HKSAR v. Luk Wing Sze
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 675/2024 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 8 May 2025.
1. The defendant is convicted on her own plea and agreement to Summary of Facts for a charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
Cites 4 cases
|
DCCC 675/2024 [2025] HKDC 782 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 675 OF 2024 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.The defendant is convicted on her own plea and agreement to Summary of Facts for a charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Facts 2.The defendant was the accounting clerk of New Shing Lee Construction Engineering Company Limited (“New Shing Lee”). She was assigned the task of handling accounting affairs, which included helping the company to pay miscellaneous fees. According to usual practice, she would first fill in a cheque (by writing down the payee’s name as well as the payable amount), and then hand over the cheque to directors of New Shing Lee for signatures. Afterwards, she would issue the cheque on the company’s behalf. She was also required by the company to keep records of all the cheques issued. 3.An audit check found out that there were discrepancies between New Shing Lee’s bank account records and New Shing Lee’s expense records. Enquiries were made with the defendant and she admitted that she would use pencil to fill in a cheque, and after obtaining the required signatures from the relevant persons, she would erase the pencil marks and use a ballpoint pen to change the payee’s name and the payable amount. Afterwards, she would cash the cheque. Upon paying the fees for New Shing Lee, she would embezzle the remaining money. 4.The defendant was dismissed as a result of her full admission in May 2023. She was arrested on 15 August 2023, and under caution, she admitted that she stole over $1 million from New Shing Lee for herself. 5.The total amount stolen from New Shing Lee by the defendant between 19 November 2014 and 20 April 2021 was HK$1,854,062.3 and the overdraft interest charged by the bank was HK$94,044.64. Criminal record 6.The defendant has a clear record. Mitigation 7.The defendant is now aged 45 and single. She was born and raised in Hong Kong. She completed her education up to Form 5. At the time of her arrest, her salary at the company was $10,500 per month. From year 2022, she took up an extra job at the Hospital Authority as a delivery lady earning about $11,400 per month. 8.The defendant has a 13-year-old son born out of a relationship with a former boyfriend. Her mother, now aged 73, is the sole carer of the son since her remand. The defendant is the sole breadwinner of the son. 9.Defence counsel submitted 5 letters in mitigation, including that from the defendant, her mother, her son, her younger sister and a long-term friend. The defendant expressed deep remorse and acknowledged her actions had deeply disappointed her former employer and her family. She also mentioned that whilst in remand, she had not only applied for work in order to enhance herself, but also took up Bible study, which has positively affected herself both emotionally and spiritually. 10.Defence counsel submitted that the defendant is a kind and hard-working single mother. She was under considerable financial strain at the material times, being the sole breadwinner of the family. Her son is diagnosed to be suffering from ADHD, and in the letter from the son, he mentioned that he could only see his mother on Sundays as he understood that she was the sole breadwinner and had to spend a lot of time working. The defendant’s family fully supported the defendant in her rehabilitation. 11.Defence counsel also submitted that the defendant’s commission of the present offences were predominantly driven by the need to raise funds to support herself and her son during the 6 years and 5 months period. It was said that the monthly salary from the employer were insufficient to cover the family expenses and her gambling habit, which resulted in the defendant taking out loans from moneylenders. When her repayment of the loans became impossible, she ultimately started stealing from the employer company. 12.Defence counsel acknowledged that the length of time and the number of transactions involved in the present case was substantial, but he urged this court to consider the particular circumstances of the case. It was said that the defendant had not committed the theft strictly out of greed, but as a result of her strained relationship with her former boyfriend and her inability to manage her finances. None of the funds stolen were applied towards lavish spending. 13.It has also been submitted that the defendant had started rehabilitation since April 2021, when she ceased all this criminal activity and consolidated all her debts under one moneylender. The defendant also took an extra job in order to expedite her ability to repay her loans. This all happened at a time when the crimes were not yet detected. 14.Defence counsel submitted that the defendant was placed under great strain by excessive responsibility, both during the time of offence and also post-sentencing, for her son and elderly mother. 15.He submitted that the defendant was cooperative from the very moment that she was confronted by the employer to the time of her arrest. It was also said that the case was only brought to court 2 years after the crime was detected, which resulted in a psychological burden on the defendant, although the defence counsel considered that it was due to no fault on the part of the prosecution. 16.He also urged this court for a sentencing discount as a result of the defendant’s guilty plea. 17.He referred this court to various authorities, including:
Discussion 18.Before sentencing, the court has carefully considered all that was said on behalf of the defendant, the cited authorities and the mitigation letters lodged. 19.Upon conviction on indictment of this charge, a person is liable to imprisonment for 10 years. 20.The defendant was at the material times the accounting clerk of the company, responsible for issuing of cheques and keeping records of cheques issued. She has clearly breached the trust reposed in her by her employer when she changed the payee’s name and the payable amount after the cheque was signed by the required signatories. Her commission of the offence was clearly premeditated and pre-planned. 21.The employer trusted the defendant so much that they did not even realise the name of the payee and the amount was written on the cheques by pencil. 22.Adopting the sentencing approach in John Barrick case, this court had considered the following matters before sentencing:
23.In the cited Ng Kwok Wing case, the Court of Appeal laid down sentencing guidelines for theft involving breach of trust cases, revising the sentencing guideline in Cheung Mee Kiu case. The sentencing starting point involving theft amount between $1 million and $3 million is 3 years to 5 years’ imprisonment. 24.In this case, the quality and degree of trust reposed in the defendant is very significant. The defendant committed the offence over a period of 6 years and 5 months involving 96 altered cheques. The amount involved total HK$1,854,062.3 and as a result of the offence, the defendant’s employer also had to pay HK$94,044.64 bank interest. The loss to the employer has not been recovered. 25.Money stole by the defendant was applied towards defendant’s family expenses and no doubt gambling debts. There is no evidence before this court as to the impact on the employer as a result of the monetary loss. The defendant used to have a clear record. The offence did not appear to affect the colleagues of the defendant or the public at large. 26.The defendant was arrested on 15 August 2023 and she was first brought to court in August 2023. It is clear that the police needs to investigate the bank account of the employer from the first date of employment of the defendant as an accountant clerk until May 2023. All payment cheques and movements in the company’s bank accounts would have to be scrutinised. This court did not find any undue delay in the process (which the defendant accepts). 27.In the mitigation letter from the defendant, she evinced her intention to start afresh on her release. She said that she has made efforts and learned extra employment skills while she was in remand and she also showed her deep remorse. 28.Letters from the defendant’s mother, son, younger sister and friend all said the defendant was a good, kind-hearted, loving mother and she failed to manage her finance properly. The defendant has already taken up two jobs to earn a living and to repay her debts prior to her being apprehended. The defendant’s son was said to suffer from ADHD and was presently being looked after solely by the 73-year-old mother of the defendant. The son asked this court to be lenient on his mother so that his mother and himself can look after the defendant’s aged mother. 29.This court accepts that the defendant had tried to rehabilitate herself before the crime was exposed by taking up extra jobs to repay her debts and she had also made efforts to cease gambling. This court was also impressed by the pledge by the defendant’s son. 30.Having regard to the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s commission of the offences and the authorities, this court considers that 4 years’ imprisonment an appropriate sentencing starting point. 31.The defendant has pleaded guilty, which is the most valid mitigating factor, for which she is entitled to a full one-third sentencing discount. 32.The court has considered all mitigation letters lodged. It is well established that though the defendant has a clear record in the past, the sentencing discount for a clear record had already been subsumed in the one-third sentencing discount. 33.Whilst this court does not accept being a single parent is by itself a valid mitigating factor, it is persuaded to exercise its discretion further discount the sentence of the defendant by (a) 1 month on the basis the defendant has started her rehabilitation efforts before the crime was exposed, which was 2 years before; (b) 1 month by reason that the son with ADHD obviously needs special care and attention in his adolescent stage and would be best if the defendant would be with him during this time (on the basis that she abstained from further gambling). 34.Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.
|
Cases cited in this judgment