|
DCCC748/2000
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 748 OF 2000
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Chiu Wai Kit (D6) |
|
----------------------
| Before: |
Deputy District Judge W.C. Li |
| Date: |
2 June 2009 at 4.39 pm |
| Present: |
Miss Grace Leung, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Lawrence Lok, SC, leading Mr Casear Lo, instructed by Messrs Robert Siu & Co., for the 6th defendant |
| Offence: |
(1) Conspiracy to defraud (串謀詐騙)
(2) Failing to surrender to custody without
reasonable cause (無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押) |
----------------------
Reasons for Sentence
----------------------
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to defraud. The offence was committed over a period from November 1999 to April 2000.
2. The defendant was one of 16 defendants in this case. He absconded and was re-arrested in February this year, 2009.
3. This defendant was also involved in another fraud case in DCCC1184/2000. He also absconded in that case. He was sentenced to 5 years 7 months’ imprisonment in his absence by His Honour Judge Christie in October 2001.
4. Both cases, DCCC1184/2000, and this case, DCCC748/2000, were related to Loco London Gold Scams.
5. In this case, DCCC748/2000, 4 years’ imprisonment was given to all the other defendants in relation to this charge, i.e., Charge 1. No distinction in roles was made in respect of all the defendants.
6. Her Honour Judge Poon found that all the defendants were equally culpable and her judgment in this aspect was followed by His Honour Judge Fung, as he then was, and Deputy Judge Wyeth in latter sentencing of the other defendants for this same charge.
7. I have no other view on sentence on Charge 1. I also consider 4 years’ imprisonment appropriate for this charge.
8. For the defendant’s plea, late as it might be, I would give him one-third discount.
9. I take into account that after so many years some of the witnesses probably would be very difficult to locate, they might not remember the events clearly now and, nevertheless, the defendant pleaded guilty. I therefore give him the full one-third discount.
10. The defendant is therefore sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment on this charge.
11. The defendant had been in hiding for many years since absconding. Evidence shown to the court the defendant had secretly and enterprisingly worked and made an honest living running a transportation company, and he also started a family. His daughter, I think, is about 5 years’ old now.
12. Life was never easy for a fugitive. There must have been much hardship and sufferings for his immediate family as well.
13. Case DCCC1184/2000 had an appeal on sentence and it was found and held in the Court of Appeal that the 25 per cent enhancement in sentence was not justified and the sentence for the defendants, or appellants in that case, DCCC1184/2000, were therefore reduced and adjusted accordingly.
14. Had this defendant not absconded, his 5 years 7 months’ sentence in absentia would also be equally reduced.
15. He was the 5th defendant in DCCC1184/2000 and the enhancement on his sentence was 1 year 1 month. Without the enhancement, his sentence would have been 4 years 6 months.
16. The defendant had only himself to blame because he absconded, but the reality was that his sentence, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal, should have been 4 years 6 months. At least that is so in principle.
17. I am asked in considering totality in sentence in the present case, the 32 months in the present case to the 5 years 7 months the defendant is now serving in DCCC1184/2000, to take into account the fact that the 5 years 7 months should in effect have been 4 years 6 months. I am asked in considering totality to take into account this factor.
18. I think in fairness to the defendant this court should have regard to the reality of sentence he has to serve or actually has to serve.
19. The prosecution reminded me that the defendant committed the present case whilst on bail for the case in DCCC1184/2000. I equally reminded myself that these Loco London Gold Scams were bad cases that conned people with lesser education and common sense and who had a weakness for fast profit to part with their hard-earned savings, if not their life savings.
20. Having considered all these factors, I order 12 months of the 32 months’ sentence in this case to be served consecutively and the remaining 20 months to be served concurrently with the 5 years 7 months in DCCC1184/2000.
21. So in total the defendant will be serving 5 years 7 months plus 12 months, which is 6 years 7 months.
| |
W.C. Li |
| |
Deputy District Judge |
|