HKSAR v. CHOW HING TAT

DCCC443/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 443 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The Defendant is convicted, upon his own plea, of one charge of fraud, contrary to Section 16A of the Theft Ordinance.

2.  The particulars of offence read: “Chow Hing-tat, between the 1st day of May, 2009 and the 30th day of November, 2009, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing that he operated a genuine employment agency named “Honest Maid Employment Agency” in Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, and that he would find jobs from genuine employers for the applicant, and with intent to defraud, induced Delia A Castillo, Vilma A Faylogna, Lucila R Farinas and other persons to commit an act or a series of acts, namely to part with their money as agency fees paid to him, which resulted in benefit to himself, and/or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said Delia A Castillo, Vilma A Faylogna, Lucila R Farinas and other persons.”

3.  The facts admitted by the defendant reveal that, between 1 May 2009 and 30 November 2009, a number of domestic helpers, including Delia A Castillo (PW1), Vilma A Faylogna (PW2), Lucila R Farinas (PW3), collectively called “the victims”, approached Honest Maid Employment Agency in Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, where they made applications, either for themselves or their friends of relatives, for domestic work in Hong Kong.  On each occasion the victim was interviewed by the defendant.  The defendant told each of them that he would find an employer for the applicant, and all they needed to do was to give him an agency fee of $3,000 for each applicant, and to sign on some blank contracts and forms. 

4.  PW1 had paid $54,000 in total to the defendant for her 18 friends’ applications, whereas PW2 had paid HK$3,000 for her husband’s application, and PW3 had paid HK$6,000 for her two relatives’ applications.  Eventually none of the applicants got a referral of jobs from the defendant.

5.  On 6 December, 2009, the defendant surrendered to the police.  He was arrested by PC54631.  During subsequent interviews the defendant said, amongst other things, the following under caution:

(a) he opened Honest Maid Employment Agency in Tsim Sha Tsui in May 2009 with a view to deceiving money from domestic helpers;

(b) he operated the agency service without a licence, nor had he applied for registration of the business carried out by him;

(c) he lied to the applicants that he would find employers for them and show them employment contracts forged by him;

(d) he charged HK$3,000 from each of the applicants;

(e) upon receipt of the money he told the applicants to return back to their home country to wait for the result. However, he ceased contact with them afterwards;

(f) between May 2009 and November 2009 he had deceived around a 100 Filipino and Indonesian domestic helpers through the same modus operandi;

(g) he spent all the money paid by the applicants on daily expenses of the business. As he was broke, he decided to turn himself to the police.

6.  At an identification parade carried out on 21 March 2010, PW1, PW2 and PW3 positively identified the defendant as the person in charge of the agency.  The defendant had not applied for a business registration, nor had he applied for any employment agency licence for Honest Maid Employment Agency. 

7.  Today I was informed by the public prosecutor that the defendant had 19 convictions resulting from six court appearances. All the previous convictions were dishonesty-related offences, including 13 convictions of theft, two convictions of obtaining property by deception, one conviction of attempted obtaining property by deception and three convictions of uttering forged document. 

8.  The defendant was born in March, 1968, and is now 42 years old.  He received education up to secondary school level.  He is unemployed.  He was last discharged from prison in March 2007.  He is married, with a 7-year-old son.

9.  In mitigation, the defendant said he regretted what had happened.  He knew he was wrong.  He said he hoped he could make compensation to the victims after he was released from prison.  He is unable to pay any compensation to any of the victims for the time being.

10.  Before I convicted the defendant he said he understood the contents of the amended summary of facts read out by the public prosecutor and agreed to the contents, but at the beginning of mitigation the defendant disputed paragraphs 4(a) and (e) of the Amended Summary of Facts.  I stood down the hearing for the defendant to consider whether he wished to seek legal advice on the way forward.  When the hearing was resumed the defendant said he would not dispute the contents of the Amended Summary of Facts.

11.  As to the amount of money deceived, despite paragraph 4(d) and (f) of the Amended Summary of Facts, the defendant said he only deceived about $200,000.  The prosecution had no dispute on that amount. Both parties also agree that it was a breach of trust case.

12.  According to HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kue, CACC99/2006, where the money involved was less than HK$250,000 the sentence should be less than 2 years.  On the other hand, the defendant has 19 previous convictions all related to dishonesty offences.  You are a persistent offender.  As such, this court is entitled to adopt a higher sentence than would otherwise be the case so as to have a greater deterrent effect and to protect the public from his persistent offending.  That is from HKSAR v Wan Ho Kit, Lawence, CACC479/2000. 

13.  Having considered the circumstances of the case and the long history of conviction of the defendant, I will adopt a starting point of 2 years and 3 months imprisonment.  Because of the defendant’s guilty plea I will give him one-third discount.  The resulting sentence is therefore 18 months’ imprisonment.