Guangdong Halls and which they would then exchange for gambling chips. Repayment of what had been borrowed was made by transferring payments on Zhu’s instructions into the accounts of a number of money exchange shops in Hong Kong.

In 2015, the defendant was working in a casino in Macau when he became acquainted with Zhu. In February 2018, Zhu employed the defendant to go to Hong Kong on a daily basis except Sundays to collect money and then to bring it back and deliver it to Zhu in Macau. The defendant was paid a monthly salary of $18,000.

Now, the day of the offence. This was 6 August 2018 -- sorry, yes, 2018, the defendant went to four money exchange shops and after renminbi had been converted into Hong Kong currency, the defendant received from four shops the following sums which represent each of the thefts: one, $627,138; two, $800,000; three, $2 million; and four, $5,720,824 on which Zhu would normally be paid 0.8 per cent in commission. However, after the defendant collected those sums of money, it seems that he turned off his telephone so that Zhu could not reach him and when by the following day Zhu had still not reached him, the matter was reported to the police.

Approximately seven weeks later on 27 September 2018, the defendant was discovered as a customer in a mah-jong parlour in Hunghom. The police were conducting some sort of licence check when he was found. The defendant said nothing to the police at any stage as he was perfectly entitled to do. He was found in possession of $74,084, a Rolex watch, a bracelet, a mobile phone and a key to a guesthouse in Mongkok. In due course, that guesthouse was searched. Receipts and gift coupons were found that had been issued by well-known jewellery companies and several items of jewellery were recovered. The purchases of all the things recovered by police came to just over $107,000 worth.

All of the money and jewellery is to be returned to Zhu who, by way of -- I will make an order in due course for the disposal of the exhibits which will enable at least those items to go back to the victim of this case.

Well, plainly, a high degree of trust must have been placed in the defendant to collect and safely deliver to his employer such very large sums of cash. There is really no serious mitigation for the defendant beyond the fact that he has pleaded guilty.

To his credit, the last criminal offence was in 1994 which was committed by the defendant. But to his discredit, only a tiny proportion of the money he has stolen has been recovered. No assistance has been provided to the authorities to recover any more of the balance, and clearly the fact that so little has been recovered is clearly an aggravating factor. It is said on the defendant’s behalf that he used the money to pay off his debts.

Well, now I have been referred quite rightly to a decision in HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1018 that an appropriate starting point for the overall criminality in a case such as this would be 7½ years’ imprisonment after trial. As there are four thefts on the charge sheet, these have to be individually dealt with.

Would you stand, Mr Ng, please? You will receive the full credit for your pleas of guilty. If you had not pleaded guilty, you would be going to prison today for 7½ years.

On Charge 1, the sentence will be 20 months’ imprisonment which is reduced from 30 months. On Charge 2, the sentence is 18 months reduced from 27 months. On Charge 3, the sentence is 6 years after trial reduced to 4 years. I think I said Charge 3. That would be Charge 4. Charge 4 will be 6 years reduced to 4 years, and I have missed out Charge 3 which is 33 months reduced to 22 months.

Now, those sentences are to run concurrently except 1 year on Charge 4 will run consecutively. I must again correct that. The sentence in the end will be 5 years’ imprisonment. 1 year will run consecutively on the current sentences and that 1 year will come from Charge 3 to run consecutively to the sentence of 4 years on Charge 4. So instead of receiving a 7½-year sentence, your sentence in total is 5 years. Is that clear?

ACCUSED: Yes.