HKSAR v. Chan Chi Hung

DCCC 560/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 560 OF 2014

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCEM

1.Chan Chi Hung you have pleaded guilty to one charge of theft, contrary to section 9of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.In summary between May 2005 and October 2010 you were employed as an accounting clerk in the Hong Kong office of ABM Global Logistic Limited, a Taiwanese company. 

3.As part of your duties you received cheques from the parent company in Taiwan for settlement of expenses incurred by the Hong Kong office.  The amount was written in pencil with the payee left blank for you to fill in. 

4.In October 2010 when the parent company downsized the scale of the Hong Kong office you left ABM.  After leaving ABM you failed to handover the accounting records and after February 2011 ABM could no longer contact you. 

5.ABM conducted an audit check and discovered that you had altered twenty cheques resulting in a total of HK$1,043,000 being wrongly debited from the bank account of ABM.  As a result ABM reported the matter to the police in April 2013.

6.In August of the same year you were arrested.  In a video-recorded interview you explained how you altered the amount of the cheques and that after you cashed the cheques or deposited them into your bank account you first settled the expenses and then kept the remainder of the money.  The particulars of each cheque are set out in the appendix to the facts admitted by you and in a schedule provided to the court by Mr Beel showing the date each cheque was presented to the bank. 

7.I have carefully considered everything said on your behalf by Mr Cheng together with your mitigation letter and the letter written by your sister.  I note at the time you stole from ABM you had a clear record however subsequently you have been convicted of a number of offences including money laundering committed between 2004 and 2008.

8.In your mitigation letter you speak of how you have decided to change for the better.  No doubt the prison term has had a real effect upon you.  Your wife left you and your family have suffered great stress.  Your determination to rehabilitate yourself is shown by the fact you used the time in prison to learn new skills and on release from prison in July this year when you were granted bail for this offence you have taken up work as a construction site worker. 

9.By stealing the money of ABM you breached the trust placed in you by your employer.  In passing sentence I have considered the principles laid down in R v Clark (1998) 2 Cr App R 137 as applied inHKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776 as adjusted in HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017.  The guidelines state the proper starting point after trial is between 3-5 years imprisonment where the amount stolen was between HK$1-3 million.

10.Taking into account the amount stolen; the degree of trust reposed in you as the accounting clerk of the Hong Kong office; and that the theft took place over a period of 14 months, I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is 3 years imprisonment. 

11.You were arrested for the money laundering offences in March 2009 prior to leaving ABM.  Eventually pleading guilty to those charges you were on the 15 March 2012 in DCCC 67/2011 sentenced to a total of 40 months imprisonment for three offences of money laundering.  You were released from prison on the 21 June this year and the next day charged with the present offence of theft having been escorted from prison to the police station to be charged and brought to court.   

12.Not surprisingly you feel aggrieved the theft charge was not dealt with whilst you were serving that sentence.  This no doubt is due partly to the fact you did not handover the accounting records on leaving ABM and ABM was unable to contact you.  Also on leaving ABM you promised to audit the accounts for 2010/11 but did not do so.

13.In October 2012 ABM employed a private audit firm to conduct a full audit check of the transactions handled by you.  The audit firm discovered the transactions in which the cheques had been altered as a result of which ABM reported the matter to the police in April 2013.  By this time you had already served over one year of your sentence. 

14.Mr Beel has provided the court with a very helpful chronology of events the contents of which have been agreed by you.  From this chronology I am satisfied there has been no delay by the police in investigating the matter or submitting the file to the Department of Justice for legal advice. 

15.Although it may be said the Department of Justice could have given their advice earlier than they did even if they had it is most unlikely the case could have been heard before you finished serving your sentence.  Further whilst ABM did not discover the theft for over two years this is not a matter that inures to your benefit.  I am satisfied there has been no undue delay in the proceedings.

16.The money laundering offences are entirely separate and distinct from the theft offence both in nature and in time, having been committed between one and five years earlier than the theft.  Had the theft case been brought to court whilst you were still serving sentence I am satisfied a wholly consecutive sentence would have been appropriate.

17.Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.