|
DCCC616/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 616 OF 2010
----------------------
----------------------
|
Before:
|
H H Judge Anthea Pang
|
|
Date:
|
12 July 2010 at 12.46 pm
|
|
Present:
|
Ms Wong Kam-hing, SADPP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Paul Li Mang-wah, of Messrs K M Lai & Li, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
|
|
Offence:
|
(1) & (2) Using false instruments (使用虛假文書)
|
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. This morning the defendant pleaded guilty before me to two charges of using false instruments, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200.
2. The facts admitted by the defendant and which gave rise to the two charges are as follows; at about 9.30 am on 30 March 1999, the defendant, having armed himself with a forged Hong Kong identity card in the name of Li Ying-lung but which bore his photo, as well as a forged letter of authorisation purportedly issued by Success World (H.K.) Limited, went to the Lai Chi Kok Branch of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. What he did at the Lai Chi Kok Branch is the subject matter of the 1st charge.
3. The defendant presented the documents together with a pre-signed cashier order application form to the bank teller, seeking to have a cashier order issued from the account of Success World. The cashier order was to be made payable to Mr Kong Kai-yin in the sum of HK$1.265 million.
4. However, as the Lai Chi Kok Branch was unable to process the said application, the defendant was advised by the bank staff to go to the Mongkok Branch to make the application.
5. The defendant did so. He reached the Mongkok Branch about 20 minutes later, and presented the same false documents to reapply for the cashier order. This is the subject matter of the 2nd charge.
6. However, the bank had, in the meantime, contacted Madam Ng Wai-kuen, the signatory of Success World, and she denied that she had authorised anyone to make the application. Therefore, when the defendant made the application at the Mongkok Branch, a report was made to the police and he was arrested in the bank premises.
7. Police investigation further revealed that on the previous day, the telephone lines of Success World’s office premises were damaged and on the day in question, from about 8.50 am onwards, repeated nuisance calls were made to Madam Ng’s mobile phones, but luckily, the call from the bank managed to get through and Madam Ng confirmed to the bank that she had not given the authorisation in question.
8. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he had been promised a reward of $3,000 by Ah Lung to use the false ID card to deposit the cashier order in a bank.
9. When interviewed later in the police station, the defendant admitted that about 3 weeks before he went to the bank, he was taken by Ah Lung to take some instant photos for the preparation of the false ID card.
10. In the morning in question, Ah Lung met him near the Lai Chi Kok Branch and gave him a pile of documents together with the false ID card for making the application. Ah Lung also accompanied him to the Mongkok Branch later on.
11. The defendant was released on police bail after his arrest. He absconded on 13 April 1999, but surrendered to the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau on 8 April 2010. He was then returned to the Hong Kong Police on 30 April 2010.
12. The defendant is aged 54. He was born in Vietnam and came to Hong Kong in 1971. He is single, and had picked up various odd jobs after leaving school. He has five previous convictions, two relating to theft.
13. In mitigation, Mr Li, for the defendant, told the court that the defendant jumped bail as he wanted to be able to visit his mother, who was then staying in the States.
14. How he could do so was not known as Mr Li said that after the defendant had jumped bail, he had gone to the Mainland where he worked as a coolie until he found himself unable to work because of sciatica. He therefore surrendered to the authority and returned to Hong Kong.
15. Mr Li told the court that for this illness, the defendant is awaiting an operation and he is now on a wheelchair. It was also said on behalf of the defendant that he did not receive any profits as the application was unsuccessful.
16. Mr Li also emphasised that no actual loss was occasioned to Success World.
17. Mr Li invited the court’s attention to HKSAR v Chung Kwok Yuen and Another, DCCC887/2009, where a starting point of 30 months was adopted for the offence of conspiracy to use false instruments. That case, however, involved two forged cashier orders, each in the sum of €100 million.
18. I do not find the case to be of assistance as we are not concerned with any forged cashier order in this case.
19. The false instruments that were involved here were one false ID card and one false authorisation letter. The defendant presented those to the bank and intended to use those to seek a cashier order in the sum of HK$1.265 million.
20. The facts admitted by the defendant revealed that the telephone lines of Success World were broken on the previous day, and that there were repeated nuisance calls made to the mobile phone of the signatory in question at the material time.
21. This would be too much a coincidence if these were not meant to prevent the signatory from being contacted, but I do not take these as factors against the defendant as it was not stated in the facts that he was aware of those before he presented the false instruments to the bank.
22. In any event, it was the defendant's own admission that he was asked to take the photos for the preparation of the false ID card. This shows that there was a certain degree of preplanning.
23. Moreover, as the defendant was the one applying for the cashier order, he must also have been aware that a sum of HK$1.265 million was involved.
24. On the facts of this case, I consider a starting point of 2 years to be appropriate for Charge 1.
25. Other than his plea, I see no other mitigating factors. The defendant is therefore to serve a term of 16 months for Charge 1.
26. I also adopt a starting point of 2 years for Charge 2.
27. Again, a one-third reduction will be given to the defendant for his plea. He is to serve a term of 16 months for Charge 2.
28. Given that both charges relate to the same scheme and could be said to arise from the same set of facts and that the same false instruments were involved, I am going to order that the terms are to be served wholly concurrently.
29. As regards the defendant's medical condition, I believe he will receive the attention he requires in prison.
30. The defendant is therefore to serve a total term of 16 months' imprisonment.
| |
Anthea Pang |
| |
District Judge |
|