The Queen v. Tony Wong Chun Loong and Another

CACC000020A/1991

BETWEEN

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

Coram: Hon Silke, V-P, Kempster and Power, JJA

Date of Hearing: 22 October 1991

Date of Judgment: 22 October 1991

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

JUDGMENT

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

Kempster, JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 10 January 1991, after conviction on two counts of conspiracy to defraud contrary to Common Law, Tony Wong Chung Loong was sentenced to 4 years and Patricia Wong to 2 1/2 years imprisonment on each count; the respective terms to run concurrently. On 5 September last this Court allowed their appeals against the first of those convictions and set the related sentences aside. Their appeals against the second conviction were dismissed. They now seek leave to appeal against the subsisting sentences of 4 and 21/2 years respectively imposed on the second count.

2. The circumstances of the conspiracy which was the subject matter of the second count were filly explained in our earlier judgment. The applicants had agreed with others fraudulently to expose Jademan Holdings Ltd to unwarranted economic risk deriving from loans ostensibly made to some of its employees. The sums involved amounted to $18 million and had redounded to the personal advantage of the conspirators. The nature of the entries in the books of the company made it quite clear that those involved knew that what they were doing was wrong and had to be concealed.

3. It is stated in the Perfected Grounds of Appeal that each sentence was too severe. Mr Griffiths QC, for the applicants, put the optimum risk at any particular time at $10 million and stressed the point that in the event the company suffered no loss. Both applicants were of previous good character. Tony Wong, during the times of prosperity, had shown himself active and generous in charitable causes and we accept the comment that his shame at having involved his younger sister in this fraudulent enterprise is to his credit. We do not accept implicit attacks on the financial advice tendered to Tony Wong by persons not before the Court.

4. The sentencing judge, Deputy High Court Judge Leong, differentiated these offences from hypothetical convictions under the Companies Ordinance; their suggested similarity having been the burden of the mitigation urged before him. He pointed out that $4.3 million of the monies put at risk had gone to repay Tony Wong's debt to a particular company and other sums to the purchase of shares  in a company called "Karas" which he controlled.  The judge took into account the fact that Tony Wong was a man of previous good character who had been an enterprising person from his youth despite disadvantageous personal circumstances. As regards Patricia the judge took into consideration the fact that she was no more than an assistant or secretary to her brother and had derived comparatively little benefit from the monies put at risk.

5. Beyond question Deputy Judge Leong took the relative involvement of the two applicants in the conspiracy into account and applied the totality principle in arriving at the effective sentences passed. we, of course, must now appropriately recognise their successful appeals against conviction on the first count in the indictment.

6. Taking all the considerations that have been urged upon us into account, some of which do not appear to have been advanced below, we allow the applications for leave to appeal. We treat this hearing as that of the appeals and, as regards Tony Wong, substitute a sentence of 2 1/2 years imprisonment for that of 4 years. As regards Patricia Wong we substitute a sentence of 12 months imprisonment for the period of 2 1/2 years. To that extent the appeals are allowed.

Representation:

John Griffiths, QC and Warren Chan (M/s Wai & Co) for Applicants

J. Pethes and Miss S.H. Chiam for Crown/Respondent