My
On the 4th January, 1928, the Min Tak Co. paid into its account a cheque for $78,300.41 which purported to be drawn in its favour on the Government Account; on the 3rd January, 1928, Katz & Co. paid into their account a cheque for $86,965.33 similarly purporting to be drawn in their favour and on the 6th January, 1928, the Man Lee Co. paid into their account a cheque for $95,142.19 similarly purporting to be drawn in its favour.
These three cheques were presented through the respective banks, duly honoured by the Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation and debited to the General Account of the Government.
A further cheque for $73,785.54 purporting to be drawn in favour of Sang Cheong & Co. was paid into the account of the Man Lee Co. on the 4th January, 1928, but this was returned owing to a technical error in the endorsement and was not again presented.
39. On the 17th January, 1928, the Pass Book of the General Account was returned to the Treasury, and on the following day the Cash Book Clerk discovered and reported that these three cheques, which were not recorded in his books, had been debited to the
account.
In the course of the investigations which followed it was found that the last thirty cheques were missing from each of two Treasury cheque books and that three of these cheques had been used for the purposes of the fraud.
The Cash Book Clerk informs us that he had noticed the absence of these two sets of thirty cheques, but finding that the numbers on the covers had been altered and agreed with the numbers of the cheques remaining in the books, and that in one case the altera- tion had been initialled, he had concluded that the cheque books must have been delivered in that state from the Bank, and had not attached importance to the matter.
He had on the 22nd December, when speaking about the cheques required for the remainder of the year, mentioned to Mr. Messer and Mr. Black that he was sixty cheques short, but the matter was referred to by him in such terms that it was understood by them that he had underestimated his requirements, and not that there had been any loss of cheques.
The Cash Book Clerk's statement was corroborated by the finding of the altered cheque book covers and by Mr. Messer's recollection of the statement.
40. It is impossible definitely to ascertain when the blank cheques were removed from the books. Certain alterations in the cheques had been printed in the Gaol, and the loss must have occurred either at, or in transit from, the Gaol or while the books were at the Treasury; and having regard to the necessity for rebinding the books after the removal of the cheque and the opportunities afforded to members of the staff to obtain possession of the books, it seems likely that the loss occurred at the Treasury.
41. Both Mr. Messer and Mr. Black repudiate the signatures appearing on the che- ques, and they support these repudiations by giving reasons why they could not have signed them. It appears desirable to set out their reasons in their own words:
Mr. Messer says:-
"At the end of a month and particularly at the end of a year, I have to watch my credit balance at the bank and I was at the end of December particularly on the look-out for large cheques for contractors which might render it neces- sary to transfer other funds to the General Account. Any large cheques would therefore attract my notice.
All the large contractors are known to me as I am on the Tenders Board. There are only about a dozen firms to which any large payment would be likely to be made. These are all known to me. I should recognize instantly that these cheques were not made out to firms likely to receive large pay- ments from the Government.
I always check each cheque with the relevant item on the accompanying list. I cannot conceive of myself signing cheques for such amounts made payable to firms unknown to me without first satisfying myself that the firms were doing Government work and that the vouchers for the same had been passed by the Examination Branch".
66