HKSAR v. KWONG YEE MAN

DCCC 1008/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1008 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 12 charges of Fraud, contrary to s.16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.221.

Facts

2.  The defendant used the credit card of her husband in a number of transactions without his consent or authorization. 12 of those are now made subject of the 12 charges the defendant has pleaded guilty to.

3.  The defendant used her husband’s credit card to pay for a tour to China, household items from Manning’s and Jusco, socks, a watch, a shirt, underwear, a computer, contact lenses, painkillers and a mobile phone. The defendant falsely represented that she was the cardholder when she made the purchases. Total amount of the 12 purchases is $16,425.20.

4.  The defendant confessed in her video recorded interview that she had separated with her husband and had moved out of their matrimonial home. When the defendant went back to pick up her belongings, she found her husband’s credit card in a drawer. The defendant took the not yet signed credit card and put her signature on it and used it to make the purchases. The defendant said she committed the offences because her husband had refused to give her money to buy things and that made the defendant angry and dissatisfied. The defendant did not have her husband’s consent to make the purchases and she knew that what she did was wrong.

Previous convictions

5.  The defendant had a clear record.

Mitigation

6.  I was informed in mitigation that the offences arose out of a marital dispute. The defendant found out that her husband had another woman in china and that woman had a little boy. The defendant was married to the husband when she was 17, they have 2 boys who are now aged 12 and 6.

7.  The pregnant woman actually went to the defendant’s flat in the end of 2010 or beginning of 2011, causing the defendant to become very unhappy. She and her husband started to talk about divorce and it was under those circumstances that the defendant committed the offences.

8.  The defendant’s husband was kind enough to settle all 34 transactions conducted by the defendant, not just the 12 in the 12 charges. The husband also said he was not going to pursue the defendant and he was told that the bank would not pursue the matter further.

9.  The defendant is now divorced and had moved out and been working steadily at a Maxim’s cake shop. She had been promoted twice in the 9 months that she had been working in that job.

Sentence

10.  At the suggestion of the defendant’s counsel, a Community Service Order report was prepared on the defendant.

11.  From the report, we can see that the defendant’s husband has forgiven the defendant for what she had done. It is obvious that the defendant was under a lot of stress at the time and had acted out of character.

12.  The total amount involved in the 12 charges is only around $16,000, by no means a big sum of money. In sentencing the defendant, I find that this court must take into consideration all the circumstances at the time, including the matrimonial discord that the defendant was experiencing.

13.  In view of the defendant’s clear record, the fact that the companies involved did not suffer any losses, the fact that the defendant’s husband had forgiven the defendant, the low risk of the defendant re-offending and most importantly, the fact that the defendant has been holding a steady job for the past 10 months, I find that the best way, both with regard to the defendant and to society in general, to deal with the defendant in the present case is by way of a Community Service Order.

14.  In relation to each of the 12 charges that she had pleaded guilty to, I sentence the defendant to 240 hours of Community Service, to be served concurrently.