Lawyer and Solicitor TONG YEE CHUN Guilty of Theft and Sentenced to 6 Months Imprisonment - 陳兆明袁耀彬律師事務所唐汝駿律師挪客戶款兼呃堂費囚半年

Lawyer and Solicitor TONG YEE CHUN Guilty of Theft and Sentenced to 6 Months Imprisonment - 陳兆明袁耀彬律師事務所唐汝駿律師挪客戶款兼呃堂費囚半年

 

67歲執業律師唐汝駿涉挪用客戶支付的法律費用，及欺騙對方需支付堂費，被控1項盜竊和1項以欺騙手段取得財產罪。被告今日在東區法院認罪，被判囚6個月.

被告今日求情時指，雖然執業已30多年，表面月入高達5萬元，惟實際上仍需與律師行拆佣及分擔費用，每月實收3萬元。另外，被告透露案發前被驗出前列腺有問題，醫生建議須做手術，在家庭及醫療費壓力下犯案.

惟法官認為被告雖然背景良好，但不可因而輕判。法官指摘被告利用他人不認識法律程序犯案，行為影響法律界形象，決定判被告監禁。

案情指，被告案發時任職陳兆明袁耀彬律師事務所的律師及顧問，他涉在2012年6月處理1宗酒樓東主被控僱用非法勞工案中，未將客戶交付的2.4萬元存入律師行戶口，並向客戶訛稱入境處要求收取3千元堂費；廉署在接獲投訴後揭發事件。

 

(Source: http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20140710/bkn-20140710131942374-0710_00822_001.html)

Lawyer and Solicitor Y C Tong Jailed for Pocketing HK$24,000 Legal Fees and Deception

Lawyer and Solicitor Y C Tong (Tong Yee Chun) was today (Thursday July 10, 2014) sentenced to six months' imprisonment at the Eastern Magistracy after admitting that he had pocketed a legal fee of HK$24,000 belonging to a solicitors firm and deceiving HK$3,000 from a client of the firm.

Tong Yee-chun, 67, a practising solicitor, today pleaded guilty to one count of theft and one count of obtaining property by deception.

In sentencing, Magistrate Mr David Chum Yau-fong reprimanded the defendant for taking advantage of his client's nescience of legal proceedings and undermining public confidence in legal practitioners.

The magistrate added that the offences committed by the defendant constituted a serious breach of trust, warranting an immediate custodial sentence to serve as a deterrent.

Upon the defendant's application, the magistrate granted him cash bail of $20,000, pending his appeal against sentence.

The case arose from a corruption complaint. Subsequent ICAC enquiries revealed the above offences.

The court heard that at the material time, the defendant was a practicing solicitor in Hong Kong and a consultant of Messrs Raymond Chan, Kenneth Yuen & Co., Solicitors (the solicitors firm).

On June 13, 2012, a restaurant owner met with the defendant at the solicitors firm after he was charged by the Immigration Department (ImmD) with employing an illegal worker.

At the meeting, the restaurant owner engaged the defendant as his legal representative in the legal proceedings at a legal fee of $30,000. Upon the defendant's request, the restaurant owner paid him $1,000 in cash as an initial deposit.

The defendant and the restaurant owner subsequently negotiated the legal fee over the phone, and the legal fee was revised to $24,000.

On July 3, 2012, the restaurant owner discussed his case with the defendant at the solicitors firm. As the defendant insisted on receiving cash, the restaurant owner gave him $23,000 in cash instead of a cheque to settle the outstanding legal fee.

The defendant was required to deposit all clients' legal fees into a bank account of the solicitors firm for profit sharing with other lawyers, but he had never reported to the solicitors firm that the restaurant owner had paid him the legal fee of $24,000

The court heard that a week later, the defendant told the restaurant owner over the phone that the ImmD requested a "court fee" of $2,000 for amending the charge laid against him.

The defendant later called the restaurant owner again, and told him that the "court fee" requested by the ImmD was $3,000 instead of $2,000.

On July 13, 2012 when the restaurant owner was due to enter plea to his charge at the Shatin Magistracy, upon the defendant's request, the restaurant owner gave $3,000 in cash to him before entering the court room.

The ImmD confirmed that no "court fee" would be charged for amending charges against any defendant, the court was told.

The prosecution was today represented by Acting Senior Public Prosecutor Jonathan Lin, assisted by ICAC officer Thomas Ho.

(Source: http://www.icac.org.hk/en/pr/index_uid_1569.html)