Ex-IO chairman gets 18 months for pocketing $390,000
2014-12-8
A former chairman of the incorporated owners (IO) of a residential estate, charged by the ICAC, was today (Monday) sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment at the Fanling Magistracy for pocketing IO funds totalling about $390,000.
Ku Wing-kun, 58, former chairman of the IO of Jade Plaza, was earlier found guilty of two counts of theft.
In passing the sentence, Magistrate Chui Yee-mei said the defendant, whose dishonest acts constituted a serious breach of trust, had intentionally deceived the flat owners.
The case arose from a complaint alleging the defendant of having used false documents to deceive IO funds, contrary to Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Subsequent ICAC enquiries revealed the above theft offences.
The court heard that at the material time, the defendant was the chairman of the management committee (MC) of the IO of Jade Plaza in Tai Po.
In late May 2008, the MC was dissolved, but the defendant remained to be the administrator of the IO. In the absence of the defendant, some flat owners formed a new MC.
The newly formed MC then filed a lawsuit at the Lands Tribunal to challenge the defendant’s status as the IO administrator. The defendant engaged Chung & Kwan Solicitors as his legal representative to contest the lawsuit.
The management company of Jade Plaza agreed to pay $50,000 as deposit to the solicitors firm on behalf of the defendant for the litigation between the new MC and him. The defendant also paid a total of $440,000 to the solicitors firm for his legal expens es.
The court heard that on January 2, 2009, the tribunal ruled in favour of the defendant, and ordered the new MC to be dissolved. The tribunal also ordered that the IO and seven office bearers of the new MC had to equally bear the defendant’s legal fees.
On seven occasions between February 5 and March 17, 2009, the defendant, in his capacity as the IO administrator and the sole signatory of the IO’s bank account, issued seven cheques totalling $440,000 drawn from the IO’s account and were deposited into his personal account for settlement of his legal expenses in the civil suit.
On March 21, 2009, the defendant was elected as the chairman of the new MC, and remained as one of the authorised signatories of the IO’s bank account.
On June 16, 2009, the IO was informed by the solicitors firm that the IO had to bear the defendant’s legal fees totalling about $340,000.
A subsequent owners’ meeting held on August 29, 2009 resolved to pay the defendant a sum not exceeding $340,000 to compensate his legal expenses. But he did not mention to the owners about the above withdrawals.
The court heard that on October 29, 2009, the defendant requested the IO to make a repayment of the $50,000 deposit. Without knowing the defendant’s withdrawals of $440,000 from the IO’s bank account, the IO issued a cheque for $50,000 to the management company accordingly.
Without the knowledge of the above withdrawals and the repayment to the management company, the IO issued another cheque for about $340,000 to settle the dues with the solicitors firm on January 30, 2010.
In March 2010, the solicitors firm refunded about $320,000 to the defendant after deducting the lawyer’s fees, But he had never returned to the IO money he obtained from the IO, the court was told.
The prosecution was today represented by Cannise Chan, assisted by ICAC officer Alice Choi.
Ku Wing-kun, 58, former chairman of the IO of Jade Plaza, was earlier found guilty of two counts of theft.
In passing the sentence, Magistrate Chui Yee-mei said the defendant, whose dishonest acts constituted a serious breach of trust, had intentionally deceived the flat owners.
The case arose from a complaint alleging the defendant of having used false documents to deceive IO funds, contrary to Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Subsequent ICAC enquiries revealed the above theft offences.
The court heard that at the material time, the defendant was the chairman of the management committee (MC) of the IO of Jade Plaza in Tai Po.
In late May 2008, the MC was dissolved, but the defendant remained to be the administrator of the IO. In the absence of the defendant, some flat owners formed a new MC.
The newly formed MC then filed a lawsuit at the Lands Tribunal to challenge the defendant’s status as the IO administrator. The defendant engaged Chung & Kwan Solicitors as his legal representative to contest the lawsuit.
The management company of Jade Plaza agreed to pay $50,000 as deposit to the solicitors firm on behalf of the defendant for the litigation between the new MC and him. The defendant also paid a total of $440,000 to the solicitors firm for his legal expens es.
The court heard that on January 2, 2009, the tribunal ruled in favour of the defendant, and ordered the new MC to be dissolved. The tribunal also ordered that the IO and seven office bearers of the new MC had to equally bear the defendant’s legal fees.
On seven occasions between February 5 and March 17, 2009, the defendant, in his capacity as the IO administrator and the sole signatory of the IO’s bank account, issued seven cheques totalling $440,000 drawn from the IO’s account and were deposited into his personal account for settlement of his legal expenses in the civil suit.
On March 21, 2009, the defendant was elected as the chairman of the new MC, and remained as one of the authorised signatories of the IO’s bank account.
On June 16, 2009, the IO was informed by the solicitors firm that the IO had to bear the defendant’s legal fees totalling about $340,000.
A subsequent owners’ meeting held on August 29, 2009 resolved to pay the defendant a sum not exceeding $340,000 to compensate his legal expenses. But he did not mention to the owners about the above withdrawals.
The court heard that on October 29, 2009, the defendant requested the IO to make a repayment of the $50,000 deposit. Without knowing the defendant’s withdrawals of $440,000 from the IO’s bank account, the IO issued a cheque for $50,000 to the management company accordingly.
Without the knowledge of the above withdrawals and the repayment to the management company, the IO issued another cheque for about $340,000 to settle the dues with the solicitors firm on January 30, 2010.
In March 2010, the solicitors firm refunded about $320,000 to the defendant after deducting the lawyer’s fees, But he had never returned to the IO money he obtained from the IO, the court was told.
The prosecution was today represented by Cannise Chan, assisted by ICAC officer Alice Choi.