HKSAR v. CHIU CHUN LUNG

DCCC274/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 274 OF 2009

----------------------

----------------------

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of using a false instrument, both involved one Toronto Dominion Bank Green Visa Card and also one further charge of possession of false instruments, namely:-

(1)  Toronto Dominion Bank Green Visa Card,

(2)  the Westpac Visa Card,

(3)  one Capital One Platinum Visa Card,

All these forged credit cards were in the defendant’s name.

2.  The prosecution case was that the defendant presented  the Toronto Dominion Bank Green Visa Card to PW1 at Wing On Plus for processing payment, but was rejected by the computer system.

3.  The defendant produced an EPS, again it was rejected by the computer system.  The defendant left.

4.  PW2 intercepted the defendant and conducted a body search and found all the forged credit cards in the defendant’s wallet.  Two further items were found from the defendant's jeans' pocket.  One receipt issued by Gazelle and second, one $2,100 credit card payment slip.  From the plastic bag which the defendant was carrying, PW2 found a Gucci wallet.

5.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that he  used the Toronto Dominion Bank Green Visa Card in Wing On Plus, but it was rejected and he pretended to pay by EPS card.  He also used the Visa card to buy the Gucci wallet in Mong Kok.  The defendant admitted that he helped his friends to use the forged credit card for two days and asked for a chance.

6.  In the record of interview he said that he helped his friend, Ah Sing, to make purchases with the forged credit card and he would be rewarded 10 per cent of the total successful purchases.

7.  PW3 confirmed that he sold the Gucci wallet at $2,100 on 20 January 2009.

8.  PW5 examined all the cards in question and opined that they were forged.

9.  In respect of his criminal record, I was told that the defendant had 10 convictions , they are all of different offences, some involved dishonesty elements.  His last conviction was in May 2008, for making off without payment and he was discharged from prison in July 2008.

10.  The content of the antecedents statement was not in dispute. It mainly tells me the background of the defendant that he is now aged 33, educated up to Form 5 and he is divorced.  He has no health problem and is not a drug addict.

11.  Mr Chong said that the defendant is now remorseful.  The defendant’s letter to the court also states the same.  The defendant pleaded guilty to three charges and he was cooperative with the police.  More importantly, Mr Chong said that he was not the ringleader of this operation.

12.  Before I pass sentence, I have regard to the authority of CACC464/2006 HKSAR v Tu I Lang.  In that case the court has stated that cases involve simple possession or usually a very small number of credit cards, the court has approved a starting point of 3 years for each offence, whereas the operation involved can be fairly described as small scale.  In HKSAR v Lau Pui Hang, CACC393/2003, the case involved two forged credit cards, the court considered a starting point of 3 years was also appropriate.

13.  Now, in the present case, I have considered that the defendant was in possession of three different forged credit cards.  There was no evidence to suggest  that has been part of a larger operation, or international dimension, or elaborate planning behind the offences.  It is a small-scale operation.  But he had used one forged credit card to purchase a Gucci wallet in the sum of $2,100, and one unsuccessful attempt in Wing On.  These are two separate and distinct offences.

14.  In passing sentence, I have considered all the mitigating factors before me, including the fact that the defendant had been cooperative with the police.  For all the charges, I adopt a starting point of 3 years and reduce to 2 years to reflect your guilty pleas.  For Charge 2, one year out of the two, be concurrent to Charge 1.  As to Charge 3, two years be concurrent to Charge 1.  Total 3 years.