HKSAR v. Wong Wai Ling, Winnie

DCCC 333/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 333 OF 2014

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

Before: HH Judge Browne

Date: 16 July 2014 at 9.51 am

Offence:  Theft (盜竊罪)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of theft. The offence dates are between 24 April 2009 and 26 November 2012. The amount involved is just in excess of 1.5 million stolen from a company called Newtimes Human Resources Limited.

2.Between 26 March 2008 and 7 December 2012, the defendant was the human resource manager of Newtimes Human Resources Limited located on the 5th floor of an industrial centre in Castle Peak Road, Cheung Sha Wan.

3.The company’s method of paying salary was that it had an account with the HSBC.  The account had eight payment codes, one for each of the company’s departments.  Every month, the head of each of the eight departments would prepare a spreadsheet listing the respective staff and their salaries.  A form would be created based on the spreadsheet and signed by two directors of the company.  This form would then be forwarded to HSBC, and the bank would forward the requisite sums to the accounts of the staff.

4.The defendant was head of the department represented by the payment code P02.

5.After the defendant left the company, the company conducted an audit and the company found that under payment code P02, there was a person named Wong Man-ling with the staff code 5315 to whom the company had made 44 payments of a monthly salary between 24 April 2009 and 26 November 2012 for a total amount of $1,508,727.55.

6.Inquiries conducted by the company revealed that there was no such staff as Wong Man-ling.  The staff code 5315 belonged to another person who had worked with the company for only one day in November 2008.  The company would not re-use prior staff codes. 

7.The 44 payments of monthly salary to Wong Man-ling were transferred from the company’s account No. 2 to two Hang Seng Bank accounts which were under the defendant’s name.  The police were informed and the defendant was arrested.

8.The defendant has one previous criminal conviction.  In 2006, in respect of an offence of theft, she was given community service for a period of 120 hours, and she was ordered to pay compensation of $40,000.  

9.In mitigation, I was told that the defendant is now 41.  She has been married since 19 November 2012.  I understand that she was unemployed for some time but in June 2014 she found employment as a human resources administration manager.  She resides with her husband who also works as a manager and is aged 47.  I am told that her parents are in court.  Her father suffers from diabetes and her mother suffers from depression.  The defendant is a graduate and when employed by the victim company earned between thirty-four and forty thousand dollars per month.  A third of that income was given to her family to support them.

10.I am told that the reason for the commission of these offences was that the defendant was under stress at the time and to relieve this stress, she went shopping.  She needed extra money to pay for the shopping.  I am told that the defendant is agreeable for the bail money of $110,000 to be given to the victim company by way of compensation.

11.Letters have been placed before the court from the defendant, her husband and her parents.  They reflect the deep concern felt by the defendant for the anguish she has caused to both her husband and parents. Her husband says that since their marriage, the defendant has changed.  The defendant is very concerned that she has disappointed her parents whose health conditions have deteriorated since her investigation by the police for the current offence.  The defendant has undertaken that she will reform once she is released from prison and be a useful and honest member of society.  She undertakes not to re-offend.

12.The main mitigation in this case is the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty and thereby saved considerable court time.

13.As regards the appropriate sentence for offences of this kind, clearly, this offence involves a breach of trust, and the money was stolen from the victim company over a period of three and a half years.  The amount is in excess of 1.5 million. 

14.The case of Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 has laid down some guidelines for sentencing in cases of this kind. For amounts involving between 1 million and $3 million, the appropriate sentence should be 3 to 5 years. 

15.Having considered the circumstances of this case and the amount involved, it seems to me that the appropriate starting point would be a sentence of 3 and a half years.  The defendant has agreed that compensation should be paid to the victim company in the sum of $110,000.  In my view, that is a matter that the court should take into account and that should have an effect of reducing the starting point.

16.I have therefore decided that the appropriate starting point for this offence should be a sentence of 3 years which will be reduced to 2 years to reflect the guilty plea.

17.I also order that the bail money of $110,000 be paid to the victim company.