COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to three counts of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance. He is committed to this court for sentence.
The defendant was a diamond merchandising officer working for Tse Sui Luen Jewellery (International) Limited (“the Company”). He joined the Company in 1988. In February 2024, the defendant was informed that due to operational reasons, his employment would be terminated in March 2024. He became distressed and appeared to be nervous.
In one meeting with his supervisor, the defendant disclosed the fact that he had between 2017 and 2023 obtained diamonds from suppliers under the false pretences that he was obtaining them on behalf of the Company. After obtaining those diamonds from suppliers, he would then sell them and use the proceeds to bet on horseracing. When being urged to return those diamonds from suppliers, the defendant would then purchase diamonds of similar quality and quantity for their return.
The Company later discovered that 31 batches of diamonds from three different suppliers were obtained by the defendant under his false pretences.
Between April 2023 and December 2023, the defendant obtained 583.04 carats, 969.2 carats and 1,005.11 carats of diamonds from ISKKON Gems, RA Gem Centre Limited and KGK Jewellery (HK) Limited respectively, totalling over HK$11 million. The value of the diamonds in question was HK$2.3 million, HK$4 million and HK$4.7 million respectively.
The defendant is now aged 63, educated up to Form 5 level. He has a clear record. The main reason for his misdeeds was his gambling habit in short.
This is a breach of trust case. The defendant betrayed the trust placed on him by his company and its suppliers. Mr Kuan, counsel for the defendant, has indicated to the court that the notional starting point based on monetary terms would be one of about 4 years and 3 months, 5 years and 3 months and 5 years and 9 months respectively.
Mr Kuan further submitted that a global starting point of not more than 10 years should be adopted.
In this particular case, given the fact that:
(1) The defendant abused his position as a merchandising officer.
(2) The thefts were carefully executed and covered up but for the imminent termination of his employment, those thefts would not be discovered easily.
(3) Three suppliers were involved.
(4) The offences lasted over a period of about 8 months.
(5) 31 transactions were involved.
(6) The amount of loss suffered by the suppliers was substantial.
A global 10 years’ imprisonment term will be considered.
Mitigation letters from the defendant and his children and family members have been provided to this court. They ask for leniency from this court. I understand that, but there are guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal regarding breach of trust theft. The only mitigation in my view in this case is the defendant’s earliest plea. As such, a full one-third discount will be given.
For the three counts of theft the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to 34 months, 42 months and 46 months respectively.
After a careful consideration of the totality principle and the overall criminality of the case, it is ordered that 17 months each of Count 1 and Count 2 are to run consecutively to each count and to the 46 months imposed on Count 3. Thus, making a total of 80 months’ imprisonment.
