HKSAR v. BHAM SATNAM SINGH

DCCC620/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 620 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to 16 charges before this court. Fifteen of those charges, that is Charges 1 to 15, relate to a charge of using a false instrument, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance. The charges are very much similar but committed on different dates and those dates commence from 12 September 2011 and continue through in the next four months until 10 January 2012. The method of use of the false instrument was by you using a forged invoice and inducing the person by the name of Yeung Oi-ying to accept it as genuine.

2.  The remaining 16th charge was a charge of conspiracy to deal with property known or reasonably believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance.  That effectively is known as money laundering.  That charge relates to the ill-gotten gains by using the forged invoices and depositing them into accounts of the co-accused in the total sum of $1,648,502.39 into two bank accounts in Hong Kong.

3.  The facts were that you had worked for the victim company by the name of Prime China International Limited as a sales assistant.  You had been working there since 2010.  Whilst working there you dealt with the purchasing of goods from factories in China.  You were the person responsible for dealing with the invoices and arrangements for payment to these companies. 

4.  What you essentially did on the 15 occasions was make these forged invoices then submitted them to your employer, the victim company.  They then paid against these forged invoices and you directed payment, which was made by cheques, into your co-accused’s bank accounts. These bank accounts were either in Hong Kong and/or in China.  The total of the forged invoices amounted to $2,259,304.34, which was about $2.25 million.

5.  On 15 February 2012 a clerk of your employer found that the contents of one of the invoices submitted by you did not match with the stock records of the company and therefore suspected it was forged. After checking, it was discovered by the company that there were 15 forged invoices.  They approached you and you immediately confessed to them that you had falsified and forged these invoices.  You admitted deceiving the company of the $2.25 million.

6.  You admitted that you had forged the invoices by using the computer at the office and you had deleted all the records from the computer.  You had submitted the forged invoices to the managers of the company to get their signatures. 

7.  Very soon after you had admitted that you had forged these invoices and taken the money you made restitution by returning some gold bars, electronic appliances and cash to the company.  The total value of the properties you returned to the company was about $2.03 million.

8.  Your solicitor, Mr John Beukema, has made full mitigation on your behalf today. I have taken into account all that he has had to say.

9.  As to your background, you are an Indian male and you came to Hong Kong in August 2010 to work for this company, which I understand is Indian-owned.  The victim company sponsored your visa to work in Hong Kong.  You are 24 years of age and are of clear record.  You have attained education a Masters degree in business administration in India.  You are single and your family live in India.  You have a heavy burden to support them.

10.  I am told by Mr Beukema that the reason for you committing this offence was because of the severe pressure that you felt in having to support your family by sending the majority of your net income of $15,000 back to India.  You became greedy and stole this money from the company, but, having said that, you then used the money to buy gold bars and did not filter the money away on gambling or for your personal fun.

11.  I have received a letter from your employer, the victim company, speaking very highly of you, asking this court to give you a chance. They say that you committed the offence out of momentary greed.  The company otherwise think you are a very trustworthy, hardworking and obedient employee.  You were never late to work, obeyed orders and efficiently completing those orders.  The company has said that the gold which you returned to the company has increased in value and as such, I quote from the letter, “they are at a minimum or no financial loss.”

12.  As Mr Beukema rightly points point, defendant, the strongest mitigating factors in this case is of course your early plea of guilty and your full restitution to this company upon detection of the offences. 

13.  Mr Beukema has rightly pointed out although the offences are of using a false instrument or forged invoice, the facts itself show clearly one of a very serious offence of breach of trust.  You were placed in a position of trust by the company to which you were employed and you breached your trust to the company by stealing money from them. 

14.  There are very clear guidelines for breach of trust cases and they date back to the case of Cheung Mei Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD at 776.  The range of sentence was corrected in the case of Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD at 1017, and adopted most recently in the case of HKSAR v Yeung Chiu, CACC105/2009.  There are tariff guidelines laid by the Court of Appeal of which the courts lend guidance to the lower courts in sentencing for these amounts stolen.  These sentencing tariffs are for the 1st to 15th charges. 

15.  For the 16th charge, that is the charge of money laundering, in a recent case of HKSAR v A male known as Boma Amaso, CACC335/2010, the court there laid down some sentencing guidelines, not tariffs, for charges of money laundering. 

16.  Defendant, in this case you were the perpetrator in the money laundering, you were involved in the predicate offence, that is the original offence, which is one of using a false instrument.  The court has regard to sentence of the predicate offence to be guided as to what is the appropriate sentence in the money laundering.  The court also has to take into account the amount of money involved. 

17.  In those circumstances, defendant, and taking into account all the above matters, I consider a total overall sentence for all 16 charges.  

18.  As Mr Beukema rightly points out, the amount involved in Charges 1 to 15 is an amount to which the court must look at for the breach of trust offences.  The amount involved here was $2.25 million.  That amount falls in the third range of between $1 million and $3 million, which warrants a sentence of between 3 to 5 years. 

19.  Taking into account the above matters, I consider a starting point of 4 years 3 months to be appropriate for charges 1-15.  I also consider the same starting point is appropriate for charge 16.  Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty on Charges 1 to 15, that term shall be reduced to one of 34 months or 2 years 8 months’ imprisonment.

20.  You have shown to the court your remorse and it is significant for me to note that you a day later.  I am told by Mr Beukema after the theft was discovered and long before the prosecution was made you had made restitution. The courts have given much weight to restitution.

21.  I have been referred to the case by Mr Beukema of HKSAR v Chu Ping, Richard, CACC287/2011, where the court there also noted that the defendant had made full restitution and allowed a further one-third discount after the one-third he had been given.  In following that case of the Court of Appeal, I reduce that term of 34 months to one of 22 months’ imprisonment, which shall be your total sentence, that is 1 year 10 months’ imprisonment in total.

22.  Now, because you are charged with 16 different offences I am going to need to give you a sentence for each separate charge. As I say, some of them will be consecutive so as to make up the total to be 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment.

23.  Your sentence is as follows, and these are all after your pleas of guilty, giving you the full discount or one-third discount already:

Charges 1 to 7 is 2 months’ imprisonment each;

Charge 8, 10 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 9 to 12, 2 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 13, 10 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 14, 2 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 15, 16 months’ imprisonment; and

Charge 16, 1 year 10 months’ imprisonment.

24.  All charges are to run concurrent to each other, save for Charges 1, 2 and 3, which are 2 months’ imprisonment.  Those will run consecutive to Charge 15, which is 16 months’ imprisonment, which will make a total term of 1 year 10 months’ imprisonment.