HKSAR v. Cheung Siu Leung

DCCC 1399/2024

[2025] HKDC 1791

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1399 OF 2024

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges:-

(a) Theft[1] of $3.3 million company money between Feb 2022 and March 2023;

(b) Conspiracy to steal[2] from a pawnshop between 4/10/2023 and 16/1/2024.

(i) 30 watches;

(ii) 36 rings;

(iii) 22 necklaces with pendants;

(iv) 7 pairs of earrings;

(v) 11 pendants;

(vi) 37 wrist chains;

(vii) 62 bracelets;

(viii) 49 necklaces;

(ix) 1 watch chain;

(x) 7 ornaments;

(xi) 4 packets of diamond.

Summary of facts

2.Shing Wo Pawn Shop was a family owned business. Mr Chu was one of the shareholders. He had the responsibility of the daily management of the pawnshop. While PW1’s brothers live in overseas also inherited the shares of the company. PW1 received $25,000 per month from the pawnshop on behalf of his brothers.

3.The Defendant was the manager of the pawnshop for over 30 years. One of his duties :-

(a) was to handle the safe (he was the only person to have the safe’s passcode and keys) which stored the shop’s cash and pawned properties;

(b) reporting to PW1 of the daily turnover;

(c) passing the pawned properties to another staff of the shop for making record and wrapping for storage;

(d) receiving cash from customers when they redeemed the pawned properties;

(e) Since 2023, the Defendant was further authorized to dispose of the pawned properties by way of reselling them when customers failed to redeem within 4 months.

4.In late 2022 to mid 2023, the company failed to pay PW1’s elder brothers monthly $25,000 entitlement.

5.In mid 2023, Mr Chu told PW1 that the Defendant had taken cash from the company for running his own business and the Defendant had failed to pay back.

6.In May 2023, Mr Chu transferred his shares to PW1, soon afterwards, Mr Chu passed away.

7.PW2 was then appointed as a consultant of the company. His main duty was to supervise the Defendant.

8.At the meantime, the Defendant promised PW1 to repay the stolen cash of $3.3 million as soon as possible.

9.On 28 October 2023, the Defendant wrote a confession note that he had stolen $3.3 million from the company.

18 January 2024

10.On 18 January 2024, PW2 found the company had a shortage of cash. The Defendant admitted to PW2:-

(a) That he had stolen customers’ pawned properties and;

(b) Took out 121 pawn tickets dated between Oct 2023 to January 2024;

(c) These 121 tickets were issued by 2 other pawn shops;

(d) All the pawn tickets showed that the properties were pawned by Wong Ning-yat.

11.PW2 also found that the safe was almost empty. 90% of the properties were missing.

12.PW2 then got the keys back from the Defendant and dismissed him.

19 January 2024

13.A report was made to the police and the Defendant was arrested on the same day.

14.Investigation revealed that various items as stated in charge 2, some have been pawned by WONG Ning-yat (“WONG”) between 2022 to 2024, while 2 watches and 24 pieces of jewellery could not be recovered.

15.The total value of the stolen properties was about $2,150,500 in charge 2.

16.Under caution, the Defendant said that:-

(a) WONG had asked him for money to pay for his legal fees everyday. As he ran out of money, he took the company properties to WONG for him to pawn at nearby pawn shops for money;

(b) He redeemed the company‘s properties when WONG repaid him;

(c) He had pawned about 120 items.

Background

17.The Defendant is 64 years old with a clear record. In 2023, he had a fight with WONG and ended up with a binding over order for an offence of “fighting in a public place”.

18.Before his remand, he lived with his long term girlfriend.

19.During his guilty plea in District Court in July 2025, he was remanded in Queen Mary Hospital Custodial Ward due to a surgery of his right eye as he has been diagnosed to suffer from serious macular hole in both eyes.

20.The doctor said that his vision was left with only 20% (right eye) and 10% (left eye). Although he has an operation on his right eye in June 2025, his eye condition has not been improved. Today, I have an updated medical report to inform me that the Defendant’s visual acuity is 1/60 his right eye and 0.5/60 left eye. That means he is close to blindness. This has a huge negative impact in his daily life.

21.As to the reasons for him to commit the present offences, he said that:-

(a) In September 2018, WONG approached him and offered to sell the Defendant‘s diamond rings ($800,000) in Dubai for a higher price;

(b) Given the impression that WONG had apparent experience in international luxury goods trading, the Defendant agreed to the arrangement;

(c) When WONG arrived in Dubai, he claimed to be detained because the diamond was allegedly a counterfeit one and he requested $400,000 urgently from the Defendant;

(d) When WONG claimed to contract middle east respiratory syndrome, the Defendant transferred more funds as requested by Wong;

(e) WONG subsequently claimed to own 2 million Bitcoin and proposed to sell them to the Defendant, but required more money from him again. The Defendant fell into the trap and provided more money to WONG;

(f) Over time, WONG continued to prey on the Defendant’s naivety who continued to transfer all his personal funds ($7 million) to him;

(g) At the end, the Defendant stole company properties and fund to pay WONG, in the hope that WONG would return the money to him;

(h) The Defendant did not have any personal gain from committing the present offences.

Sentence

22.The defence accepted that it is a case of breach of trust.

23.The Defendant worked in the victim company for 30 years and was entrusted with a huge responsibility to take care of all the pawned properties and cash in the shop.

24.He made used of his position to abuse the trust that the company had imposed on him.

25.In HKSAR v. Ng Kwok Wing[3], the 2^nd and the 3^rd bands of HKSAR v. Cheung Mee Kiu[4] has been adjusted :-

(a) $3 million to 15 million - 5 to 10 years;

(b) $1 million to $3 million - 3 to 5 years.

26.The defence also referred to the case of HKSAR v Lee Lai Kit Kitty[5] that there are a number of factors to be considered in sentencing at paragraph 23 of the judgement:

“23. …

(i) the quality and degree of trust reposed in the offender including his rank;

(ii) the period over which the fraud or the thefts have been perpetrated;

(iii) the use to which the money or property dishonestly taken was put;

(iv) the effect upon the victim;

(v) the impact of the offences on the public and public confidence;

(vi) the effect upon fellow-employees or partners;

(vii) the effect on the offender himself;

(viii) his own history;

(ix) those matters of mitigation special to himself such as illness; being placed under great strain by excessive responsibility or the like; where, as happens, there has been a long delay, say over two years, between his being confronted with his dishonesty by his professional body or the police and the start of his trial; finally, any help given by him to the police.”

27.In the present case :-

(a) The Defendant was entrusted with sole responsibility of taking care of the safe which was the place to keep all the pawned properties by the customers. That means the level of trust reposed on the defendant was on the highest level, he has full control and custody of all the pawned properties and cash. The Defendant basically had free hand to run the pawn shop and to deal with all the cash and pawned items;

(b) The stolen properties in charge 2 amount to 266 pieces of items. Those pawned items have high resell value, such as Rolex watches and jewellery;

(c) The period of the 2 charges:-

(i) Charge 1 - about 13 months[6];

(ii) Charge 2 - about 3.5 months[7].

That means it is not a one off incident, the perpetuated offences committed over multiple times for an extended period , especially in charge 1.

(d) Charge 2 was commited after he confessioned to PW1 that he had stolen $3.3 million from the company. So, on one hand he made confession, on the other hand he continued to steal, that should be viewed as an aggravating factor.

(e) As stated in the summary of facts that in mid 2023, Mr Chu told PW1 that the Defendant had taken the company cash to run his own business and had failed to pay back;

(f) From what the defence allegedly said that the defendant had been fallen into the prey of WONG’s trap since 2018. The Defendant kept transferring money to WONG and emptied the pawn shop’s safe to pay WONG. In August 2022, the Defendant realised that he had been cheated by WONG together with another person and made a report to the police.

(g) However, nothing had stopped him to wake up from this perpetrated fraud. The Defendant continued to steal from the pawnshop even when he realised that the shop owner was aware of what he had done with the company cash and the pawned items, including the fact that the Defendant had written a confession note of stealing 3.3 million from the company in Oct 2023.

28.That means the company cash registry had dried up by the Defendant thievish acts (bearing in mind the company could not pay PW1’s brother’s monthly entitlement of $25,000 since late 2022). The Defendant then turned to steal from those pawned items.

29.The defence accepted that there was an aggravating factor in charge 2 as it was committed after he made confession to PW1 of the stealing of 3.3 million in charge 2.

30.The stolen cash in charge 1 is $3.3 million and the value of the stolen properties in charge 2 was $2.15 million. The total amount of the 2 charges is $5,150,500.00.

31.Taking into account of the above factors, I consider that the appropriate starting point for each charge is as follow:-

(a) Charge 1 - the starting point is 5 years[8], given 1/3 discount, the sentence reduces to 40 months.

(b) Charge 2 - the starting point is 4 years, enhanced by 3 months (aggravating factor)[9], given 1/3 discount, the sentence is now reduced to 34 months.

Totality

32.I order 10 months from charge 2 to run consecutively to charge 1. It makes up to a total of 50 months’ imprisonment[10].

Reduction of sentence

33.The prosecution accepted that when the Defendant was arrested in January 2024, he has been cooperated with the police as this case involved a large number of stolen properties (altogether 266 pieces of pawned items). Without his co-operation, the investigation conducted by the police would have been long and tedious. As such, I reduce the sentence by 3 months.

34.I further reduce the sentence by another 3 months in view of the health condition of the Defendant.

35.The final sentence comes down to 44 months’ imprisonment[11].

36.The Defendant is order to serve a period of 44 months’ imprisonment for both charges.