HKSAR v. WU SHUN HEI DORIS

[DRAFT]

DCCC 1023/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1023 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to three offences: two of using a false instrument and one of possession of two false instruments.

2. The first two charges relate to his use of a forged American Express card on 22 August 2013 at a shop in Telford Plaza, Kowloon Bay.  The second charge relates to his use of the same card at a different shop in Telford Plaza on the same day.

3. On that day the defendant was subsequently arrested and found in possession of the American Express card he had used at the two shops and also a second forged American Express card.

4. The facts admitted by the defendant are that on 22 August 2013 at 7.45 pm the defendant went into Fortress in Telford Plaza.  He was intending to buy a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone valued at $4,598.  He produced the forged American Express card, which was bearing his name, for payment.

5. The transaction, although it was successfully completed, the shop assistant said that he had never seen that type of American Express credit card before and told the defendant to wait while he reported the matter to the shop manager.  The defendant then told the shop assistant that he wished to cancel the transaction and, in that event, the card was returned to him and the transaction slip was cancelled.

6. About 15 minutes later, the defendant was in Sa Sa shop in Telford Plaza.  He approached one of the assistants with a view to buy three bottles of SK-II Essence and a bottle of Chanel perfume valued at $4,341.  He presented the same forged American Express card that he had used in the Fortress shop.  The transaction was successfully processed but the shop assistant found the defendant looked suspicious and told the defendant to wait whilst she verified the credit card with the bank.

7. Again, the defendant indicated that he wished to cancel the transaction and the shop assistant agreed to this but reported the matter to her supervisor who then called the police.

8. Police officers arrived and intercepted the defendant as he was leaving Sa Sa.

9. The defendant was searched and in his wallet was found the American Express card he had used in Fortress and Sa Sa, and also a second forged American Express card, again bearing his name.

10. The defendant was arrested and, under caution, he admitted that both cards were counterfeit.  He was promised a reward of $300 for using the credit cards.

11. It was later discovered that the American Express cards were, in fact, forgeries.  The numbers belonged to people other than the defendant and I am told that the potential loss in respect of each card would be US$5,000.

12. The defendant has an appalling record.  He has appeared in court on 13 previous occasions in relation to 23 convictions, 10 of which were for offences of dishonesty.  There are no similar convictions recorded on his record and he was last before the court in 2010, when he was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment for theft.

13. The defendant was born in Hong Kong and he is now 45 years of age.  He was educated to Form 4 level and left school when he was aged 17.  He has held a number of jobs.  I am told that when he was last employed, he was working in a restaurant, earning some $11,000 per month. Unfortunately, in 2007 his right wrist was dislocated and he was fired from that position.  Thereafter, he has only been able to obtain casual employment.

14. I am told that in 2006 he married a lady from the Mainland and the following year they had a son who is now 6 years of age.

15. I am told that the motivation for committing the offence was that the son was due to start his primary education in Hong Kong in September of this year.  The defendant did not have sufficient money to make the arrangements for his education in Hong Kong and, therefore, decided to turn to crime as a way to finance his son’s education. 

16. He sought assistance and a friend of him introduced him to the prospect of using forged credit cards to obtain some money.  For using the cards he would be paid $300 per day and if he acquired property worth in excess of $10,000, he would earn $500 a day.

17. The defendant wrote a letter to the court expressing his remorse for his involvement in these offences and says that he feels he has let his wife and son down and once he is released from prison he hopes that he will have the opportunity of earning a proper living so that he can support his wife and son.

18. Two cases have been presented to me by counsel for the defence:  HKSAR v Chan Hung Man(?) [2003] HKEC 1427 and HKSAR v Tan Luk Ping(?) [2008] HKEC 364.  One of the charges in the first case cited is a similar charge, for which a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment was taken.  The second case cited was of no relevance.

19. In relation to this offence, I note that this was not part of a sophisticated operation.  As offences of this kind go, it is at the lower end of the scale of seriousness.

20. In each case, the defendant attempted to use a credit card and on each occasion he failed to secure the goods he intended to purchase.

21. I note that each of the credit cards was not only forged, but each of them bore his name.

22. The defendant has a number of previous convictions for offences of dishonesty.

23. Looking at the offences themselves, I take the view in respect of Charges 1 and 2 that a starting point of 3 years is appropriate and I reduce that by one-third to reflect the guilty plea.

24. The defendant will, therefore, serve concurrent sentences of 2 years in respect of Charges 1 and 2.

25. In respect of the third charge, I take a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 20 months to reflect the guilty plea and order that that sentence run concurrently.

26. The defendant will, therefore go to prison for a total of 2 years.