HKSAR v. Yeung Shunyi

DCCC 1161/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1161 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and five charges of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance.

2.The five charges of theft show a total loss to the same victim of $17,300.  These are breach of trust cases.  Her employer, the victim, gave the defendant a bank card with the sole purpose of assisting him in paying for company expenses.  She was required to obtain prior approval from the victim before each cash withdrawal.  However, the defendant took it upon herself to withdraw money without the victim’s knowledge for her own personal use on five separate occasions.  These five unauthorized transactions took place within a space of a week. 

3.For the fraud charge, the facts are straightforward.  The defendant befriended her beautician and conned her and her boyfriend out of $414,170 by representing to the victims that she could buy iPhones, electric appliances and a travel package at a discounted price.  For this amount of money, no goods were ever delivered and none of this amount was returned upon request.  There has been no restitution to-date nor any offer for such.

4.The defendant is a 45-year-old divorcee.  She is not a woman of clear record.  She has many previous convictions.  She has been in court on three occasions and has a total of 21 previous convictions.  On the last occasion she appeared in Eastern Magistracy facing 19 charges of theft. That was in 2007.  They were, I have been informed, all breach of trust offences.  The defendant was sentenced to 24 months for each charge.  That is a heavy sentence passed in the magistracy.  Prior to that, the defendant appeared in court in 2002 for a forgery charge where she was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.  And in 2006, for a theft charge, she was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 2 years and fined $25,000. 

5.The defendant is a thoroughly dishonest woman. The sort of woman every employer dreads.  The defendant has clearly not learned her lesson despite being sentenced to terms of imprisonment. 

6.Mr Fung has mitigated to the best of his ability on behalf of the defendant, and I have considered the mitigation put forward.

7.I have also considered the authority of HKSAR v Cheung Mei Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776 which lays down guidelines for a breach of trust scenario. 

8.For Charges 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, I have taken into account that authority and the fact the victim suffered a total loss of $17,300 over a period of a few days.  I would take a global approach to this loss and these five charges.

9.I find a starting point of 18 months for each theft charge appropriate.  The defendant is entitled to a discount of 6 months for her plea.  For these five charges, the defendant will be sentenced to 1-year imprisonment for each charge.  All these five theft charges will be served concurrently. 

10.I turn to Charge 1.  This is a serious offence. The defendant has fraudulently taken a lot of money from two innocent people who, I am sure, worked hard for their money and savings.  The defendant preyed on them, inducing them with promises of discounts.  She did successfully buy them some items initially, I am sure the purpose of this was to gain their trust and make the defendant seem credible. 

11.The amount of loss, I repeat, is $414,170, a significant amount of money. 

12.For this offence, there are no sentencing guidelines.  Each case will be decided on its own facts and circumstances.  I find the defendant’s behaviour and misrepresentations reprehensible.  I take a serious view of these facts and the loss suffered. 

13.I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant is entitled to a discount of 1 year for her plea. The defendant, for Charge 1, is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

14.I repeat, Charges 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, for the 1-year term of imprisonment for each charge, they are to be served concurrently; a total of 1-year imprisonment.  Of this 1 year, 4 months will be served consecutively to Charge 1, the balance concurrently. 

15.Defendant is, for these six offences, sentenced to a total of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.