HKSAR v. LI HO YIN

DCCC1349/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1349 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of custody or control of counterfeit notes with intent, contrary to section 100(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200.

2.  He has agreed the facts of case and I have convicted him accordingly.

3.  The facts that the defendant has accepted show the circumstances of the commission of the offence. 

4.  The date of the commission of the offence was 9 October 2011.  The defendant was an arriving passenger from the Mainland and presented himself for a clearance check.  During the course of a search, the Customs officer found a number of $100 banknotes folded in half in the left front pocket of the defendant’s trousers. 

5.  In total, there were 20 $100 notes.  The printing was seen to be rough and they all bore the same serial number.  The defendant was asked where he obtained the notes and he said that he had picked them up in a bus. 

6.  The defendant was further interviewed on two more occasions.  He elaborated upon his explanation that he had found the notes on the floor near the window of the bus and picked them up and placed them in his pocket.  He was unaware at the time the serial numbers were the same.       

7.  In another interview, he said he planned to check the banknotes after passing Customs clearance. 

8.  When first arrested, the defendant said he would either hand them to the police or spend them himself. 

9.  It is admitted that the 20 $100 banknotes found on the defendant were counterfeit and that the defendant intended to pass or tender them as genuine or deliver them to another with the intention that he or another should pass or tender them as genuine.      

10.  The defendant has accepted his criminal record which shows that he has seven previous convictions.  He has been placed on probation, fined for offences relating to infringing copies; sentenced to imprisonment for trafficking in dangerous drugs and also robbery.  Since 1997, the defendant has had some substantial periods of imprisonment:  in 1997, he was sentenced to 8 years and 6 months for trafficking in dangerous drugs, and in 2008, to 4 years and 6 months for an offence of robbery.   

11.  The defendant’s personal circumstances are admitted.  He was discharged from the prison on 10 December 2010 on the last occasion.  He is aged 34.  He has employment as a decoration worker earning up to $16,000 per month.  He is married to a lady in the People’s Republic of China.  He lives in Shenzhen with her and travels to Hong Kong to work.  He has parents and a sister. 

12.  The circumstances of the offence show that the commission of this offence by the defendant was as a result of his greediness.  It appears, on the face of the admissions made by the defendant, to be an opportunistic offence in that he said he picked them up on a bus.  There is no evidence of group or syndicate involvement.  The evidence appears to show that the forgeries themselves were poor and easily discovered.  The defendant was found with them at an early stage so he was unable to put them into circulation. 

13.  The defendant has admitted the offence from an early stage and pleaded guilty today. 

14.  It is common ground that there is no actual tariff for this offence, but clearly substantial sentences of imprisonment are the normal sentence that will be imposed for an offence of this nature given the prevalence of such offences and also the seriousness of them.

15.  I have been shown a number of cases but each of these offences must turn on their own facts.  The significant sentencing criteria must be the number of notes - here there are 20 $100 notes, the quality of the forgeries, which were poor, and the use that has been made of the notes themselves.  No use had been made at the point of interception. 

16.  Given all these factors, I consider that the appropriate starting point for sentence in this case is one of 2½ years’ imprisonment, which translates as 30 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant is entitled to a full one-third discount from that sentence. 

17.  The sentence I will impose for this offence will be one of 20 months’ imprisonment.