HKSAR v. PHRUEKCHONLATHEE YAYHA

DCCC25/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to the four charges on the indictment, the first three being offences of using a false instrument, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200, Laws of Hong Kong, and section 3(1) of the Aviation Security Ordinance, Cap.494, Laws of Hong Kong, and the fourth being an offence of possession of a false instrument, contrary to section 75(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200, Laws of Hong Kong.

2.  The amended Summary of Facts which you have admitted are quite straightforward and establish that on 25 November of last year, when you were on a Cathay Pacific flight from Moscow to Hong Kong, you submitted a purchase order form to buy cosmetics and pens to a total value of $11,310 to the flight attendant and produced the forged Mastercard particularised in Charge 1 for payment.  When the first transaction failed, you then produced two other credit cards singularly particularised in Charges 2 and 3 respectively, which also failed.  The flight attendant then telephoned the respective card centres and the falsity of the cards was established. 

3.  After the plane landed in Hong Kong you were searched and another forged credit card, being the subject matter of Charge 4, was found on you.

4.  You are 31 years of age and a Thai national.  I am told that you live in Bangkok with your mother, who is ill.  It has been said on your behalf that you committed these offences in an attempt to raise money to assist in paying your mother’s medical expenses as she is now estranged from your father.  You bought these credit cards in the forlorn hope that they could be used to buy merchandise on the aeroplane, which presumably you intended to sell on in order to get money.

5.  Credit card frauds are always treated by these courts as extremely serious offences as it is the potential for loss that clearly can occur.  I accept in this case that no loss did occur.  However, that is only fortuitous. 

6.  This is, I am satisfied, a small-scale operation, and despite the fact that you are a Thai national and the offences were committed on board a Cathay Pacific plane, I do not consider there to be any real international dimension here taking account of the circumstances in which these offences were committed.  Also, there is no evidence of you being part of any larger syndicate.

7.  I take account of the matters put before me by way of mitigation, but it is your plea of guilty that is the main mitigating feature and I will give you due credit for that.

8.  My starting point in relation to Charges 1 to 3 is one of 2½ years’ imprisonment on each charge.  I will discount that sentence in relation to Charges 1 to 3 by one-third to reflect your plea of guilty, coming to 20 months’ imprisonment on Charges 1 to 3.

9.  In respect of Charge 4, I adopt a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment.  This I will similarly discount by one-third to reflect your plea, coming to 16 months’ imprisonment on Charge 4.

10.  Due to the question of totality of sentence and to reflect the overall criminality, I order all sentences to run concurrently with each other, arriving at a total sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment in all.