HKSAR v. Leung May Ching Priscilla
|
DCCC 1019/2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1019 OF 2014 -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- 1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of theft, contrary to s.9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. Particulars are that she between 7 September 2005 and 14 June 2011 stole credit balances in the total sum of $2,480,371.70 from 5 bank accounts of the law firm D.S. Cheung & Co. Summary of facts 2.Since 1996, the defendant was employed as an accounting clerk of the law firm, being mainly responsible for handling the company accounts. The defendant was authorized by the firm as one of its signatories. 3.On 27 June 2011, one of the partners of the firm received a letter from the Inland Revenue Department demanding tax payment of around $2 million. Since the defendant was solely responsible for tax matters, the partner made enquiry with her the same day. The defendant did not turn up for work the following day and surrendered herself at Wanchai Police station for embezzling the firm’s funds. 4.In 5 subsequent video recorded interviews, the defendant confessed to the following. 5.The defendant stole from 5 bank accounts of the law firm by altering the payee name of the firms’ checks after they had been signed by the partners. Some of the checks were deposited into her own account, some into her sister’s (Leung Mei-yee) bank accounts and some to the mother of the defendant’s ex-boyfriend’s (Kwok Man-pun) bank account. The money would then be returned to the defendant in cash or via transfers into the defendant’s bank account at her request. Neither Leung nor Kwok received any benefits from the deposits. 6.The defendant also cashed out some of the altered checks through Chi & Pong Exchange Company Limited, the company that exchanged Taiwanese currency for the law firm. Upon receiving the checks from the defendant, the exchange company would hand over the equivalent amount of Taiwanese currency to her. 7.Between 7 September 2005 and 14 June 2011, the defendant by way of altering the payee on 56 of the law firm’s checks stole a total sum of $2,480,317.70 from the following 5 bank accounts, the choses in action being the property of the law firm:
Previous convictions 8.The defendant was of clear record. Mitigation 9.Miss Lau for the defendant very helpfully prepared a written submission in mitigation. 10.The defendant is 43 years old. She got married in 1993 and divorced in 2004, about 2 years after finding out that her husband was having an affair. Custody of their children (daughter and son, now respectively 19 and 14 years old) was granted to the defendant’s husband since the mother-in-law had all along been responsible for looking after them. 11.The defendant moved back to live with her mother (now 76 year old). According to Miss Lau the defendant suffered “great depression” because of the divorce and started gambling in Macau in order to take her mind off her failed marriage. 12.Letters of mitigation were handed up. They are from the defendant’s mother and elder sister, second sister, daughter, and the defendant’s secondary school mate. They speak to the fact that the defendant gave her all for the family, both as a filial daughter-in-law and a loving mother, and how the defendant suffered from her divorce which led to her gambling. Sentencing guidelines 13.It is not disputed that, as the law firm’s accounting clerk and an authorized signatory, the defendant was in a position of privilege and trust when she committed the offence and was therefore in breach of the trust reposed in her by the firm. Parties agree that the sentencing guidelines laid down in the case of HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu, CACC 99 of 2006, as revised in HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing, CACC 398 of 2007, are applicable in the present case. For theft of $1 million to $3 million involving a breach of trust, the guideline sentencing range is that of 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment. Sentence 14.The maximum sentence for theft on conviction upon indictment is that of 10 years’ imprisonment. 15.In arriving at an appropriate starting point when applying the Cheung Mee Kiu guidelines, I have taken into consideration the following factors, in addition to the amount stolen. 16.The defendant was an accounting clerk and one of the authorized signatories of a law firm in Hong Kong. In addition to the law firm’s funds the defendant would also be dealing with its clients’ money, amount of which would be substantial. The quality and degree of trust reposed in her was significant. 17.Although there is only one charge of theft, the money was stolen over a period of 5 and a half years and the defendant had altered the payees in 56 company checks. It was not a one off situation where the defendant succumbed to momentary greed. The thefts were premeditated and daringly executed. 18.The defendant had gambled away all the stolen money. 19.As an accounting clerk in a law firm, with the partners being officers of the court, the defendant’s commission of the offence must have some negative impact on public confidence. 20.Applying the guideline sentence while taking into consideration the above factors, I adopt a starting point of 54 months’ imprisonment. Mitigating factors 21.Miss Lau mentioned in her submission that the defendant suffered from “great depression” after the divorce. There is no medical evidence produced in support. There is also no mention that the defendant’s situation was so bad that she had to seek medical treatment for her depression. Nevertheless, I accept this fact put forward by Miss Lau for the defendant and find that it is a mitigating factor. 22.Miss Lau suggested that the court should take into consideration the defendant surrendering herself to the Police. It must be pointed out that the defendant only gave herself up when the exposure of her theft was inevitable and imminent. The defendant however did cooperate with the Police afterwards and I find that this is a mitigating factor. Clear Record 23.It was mentioned by Miss Lau that the court should take the defendant’s clear record as a mitigating factor. On this, I refer to the Court of Appeal’s judgment in HKSAR v Wong King-wai, CACC 364 of 2006 at paragraph 35.
24.Although I do sympathize with the defendant’s personal circumstances, I find that, other than the one I mentioned above, they do not amount to mitigating factors in the present case. I also find that there is no evidence of such positive good character forthcoming that would persuade me to grant the defendant a further discount for her clear record rather than the usual one-third discount. 25.Taking into consideration the two mitigating factors mentioned above, accepting that the defendant did suffer a blow from her divorce that had caused her great anxiety thus resulting in her commission of the offence, I will grant the defendant a 3-month discount and sentence her to 51 months’ imprisonment. 26.For the defendant’s timely guilty plea, I grant her the usual full one-third discount. The defendant’s final sentence is therefore that of 34 months’ imprisonment.
|
Cases cited in this judgment