HKSAR v. HON IVY-SOFONG

DCCC 1368/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1368 OF 2011

____________________

____________________

Reasons for Sentence

____________________

Introduction

1.  The defendant is convicted on her own plea of:

(i) the 1^st Charge of attempting to obtain property by deception, contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210; and

(ii) the 2^nd Charge of possessing false instruments, contrary to section 75(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200.

Facts

2.  The facts admitted by the defendant are as follows:

(i) At about 4 pm on 23 October 2011 when Lok Ying-suet (“PW1”) was working as the sales manager of Lancome fashion shop situated at Shop No.G4, Telford Plaza 1, Kowloon Bay (the “Shop”), the defendant presented a HSBC Visa credit card numbered 4366-1630-2325-7690 in the name of Hon Ivy-sofong (“Card 1”) to PW1 in order to purchase 11 cosmetic items, the property of L’Oreal Hong Kong Limited, at the total price of HK$6,740. As payment by Card 1 was not accepted, PW1 called the HSBC credit card centre to seek verification; but was informed that Card 1 was not registered. PW1 therefore relayed the message to the defendant. The defendant snatched Card 1 from PW1 and left the Shop;

(ii) PC4450 (“PW2”) spotted the defendant walking out of the Shop in a furtive manner. PW2 stopped the defendant outside Shop No.F4 of Telford Plaza 1. Upon body search on the defendant, the following items were found:

(a) Card 1;

(b)one Citibank VISA card numbered 4313-0704-2618-8378 in the name of Hon Ivy-sofong (“Card 2”);

(c) one Citibank VISA card numbered 4246-0441-0042-1597 in the name of Hon Ivy-sofong (“Card 3”); and

(d)one Citibank VISA card numbered 4388-5760-4265-0278 in the name of Hon Ivy-sofong (“Card 4”);

(iii) Under caution, the defendant admitted that Cards 1 to 4 were counterfeit credit cards and that she had used Card 1in the Shop; and

(iv) Cards 1 to 4 were all forged credit cards.

The defendant’s previous conviction record and antecedents

3.  The defendant has a clear record. She was born in July 1977 and is now 34. She has received education up to Form 3 level. She used to be a casual waitress and bar tender.  

Mitigation

4.  Mr Pang fairly submitted that the main mitigating feature in the present case is the defendant’s guilty plea. A letter from the defendant asking for leniency was submitted to this court.

5.  Mr Pang also submitted the following four cases to this court for reference:

· R v Chan Sui To CACC 115/1996;

· HKSAR v Poon Cho Shu CACC 55/2000;

· HKSAR v Chan Siu-shing DCCC 301/2011; and

· HKSAR v Wong Siu-chun Cindy DCCC 766/2011.

Sentencing authorities

6.  In HKSAR v Cheung Ka-wo Johnny CACC 136/2001, the Court of Appeal said:

“11. It is well known that in this jurisdiction severe sentences are given to those who commit offences of the kind with which we are presently concerned as a deterrent to others who are like-minded. One justification for this is that the integrity of the credit card system is highly important in this day and age and the confidence which people … are entitled to place on this aspect of modern commercial life is necessarily eroded by others who attempt to beat the system by fraudulent methods.”

7.  In HKSAR v Hau Ka Kit CACC 390/2005, the Court of Appeal also said:

“15. This court has repeatedly stated that the credit card system is an important financial structure in Hong Kong. Those who undermine the reputation or the operation of this structure will be expected to receive a deterrent sentence for their criminal activity.”

8.  In HKSAR v Tu I Lang CACC 464/2006, the Court of Appeal considered R v Chan Sui To CACC 115/1996, HKSAR v Watt Siu Hung CACC 93/2001, HKSAR v Cheung Ka Wo Johnny CACC 136/2001 and HKSAR v Lau Pui Hang CACC 393/2003, and said that where the facts of the offence point to a small unsophisticated operation, involving only one or a few forged cards uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the offender to a larger operation, then a starting point of three years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate. In Tu I Lang, the applicant pleaded guilty to an offence of using a forged credit card (to purchase a mobile phone) and an offence of possessing two forged credit cards. The Court of Appeal considered that the appropriate starting point of sentence for each offence was three years’ imprisonment.

Sentence

9.  The present case is a relatively minor credit card fraud case involving a small amount of money and possession of three other forged credit cards. There is no evidence of international dimension or any elaborate planning behind the offences either. In light of the sentencing authorities I mentioned, in particular Tu I Lang, I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for each of the charges. I give the defendant one-third discount for her guilty plea thus reducing the sentence to 2 years’ imprisonment for each charge. Apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, I do not consider there being any other valid mitigating features justifying further reduction in sentence. The sentence for each of the charges is 2 years’ imprisonment.

10.  On totality, I order the sentences for the 1^st Charge and the 2^nd Charge to run concurrently, thus making a total of 2 years’ imprisonment.