HKSAR v. SEMJAKIN PAVEL

DCCC1257/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1257 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant pleads guilty to two charges, the 1st charge being using a false instrument, the 2nd charge being possessing false instruments.

2.  The facts reveal that defendant is an Estonian passport holder.  He arrived at Hong Kong on 18 September 2011 as a visitor. He was permitted to stay here for 90 days.  Five days later, i.e. 23 September 2011, defendant appeared at Terminal 1, Passenger Terminal Building of the Hong Kong International Airport.  He tried to buy an iPad2 computer and an iPad2 cover at a total value of $6,007 with a forged Citibank VISA card in the name of Alex Grunt.  The shopkeeper noticed that there was no computer chip on this card, so he felt suspicious.  He made enquiries with the card centre and then reported the matter to the police.

3.  Police came.  They searched defendant and found that he was in possession of two other forged credit cards, i.e. one HSBC MasterCard and one DBS Bank VISA card, both were in the name of Alex Grunt. 

4.  Defendant was arrested.  He could only speak Russian, so police could not obtain any admission or clarification from him. 

5.  The three forged credit cards were sent to the government chemist for analysis.  They were all confirmed to be false instruments. 

6.  Police also checked with the movement record of the defendant since 1 January 2011.  It was revealed that defendant arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport on 6 June 2011, since then he had been travelling frequently in and out of Hong Kong through the Lowu Border Control Point for about 30 times.

7.  Defendant is aged 24.  He has a clear record. In mitigation defence counsel says defendant lives in Estonia with his mother.  Defendant had a job there but he decided to see the world. Counsel says this is the first time defendant had been in Asia.  He was travelling on a tight budget.  He fell into some bad companies and got the three forged credit cards.  Counsel says defendant out of foolishness used the card for the first time and thereby committed the 1st charge.  He was arrested.  The victim suffered no loss. 

8.  Counsel says defendant is now repentant and asks this court to be as lenient towards this young man as possible.  He cites two Court of Appeal cases, CACC646/2006 and CACC379/2010.  Counsel says this case is of the lower end of criminality for cases of this kind.  Counsel says this court can consider adopting a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment or even less in defendant’s case.

9.  Counsel explains for the fact that defendant travelled in and out of Hong Kong that frequently because defendant wanted to see many places in China including Shenzhen and other places in Guangdong. 

10.  That frequent travel in and out of Hong Kong during that short period of time is rather suspicious, but there is no evidence to point out that it is related to defendant’s joining any international syndicate or doing anything related to the case, so I would ignore that fact.

11.  If there is any evidence pointing out defendant having joined any international syndicate of crimes, I certainly would adopt a higher starting point because any international context or element would be regarded as an aggravating factor in this kind of cases, but there is none, so I would just treat defendant as a foreigner who was found in Hong Kong using one forged credit card and at the same time possessed another two forged credit cards.  Of course this can be said to be of the lower end of crimes of this kind, but that is still not a slight matter.

12.  Defendant has a clear record.  He is still young, only aged 24, but he has committed a crime which I consider is quite serious.  Using or possessing forged credit cards are always treated as serious offences, even for a man of clear record.  I would say the lowest starting point I can adopt in defendant’s case is one of 3 years’ imprisonment for each charge.  I give defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty to both charges.  On each count, he is sent to prison for 2 years, both terms to run concurrently.