HKSAR v. LAI KA HO

DCCC 775/2017

[2018] HKDC 87

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 775 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant was charged with one count of attempted fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 and section 159G of the Crime Ordinance, Cap 200. The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts, he was convicted accordingly.

Prosecution case

2.  On 21 April 2016 an unknown male in support of his loan application with Winton Financial Co Ltd in the sum of $80,000 provided the following documents to the company by fax:-

(1)   a copy of the defendant’s Hong Kong ID card;

(2)   3 forged salary statements in the name of the defendant;

(3)   2 forged bank statements in the name of the defendant.

3.  On 25 April 2016 the defendant visited Winton and provided the abovementioned forged statements and a further forged bank statement in furtherance of his loan application.  Suspecting that the documents submitted were false, a report was made to the police.

4.  Under caution, the defendant admitted he knew the documents were false and he submitted them in support of his loan application with Winton.

Mitigation

5.  The defendant aged 20, single living with his parents and his younger brother.  He completed a two-years aviation course last year and started working in the field earning $11,000 per month.

6.  The defendant has a clear record, he was 18 when he committed the crime in April 2016.  Knowing the defendant wanted to relief the family of his school fees, an ex-school mate talked him into committing the fraud.  The defendant was not told how much he would be given, he just wanted to get some monies out of this for his school fees.  Taking into account of the $10,000 scholarship, he would need to pay another $49,000 for the 2-years course.

7.  The defendant regretted for his wrong, the parents were in court to show their support.  The mother has written a mitigation letter for her son.  The defendant was arrested on 25 April 2016 and was temporarily released in August 2016 pending the investigation of the matter, he was re-arrested and formally charged in July 2017.  Time being the defendant has been co-operated with the police and provided information of the another person involved.

8.  The defendant knew his wrong has hurt the parents deeply and promised would not commit further crime again.  Since the commission of the present case he has completed his aviation course and obtained his present job. Having heard the mitigation, in view of the age of the defendant, his clear record, positive progress since the commission of the present case and no loss suffered by the victim company, I called for a CSO report and a background report for my consideration.  Time being I allowed the defendant be released on bail, however, he was told explicitly that there was no indication as to the final disposal of the matter. 

Sentence

9.  There is no tariff for fraud, all depends on the circumstances.  With the fact of the present case, it would merit a starting point of about 12 months.  However, in view of the age, character, background and the plea of guilty of the defendant, a Community Service Order is a viable alternative to custodial sentence.

10.  It transpires from the report that the defendant has learnt a lesson and shown genuine remorse for the wrong committed.  The family relationship is harmonious.  With loving and supportive parents, he has no behavioral problem or hold any vice habit and his formative years are uneventful.  While on bail he is able to maintain gainful employment, a dream job that he treasures and strives the best to keep.  He shows commitment to perform community service and has confidence to complete the Order.

11.  The defendant wanted the court to impose a community service order for the present offence.  With clear record and favorable social circumstances, the probation officer believed that the defendant will benefit if he can be granted a chance for rehabilitation in the community and proposed an Order in the range between 160 to 200 hours in the present case. 

12.  Having consider all the relevant circumstances, I am with the view that a Community Service Order of 200 hours is appropriate in the present case.  I shall make a community service order against the defendant accordingly.

Order

13.  For the offence convicted, the defendant is sentenced to perform 200 hours Community Service and be of good behaviour during the period of the order.

14.  Order explained and understood.