HKSAR v. MENG HAITAO

DCCC 167/2025

[2025] HKDC 2179

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 167 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  Mr Meng pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Using false instruments, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. Particulars are that he, on 16 August 2024, at Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited, Shop Nos LG2-56, Level LG2, Festival Walk, No 80 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, used instruments, namely one cashier’s check in the name of “Bank of China (Hong Kong)” in the sum of E1,000,000,000 Euros payable to “Hong Kong Trillion Harvest Group Limited” and one bank confirmation letter in the name of “Bank of China (Hong Kong)”, which were, and which he knew or believed to be false, with the intention of inducing the staff of Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited to accept them as genuine and by reason of so accepting them to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

Facts admitted by Mr Meng

2.  On 16 August 2024, Mr Meng entered Hong Kong on the strength of a two-way permit and was permitted to stay until 23 August 2024.

3.  On 16 August 2024, at about 11:46 am, Mr Meng presented the following documents to a branch of Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited (“BOC”) situate at Level LG2, Festival Walk, Kowloon Tong:

(a) A cashier’s check in the sum of Euro E1,000,000,000 payable to “Hong Kong Trillion Harvest Group Limited” dated 19 June 2024 with the purported issuing bank as “Bank of China (Hong Kong)” (“the Cashier’s Check”); and

(b) A letter purportedly issued by “Bank of China (Hong Kong)” claiming that the Cashier’s Check was genuine (“the Bank Confirmation Letter”). The Bank Confirmation Letter was purportedly signed by a Chief Risk Officer named “Liu Jiandong” with a purported chop of “Bank of China (Hong Kong)”.

4.  The senior customer service manager of the branch PW1 found the Cashier’s Check and the Bank Confirmation Letter suspicious.  She notified the Operating Supervisor of the branch PW2.

5.  PW2 made enquiry with Mr Meng.  Mr Meng told PW2 that he needed to call someone for answers.  Mr Meng called a female and spoke on speaker phone.  The female claimed there was a need to cash out the Cashier’s Check to Hong Kong dollars.

6.  PW2 then asked Mr Meng to hand over the two documents together with Mr Meng’s identification documents.

7.  Upon inspection, Mr Meng found that:

(a) The “Bank of China (Hong Kong)” chop on the Bank Confirmation Letter was fake;

(b) The person who purportedly signed the Bank Confirmation Letter, namely “Liu Jiandong”, could not be found within BOC;

(c) No watermark of BOC was found on the Cashier’s Check under UV light;

(d) The account number referenced on the Cashier’s Check did not exist within BOC; and

(e) BOC never issued any cashier’s checks in Euro.

8.  PW2 reported the matter to the police.

9.  Mr Meng said to a police officer that the Cashier’s Check and the Bank Confirmation Letter were provided to him by a man called “Shi Jianbo” in Shanghai a month previously.

Criminal record

10.  Mr Meng has a clear record.

Antecedents

11.  Mr Meng, born in Mainland, is aged 42 (41 at the time of the offence), educated to secondary school level also in Mainland, unemployed.  Mr Meng is single and he has no fixed abode in Hong Kong.

Mitigation

12.  Mr Bernard Yuen of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Meng.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

13.  Mr Meng is single.  He has two younger sisters and a step-mother.  He was living alone.

14.  Prior to the present case, Mr Meng worked in a herbalist shop in Yunnan earning RMB15,000 per month.

15.  Mr Meng has a clear record.  He pleaded guilty and should be entitled to a one third sentencing discount.

16.  Mr Meng was not the mastermind of the scheme and he was not the one who asked the bank to cash the Cashier’s Check.  It was the female on the phone who asked to cash the Cashier’s Check to Hong Kong dollars.

17.  However, Mr Meng accepts that he was present and presented the documents to the bank and went through the procedure of cashing the Cashier’s Check.

18.  There is no sentencing tariff for the offence of Using false instruments.  Every case stands on its own facts.  Mr Yuen referred to the case of HKSAR v Ra Hyun Bin [2009] 5 HKLRD 315[1], CACC 353/2008, a case in which the second applicant’s application for leave to appeal against his concurrent sentences of 3½ years’ imprisonment after trial on, inter alia, the charge of “Using a copy of a false instrument” under section 74 of Cap  200 was dismissed.

19.  Mr Yuen tried to compare the facts of that case with those of the present case as well as the roles and culpabilities of different offenders.

20.  Mr Yuen highlighted the following features of the present case:

(a) There were only two documents here;

(b) Mr Meng’s role was far less active or dominant: it was the female who made the request to cash the Cashier’s Check into HKD; and

(c) Only one person namely Mr Meng went to the bank here.

21.  Mr Yuen further submitted that there was absolutely no risk that the two documents here would be accepted as genuine.  Mr Yuen laid emphasis on the fact that (a) the check was not a bearer check; (b) the two documents did not have the word “Limited” on them; and (c) the payee company did not have an account with BOC.  All these helped to show the ignorance of Mr Meng.

22.  Mr Yuen accepted that the sentence may take into account the international element that the two documents were given to Mr Meng by another person in Shanghai.  However, Mr Yuen drew attention to the fact that the evidence of knowledge and belief of falsity against Mr Meng was not overwhelming.

23.  Mr Yuen submitted that a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment may sufficiently reflect Mr Meng’s culpability.

24.  Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Yuen conceded that Mr Meng did come to Hong Kong specifically to commit this offence.

Sentence

25.  Upon enquiry by the court, the prosecution told me they would maintain their stance to proceed against Mr Meng as the sole perpetrator.

26.  I asked to see the two false documents.  They were since returned to the prosecution but copies have been retained as MFI-1 (check) and MFI-2 (letter).

27.  The check was a crossed check.  That means the amount on the check could not be cashed but could only be deposited into the account of the payee. Prosecution told me that the stated payee did not have an account with the BOC.  This is another reason why the criminal act of the defendant was doomed to fail.

28.  What is clear is that Mr Meng was a “stupid thief”.  He had no chance of success whatsoever.  However, it cannot be gainsaid that he committed a serious crime the maximum penalty of which is 14 years’ imprisonment.

29.  Given the relatively small number of false documents involved and the limited acts of Mr Meng in the whole episode, namely presentation of the documents to the bank staff with the requisite double-intention, and bearing in mind the almost certainty of failure, I accede to the submission that a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment would be sufficient as a starter.

30.  Mr Yuen mentioned that there was an “international element” in the case on the basis that Mr Meng said the two documents were given to him by someone in Shanghai previously.  If “international element” it was, I think the impact here is very little such as to have any effect on the sentence.  What I am more concerned about is Mr Meng came specifically to commit a serious offence.  That certainly is an aggravating factor that the court cannot ignore.  For this reason, the starting point is enhanced by 3 months.

31.  Mr Meng pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the full 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.  I should perhaps mention that a pervious clear record counts for little in this type of serious offence.

(Mr Meng, please stand)

32.  The sentence is 22 months’ imprisonment.