HKSAR v. Kuipers Robert Hugo

DCCC 777/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 777 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Introduction

1.D pleads guilty to a total of 11 counts, comprising theft of his company's money and fraud in the unauthorized use of his company's credit card.

2.In 1990 he joined Koopman International B.V. (“Koopman B. V.”) in the Netherlands.  In 2009 he was assigned to live and work in Hong Kong as the manager of Koopman International HK Limited (“Koopman HK”), a subsidiary of Koopman B.V.  He was the only staff member authorised to enter into agreements for Koopman HK.  He was issued a credit card for business-related spending.  He was granted a checking authority for amounts below $50,000, subsequently increased to and at all material times remained at amounts below $500,000 in Koopman HK’s bank account. 

3.Between May 2008 and September 2009, he committed 6 counts of theft (3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11) and 5 counts of fraud (1, 2, 5, 6 and 9), causing Koopman HK to lose $1,215,358.50in total.  He agreed to repay by 2 instalments but defaulted on both.  Koopman B.V. reported the matter to the police. 

The 5 credit card fraud charges

Charge 1: May 2008

4.Unauthorized as a private spending, his Peninsula Hotel bill of $4,743.40 was paid by Koopman HK’s credit card.

Charge 2: January 2009

5.Unauthorized as a private spending, his Island Shangri-la bill of $41,418.10 was paid by Koopman HK’s credit card.

Charge 5: July 2009

6.Unauthorized as a private spending, his G.O.D. bill of $6,874 was paid by Koopman HK’s credit card.

Charge 6: July 2009

7.Unauthorized as a private spending, his Woodlane (Bed & Bath) Company Limited bill of $22,588 was paid by Koopman HK’s credit card.

Charge 9: September 2009

8.Unauthorized as a private spending, his Four Seasons Travel Service bill of $9,440 was paid by Koopman HK’s credit card.

The 6 theft charges

Charge 3: March 2009

9.Koopman HK had granted him a checking authority for amounts below $500,000.  Koopman HK was to purchase an office property in Hong Kong.  He misrepresented the purchase price by an extra amount of $428,000. He drew a cheque of the same amount in favour of himself.  

Charge 4: May 2009

10.He sent a fabricated email purportedly originated from the solicitors’ firm in request for payment of stamp duty.  He represented to Schaffers, the Chief Financial Officer of Koopman B.V., that Schaffers’s signature on a copied cheque of Koopman HK’s would be acceptable.  Attached to the email was a copy of a cheque of this amount for Schaffers’s signature.  Upon receiving the signature on the copied cheque, he forged Schaffers’s signature on the cheque as a co-signature.  This co-signature enabled him to complete the cheque to pay himself $520,000, an amount otherwise in excess of his checking authority for below $500,000.   

Charge 7: July 2009

11.He drew 2 cheques of Koopman HK’s in favour of himself for $39,600 and $24,406 based on fabricated records of paying Designlab Hong Kong Limited and Four Seasons Travel Service.  No payment was actually due to the latter. 

Charge 8: August 2009

12.He drew 2 cheques of Koopman HK’s in favour of himself for $10,811 and $44,240 based on fabricated records of paying Four Seasons Travel Service.  No payment was actually due to the latter. 

Charge 10: September 2009

13.He drew a cheque of Koopman HK’s in favour of himself for $45,000 based on a fabricated record of paying Oldham, Li & Nie Solicitors.  No payment was actually due to the latter. 

Charge 11: September 2009

14.He drew a cheque of Koopman HK’s in favour of himself for $18,238 based on a fabricated record of paying Four Seasons Travel Service.  No payment was actually due to the latter. 

Personal background and mitigation

15.He is 44 years of age, a Netherlands national.  He has a clear record in Hong Kong.  He has separated from his wife, who now works as a manager in an entertainment business.  His daughter is 8 years of age.  Both reside in Hong Kong.  In mitigation, his 2 ex-colleagues have written favourably of him in his care towards others.    

16.I am told that he committed the theft offences to supplement his own business outlay in a child playground in the Western District. 

Sentencing considerations

17.The sentencing guidelines for breach of trust is found in HKSAR v. Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD and emended in HKSAR v. Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017.  For $1,000,000 - $3,000,000, the starting point is 3 - 5 years. 

Sentencing this defendant

18.Koopman B.V. and Koopman HK had vested immense authority on the defendant, its representative officer in Hong Kong, in the handling of their money and business.  It was a serious breach of trust that lasted 17 months.  All 11 offences can be regarded as the different stages of a single transaction.  I take 3 years and 3 months as the starting point for each charge.  A one-third discount comes from his pleas of guilty, the only mitigating factor.  The sentence is 2 years and 2 months for each charge, all concurrent.