HKSAR v. MARIA MANINDER SINGH

`DCCC 1059/2023

[2025] HKDC 1762

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1059 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The charge and the facts of the case

1.  The Defendant (“D”)  was convicted after trial of one count of passing or tendering a counterfeit currency note, contrary to section 99(1)(a)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

2.  The facts of the case are set out in my Reasons for Verdict and shall not be repeated here. It suffices to say that D passed a HK$500 counterfeit banknote to a taxi driver to pay for his taxi ride late at night and received HK$400 change; the texture of the counterfeit note was of inferior quality and it bore no security features normally found on genuine banknotes, and thus the taxi driver reported the case; D was arrested and under caution, D admitted that he had previously purchased the counterfeit note from a male stranger for the price of HK$100, he was aware that the note was a counterfeit, and he had used it to pay for the taxi ride.

Mitigation submissions

3.  In mitigation, the defence gave the following background of D: D is single, born in India in 1987 and came to Hong Kong in 1997 and is a permanent resident here. He attended school in Hong Kong for 3-4 years before dropping out. He lives alone. His mother is 60 years old and retired; his father has passed away; he has 2 elder brothers. D worked for one of his brothers as a driver for his business in 2020; he also worked as a logistics worker from 2022 onwards with an income of HK$8,000 per month. He has no similar criminal conviction record.

4.  The defence submits that there are no tariff guidelines for this offence; the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment. The case authorities cited by the defence include HKSAR v Kiran Gurung [1998] 1 HKC 670, HKSAR v Leung Wai Han CACC 102/2002, HKSAR v Li Tsz Chung CACC 312/2011 & CACC 314/2011. The defence also referred to the sentences in some District Court cases.

5.  The defence submits that “[a]lthough the present case is not a delay of prosecution in the conventional sense, there was an undue and unjustified delay by police/prosecution in obtaining and providing a second statement of PW1 … on the first day of trial …” The defence also refers to late disclosure of the dashcam footage of PW1. The defence submits that “the defendant should be given credit for the trial proceedings continuing to run as smoothly as possible and without any wasted time or delay given the context.”  

6.  The defence asks the Court to consider the following in sentencing D: (1)  the case involves only one single counterfeit note of HK$500; (2)  a home search was conducted with nothing further found; (3)  no charge as to making or manufacturing counterfeit notes are involved; (4)  D has no previous similar record; (5)  the aforementioned “delay” by the police/prosecution.

Sentence

7.  I have considered the mitigation submissions of the defence, including the case authorities submitted. The defence agrees that the District Court cases are not binding on me, and I have already expressed that I do not find them to be of any referential value. As to Kiran Gurung, that is a case in 1997 and since then there have been many Court of Appeal cases on this offence (which I cite hereinbelow).

8.  D has 8 conviction records involving 9 charges, including possession of dangerous drugs, burglary and attempted burglary, robbery, etc. His last conviction was in 2022 for a burglary charge, for which he was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment. Even though D is not of clear record, none of his previous convictions was for a charge involving counterfeit currency – thus in sentencing D, I will not take into account his previous records as an aggravating factor.

9.  In HKSAR v Leung Wai Han CACC 102/2002, the applicant was convicted of four charges, two of which were being in custody or control of counterfeit notes with intent to pass or tender them as genuine; the case involved a total of thirty-two HK$100 notes and one HK$20 note; a starting point of 2.5 years’ imprisonment was adopted for each charge involving counterfeit notes (and a 40% discount was given for the applicant’s guilty plea and assistance to the police). The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the judge had committed no error of principle in sentencing the applicant for these two charges.

10.  In HKSAR v Li Ho Yin CACC 128/2013, the applicant was convicted on his plea of passing/tendering one counterfeit HK$100 note (charge 1)  and having custody/control of twenty-six other counterfeit HK$100 notes (charge 2). He had a similar previous conviction record, and had committed these offences shortly after being released from prison. The Court of Appeal was of the view that the appropriate starting points for charges 1 and 2 were 3 years’ imprisonment and 3.5 years’ imprisonment respectively.

11.  In HKSAR v Maristela Rhea Nerissa Curbi and another CACC 246/2021, the Court of Appeal stated that the sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment (after trial)  for each charge of tendering as genuine a HK$500 counterfeit banknote was lenient:

“26. In relation to the application of both applicants for leave to appeal against sentence, these offences are not unlike tendering forged credit cards, at least in terms of their effect, except of course that innocent victims have no recourse against anyone, certainly not a bank, for the losses they suffer. Obviously, the two applicants were part of, or at the very least were knowingly made use of by, something bigger that was responsible for producing counterfeit banknotes; just as those who tender forged credit cards play their part in furthering the aims of a larger syndicate. It must be remembered that those who use forged credit cards and banknotes are essential to the forger’s operation. I believe an appellate court would find these to be very serious offences, for which, with respect, the sentences passed after trial were somewhat lenient. The maximum sentence on indictment for this offence is 14 years’ imprisonment, which reflects how seriously this offence is viewed by the legislature. I do not think either applicant could have complained if they had received a higher overall starting point.”

12.  The present case involves D being convicted after trial of tendering one HK$500 counterfeit note to pay for taxi fare of around HK$100 (and receiving HK$400 change). The innocent victim in this case was a taxi driver; similar to the small business owner in the Maristela case, he could ill afford to lose money in such a way. D committed this offence shortly after being released from prison. I am of the view that a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

13.  As to the defence submission that there has been delay by the prosecution, it is clear that this is not “delay” in the conventional sense as already conceded by the defence. However, I have considered the submissions of parties and agree with the defence that the prosecution did not have a valid excuse for not providing the dashcam footage earlier and the defence had acted reasonably in agreeing to proceed with the trial without a need for an adjournment after having received the second statement of PW1 and the dashcam footage during the course of trial. I thus exercise my discretion to reduce the sentence by 3 months.

14.  There is no reason to give any further discount. D is thus sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.