Attorney General v. Shing Yat-chi

CAAR000023/1976

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 21st January, 1977.

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

DECISION

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

1. The respondent, a married woman, pleaded guilty to ten charges of obtaining property by deception and asked for six other cases to be taken into consideration.

2. The respondent was employed as an accountant clerk in an investment company and held a position of responsibility and trust in matters concerning share dealings. In that company, a 'pool' of easily marketed shares was maintained by the proprietor and the respondent was responsible for the maintenance of this pool. The respondent borrowed from this pool by pretending that certain shares from the pool were the property of a fictitious person. She effected the sale of the shares to one of the stockbroking companies owned by the proprietor of the company by whom she was employed. In effect, this meant that her employer was buying his own property.

3. The period of time covered by the offences to which the respondent pleaded guilty covered a period of ten months in 1976. However, the respondent had been obtaining money from her employer many months before this.

4. In effect, the facts show that there was a calculated system of theft stretching over a long period of time.

5. The respondent voluntarily gave herself up and pleaded guilty. She has a clear record. Counsel informed the court that the respondent was tempted to speculate on the stock exchange. However, her speculations were unsuccessful and she indulged in gambling to make good her losses. These losses were not made good and, she has obtained from her employer a sum in excess of one million dollars.

6. The trial judge sentenced the appellant to a term of two years' imprisonment which he suspended for two years. The judge stated that the reason he passed such sentence was that the respondent was put in charge of a pool of easily marketable shares involving millions of dollars and yet her salary was only $900 per month. With respect, we think that the sentence passed by the trial judge was wrong in principle. This is a case where a trusted employee has indulged in a lengthy period of fraud of her employer. It cannot be suggested that a person who is employed in a position of trust is because he is poorly paid to be treated as if he was in a special category. These were grave offences and we think that they merit an immediate custodial sentence.

7. In the event we allowed the application of the Attorney General and ordered that the sentences are to take effect immediately and the suspension lifted.

Representation:

Lucas for the Crown.

Rodway (D.L.A.) for respondent.