HKSAR v. Ho Ying

DCCC 1072/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1072 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to an offence of theft. The offence was committed between 6 January 2012 and 29 May. The amount involved was 7.945 million. The offence involved a breach of trust.

2.The victim, Mr Rogers, PW1, is the sole proprietor of a company called General Consolidated Impex Company (“VTC”).  The defendant was employed as a clerk, an accounting clerk, by VTC from November 2011.  He was tasked with the duty of dealing with accounting matters and bank transactions.  He had the token and password of the account so that he could deal with the banking transactions via computer.

3.In March 2012, the defendant took no pay leave.

4.In June 2012, an external accounting firm employed by the victim discovered that there were 12 unauthorized transactions amounting to $6.735 million. 

5.The defendant was arrested and his house searched and a Hang Seng Bank card located at his premises.  This revealed that in addition to the 12 transactions previously identified, there were 4 further transactions amounting to an additional of 1.210 million. 

6.The defendant admitted that between January 2012 and May 2012 all this money had been transferred from the company account to his own account.  He had lost all the money gambling in Macau.  Immigration records revealed that he was a frequent visitor to Macau. 

7.The defendant has appeared before the court on four previous occasions for a total of 29 charges.  In 1995 for 8 counts of theft, he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.  In November 1999 for 6 counts of theft and 11 counts of procuring the making of a record in the bank documents by deception, he was sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment. 

8.The defendant is 44 years of age.  He was born in Shanghai in 1968 and educated in Hong Kong to university standard.  He has a degree in accountancy and was doing an MBA previously.  He divorced his original wife some 11 years ago and has a 20-year-old son from that relationship.  He is remarried to a registered nurse and they now have a young daughter.  His parents are aged in their 70s and although they do not live with him, they live with his brother, he has helped to support their livelihood.  He has worked in the accountancy field for 20 years and was earning $20,000 per month.

9.Apparently, he needed extra money because his wife’s pregnancy was difficult; she had a spinal problem and his daughter was born prematurely; his wife suffered depression; and his mother was also needed hospitalization.

10.I am told that he used gambling as a means of escaping from his problems.  He thought he would be able to raise money from gambling, repay his employer and pay for the medical expenses which he felt he ought to be paying. 

11.Letters of support have been put before the court from the defendant himself, his wife, his son and his mother, and also certificates in relation to his wife’s and mother’s health conditions.  It was urged upon the court that the defendant was a good father and a good son to his mother but lost control. 

12.This is clearly a breach of trust case involving a substantial amount of money.  In my view, it is inconceivable that any honest firm would employ the defendant in any accountancy position given his record. Quite remarkably, he was given a job with VTC and then went back to his old ways and stole money from his employer.

13.In my view, he should never be let near company accounts for the rest of his life.  Far from being a responsible husband and parent, he spent all the money on gambling.  I have considered whether or not the usual starting point for an offence of this type should be increased given his appalling record.  However, I have decided to follow the guidelines laid down in Cheung Mei Kiu.  I take a starting point for this offence of 6½ years, reduce that by one-third to reflect your guilty plea, he will therefore serve a sentence of 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.