HKSAR v. KANDASAMY CHANDRAN

DCCC705/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 705 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Kandasamy Chandran, you pleaded guilty to two charges of using a false instrument, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, and one charge of possessing false instruments, contrary to section 75(1) of the same ordinance.

2.  The false instruments in each case were false credit cards bearing your own name.  All three offences occurred on the same day, 19 May this year.

3.  Insofar as the 1st charge is concerned, at about 6.35 pm on that day you went into a shop in Lok Fu Plaza in Wang Tau Hom and managed to buy two i-Phones worth $13,376 using a forged DBS MasterCard.  I have been informed that the number and electronic particulars on that card were those of a genuine card but not a card issued to you or issued by the DBS Bank.

4.  Just over 2 hours later on Hong Kong Island you committed the offence to which the 2nd charge relates.  You went into the Gucci shop in the Sogo Department store in Hennessy Road and attempted to buy 14 goods which had a total price of $46,604.  Initially you produced a forged Standard Chartered Bank MasterCard in your name which was rejected by the credit card reader.  You then went on to present a further eight credit cards, which were all rejected.  The cashier felt suspicious and reported the matter to the Security Department of the Sogo Department Store. 

5.  You attempted to leave the store but were stopped by a security guard.

6.  The police arrived and found in your wallet the forged DBS MasterCard that you had earlier presented in the shop in Wang Tau Hom, the forged Standard Chartered MasterCard that you first presented in the Gucci shop and eight other forged credit cards which are referred to in Charge 3.  As I said, all the credit cards were in your own name.

7.  You are a visitor to Hong Kong from Malaysia.  It is apparent from your passport that you arrived in Hong Kong from Malaysia on 12 May and left for the Mainland the following day.  Over the next six days you then made three more short trips into Hong Kong from the Mainland before finally arriving back in Hong Kong on 19 May, the day you committed these offences.

8.  Mr Clement who appears for you in this hearing frankly admits that there must be an international element to these offences bearing in mind that you are from Malaysia and your subsequent travel movements.  I am prepared to accept Mr Clement’s submission that there is no evidence which links these offences to a large-scale operation. 

9.  Credit cards play an essential and extremely important role in the economy of any modern society.  Retailers are entitled to expect that when credit cards are presented to them that they will be genuine. Courts are bound to take a serious view of those who undermine the whole system by tendering forged credit cards.

10.  In considering the appropriate sentences in this case I have borne in mind that you have no previous convictions in Hong Kong, but that of course is of limited significance bearing in mind the short time that you have been here.

11.  Had it not been for the international aspect of this case I would have regarded a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment on each charge to be appropriate.  There is such an aggravating feature in this case and for that reason I adopt a starting point of 3½ years’ imprisonment on each charge. 

12.  Your pleas of guilty entitle you to the usual discount of one-third, which results in a sentence of 2 years 4 months on each charge.

13.  In considering the appropriate total sentence in your case I have borne in mind that these three offences are closely connected.  They are connected both in terms of time and in terms of the cards themselves.  It is apparent that the cards you presented at the shop in Wang Tau Hom and in the Gucci shop in the Sogo Department Store were amongst those 10 cards found on you and to which Charge 3 relates.

14.  Having carefully considered the matter, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to order all three sentences to run concurrently. 

15.  I sentence you therefore to 2 years 4 months’ imprisonment on each charge, all sentences to run concurrently.  That means the total sentence imposed on you today is 2 years 4 months.