HKSAR v. Leung Yiu Chung

DCCC 184/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 184 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

2.The facts of this case are straightforward.  The defendant was at the material time a manager of New City Property Management Company Limited and was employed since January 2008.  From November 2008, he was working in the management officer of Richmond Commercial Building in Mong Kok, Kowloon.  In August 2012, the company noticed that there was some discrepancies in the accounts and there were fees from tenants and landlords of that building that appeared to be in arrears.  The company obviously investigated the matter and found from tenants and landlords that they had paid their required fees on time.  The recipient of the fees was the defendant.  The company reported this matter to the police and the defendant was arrested in September 2012.

3.Upon his arrest, the defendant cooperated with the police and admitted the offence.  He admitted that he had taken HK$850,000 between May 2009 and August 2012 because he had lost money buying stock warrants. This theft took place over a period of three years in which it went unnoticed by the company.  It would have been inevitable that it would eventually come to light and when it did the defendant admitted his guilt and cooperated with the police.

4.Defence counsel has explained today that the defendant dabbled in stock warrants and got into trouble.  As defence counsel has said, he got in over his head, he was out of his depth.  The explanation was that he did it out of a desire to better his family’s financial situation. As he had lost money, he took the company’s money and spent it as his own. There has been no restitution made to date.

5.Defendant is not a man of clear record but he has one previous which is not similar dated 2008.  He is a 48 year old married man with a daughter aged 12.  His plea of guilty today is his best mitigation. I have seen letters of mitigation from defendant’s wife and daughter as well as a letter from a Social Worker of the Society of Rehabilitation and Crime Prevention.  All letters express the defendant’s real remorse and explain that he despite the offence is a good father, a good son and a good husband.  The letters from the defendant’s family ask the court for leniency on his behalf. 

6.This offence is a breach of trust and the amount stolen means a term of imprisonment is inevitable.  I have considered the authorities to HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776 as well as HKSAR v Yeung Chiu CACC105/2009.  The second authority reiterates the guidelines of Cheung Mee Kiu.  The relevant guideline in this case is where between 250,000 and HK$1 million is stolen, a starting point of between 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate.  I have taken this into account.

7.I have considered the authorities I have referred to, the facts of this case, the amount stolen and mitigation put forward including mitigating letters submitted.  Ultimately I find a starting point of 2 years and 6 months appropriate.  He has pleaded guilty today and he is entitled to a discount of one-third, that is a discount of 10 months.

8.The defendant is sentenced for this offence to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months.