HKSAR v. Tam Kai Cheung
|
DCCC561/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO.561 OF 2010 --------------------
--------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- The defendant was charged for one count of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts. He was convicted accordingly. Facts The defendant was the accounting clerk of the victim company limited from 1994. The persons in charge (PW1 and PW2) of the company entrusted the defendant with all the routine accounting matters, including bookkeeping and issuing of cheques. The company cheque book and company chop were kept by the defendant; PW2 sometimes signed on cheques on which the payee was left blank as he trusted the defendant. On 28 August 2009, PW1 found irregularity on one cheque copy and questioned the defendant on the following day, during which the defendant confessed that he had altered the amount payable from HK$9,045 to HK$89,045 and deposited the cheque into his wife’s bank account. The defendant further admitted that he had embezzled about HK$300,000 to HK$400,000 by adopting the same modus operandi since 2008. PW1 dismissed the defendant and reported the matter to police on 3 September. After investigation, it revealed that between 12 November 2002 and 17 March 2009, a total sum of HK$1,498,764.10 was transferred from the company account to the defendant’s wife’s account by way of 31 cheques. This is a case of breach of trust. The defendant had been working for the company for about 15 years; he was in a senior position and was given a high degree of trust. In a period of about 6.5 years, the defendant in 31 occasions manipulated the cheque book entrusted to him and embezzled in total HK$1,498,764.10. I consider the appropriate starting point to be one of 3.5 years. The defendant aged 52, married with a son. The defendant has 1 previous conviction of conspiracy to defraud in 1994. The defendant joined the victim company in 1994 as a clerk and promoted to accounting clerk. The defendant was dismissed in 2009 because of the present case. Mitigation The defence submitted that the defendant committed the crime because he wanted to give the best education to his son to enable him to be a good citizen. I failed to see the logic; the defendant was in fact setting the worst example to his son. The defendant did not offer to compensate the victim. The defence submitted that the defendant had spent all the stolen monies on his son, which means he was not in a position to compensate the victim. The defendant would entitle to 1/3 discount for his plea. However, I do not consider there to be any mitigating factors call for further deduction. Order The defendant is sentenced to 28 months imprisonment.
|