HKSAR v. Ngan Tsz Chun

DCCC 390/2021

[2022] HKDC 1503

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 390 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.The defendant is convicted upon his own guilty plea of one charge of theft of HK$342,347.05 committed between 13 June 2016 and 5 December 2016.

FACTS

2.The defendant was employed by BLOOP MANAGEMENT LIMITED from 13 June 2016 as the deputy manager of a bar called “Bloop Shisha Lounge” located at 21^st floor, Ho Lee Commercial Building, Nos.38-44 D’Aguilar Street, Central, Hong Kong (the “Bar”).

3.The defendant was responsible for, inter alia, depositing the Bar’s turnover into the Bar’s bank account.

4.Upon review of the Bar’s bank account, the Bar’s accountant found that between June and December 2016, the Bar had an income of HK$1,010,329.50. After deducting the Bar’s operating expenses in the sum of HK$154,984.95, the amount which should be deposited into the Bar’s bank account should have been HK$855,345.45. However, only HK$512,970.50 was deposited into the Bar’s bank account. As such, HK$342,374.05 being property belonging to BLOOP MANAGEMENT LIMTED was missing.

5.The defendant was arrested on 22 December 2016. In a cautioned interview conducted in October 2017, the defendant admitted inter alia that without the Bar’s consent, he took HK$342,374.05 which was part of the Bar’s turnover in question.

ANTECEDENT

6.The defendant was born in February 1980 and is now 42 years old. He received education up to Form 5 level. He and his wife separated in 2011. He has a 17-year-old daughter who lives with her mother.

7.The defendant has a previous conviction of possession of dangerous drugs in respect of which a fine of HK$2,000 was imposed on him in December 2008.

8.The defendant was arrested on 22 December 2016 but was released in November 2017. He was then re-arrested for this offence in March 2021.

MITIGATION

9.Mr Boyton admitted that this was a breach of trust case and referred the Court to various sentencing authorities and judgments, including Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776 and Ng Kwok Wing CACC 398/2007.

10.Mr Boyton also submitted that there was a substantial delay in prosecution.

SENTENCE

11.This is a breach of trust case involving HK$342,374.05 happened over a period of 6 months.  Applying Cheung Mee Kiu, I adopt a starting point of 25½ months’ imprisonment.

12.One-third discount is given to the defendant for his timely indication of guilty plea, thus reducing the sentence to 17 months’ imprisonment.

13.Regarding the delay in charging the defendant with the present offence, Mr Chan informed me that he had consulted the Department of Justice but there was no additional useful information that could be given to this Court. I take it that the prosecution does not dispute that there was a substantial delay in bringing prosecution against the defendant. I will reduce the sentence by 2 months for this matter.

14.There being no further valid mitigating factors justifying further reduction in sentence, the defendant is sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment.