A former bank employee has been sentenced to three years and nine months in prison for embezzling funds from client accounts to finance unauthorized stock trades. The decision was recently upheld by the Court of Final Appeal (TUI) after the employee’s appeal was dismissed.
The employee, identified as Person A, exploited his position at the bank to access dormant client accounts—those inactive for over a year—and manipulated their details to execute stock transactions without consent.
He specifically altered the account information of four clients, including a victim known as B, and transferred profits from these unauthorized trades to his wife’s account to accrue interest. The total loss incurred by B amounted to HKD882,728.31, according to the statement from the Office of the President of the TUI.
The fraudulent activities came to light when the bank’s internal controls flagged the irregular transactions. An investigation was carried out and Person A was charged with multiple counts of computer fraud and unauthorized access to a computer system.
In a ruling by the Court of First Instance (TJB), he received a sentence of five months for unauthorized computer access and an additional three years and six months for high-value computer fraud, which were combined into a single term of three years and nine months.
Dissatisfied with the verdict, Person A appealed to the Court of Second Instance (TSI), claiming that the initial court had erred in its assessment of the evidence and violated legal principles related to doubt in criminal cases. However, the TSI found no merit in his claims.
The court noted that while Person A suggested that remote access by hackers might have facilitated his actions, witnesses confirmed that any remote operations by the bank’s IT department were conducted with prior notice and required authorization.
Person A also failed to provide a credible explanation for how a hacker could have accessed his wife’s personal information to facilitate the fraudulent transactions. The court emphasized that Person A’s actions constituted serious breaches of trust and referenced his manipulation of bank systems as unacceptable behavior that undermined client security.
In dismissing Person A’s appeal, the TSI reinforced the legal consequences of his actions, stating that his financial gains from illicit stock trading did not mitigate the severity of his crimes. Nadia Shaw
No Comments