HKSAR v. Lau Sui Yu
|
DCCC 789/2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 789 OF 2014 -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- Charge 1.The defendant pleads guilty to theft. 2.She was one of the employees of a money changer shop. She possessed the keys and the passwords to the safe of the shop and the keys to the shop. Between 3 and 13 May 2014, she stole HK$292,554 and RMB¥99,955 from the shop. The CCTV footages of the shop captured images of her appropriation of the monies from the safe and her leaving the shop. On 14 May 2014, she left Hong Kong to China through Lok Ma Chau Terminal. On 11 July 2014, she was arrested at Lo Wu Control Point when she returned from China to Hong Kong. 3.In the subsequent video-recorded interview, she admitted under caution that she was the shop manager of the shop and that some of the monies stolen were for repayment of debts and some for spending at casinos in Macau. Mitigation 4.She is 31 years of age, of F. 3 education level. She has a clear record. Her husband is a chef. Their son is 5 years old. Because of her gambling habits, she had incurred debts from 2 banks and friends in the respective sums of $120,000 and $150,000. When her friends pressed for repayment, she committed the present offence with a view to earning from gambling but she did not make it. So she left Hong Kong. On 11 July 2014, as persuaded by her husband, she surrendered herself at the Lo Wu Control Point upon return from China to Hong Kong. Sentencing considerations 5.The Court of Appeal in HKSAR vCheung Mee Kiu[2006] 4 HKLRD 776 has laid down sentencing guidelines for offences in breach of trust. For a loss of $250,000 to $1,000,000, the sentence is 2 to 3 years. Sentencing this defendant 6.I take 27 months as the starting point. She has no mitigating factors except her plea of guilty, which attracts a one-third discount. Her sentence is 18 months.
|
Cases cited in this judgment