HKSAR v. DICKEY MAROUF

DCCC178/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 178 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The 1st defendant pleaded guilty to attempting to obtain property by deception. 

2.  The facts were that in the afternoon of 17 November 2011, defendant and two other persons approached the shop of Nokia at Ground Floor, Soundwill Plaza at Causeway Bay.  The defendant asked for a mobile phone and headset, he then took out a credit card to present for payment without checking the item.  The abnormal behaviour alerted the salesman to call for police.  As the transaction was delayed, merchant slip had been prepared and handed to the defendant but the defendant apparently sensed something wrong and decided not to purchase, he retrieved the card and left.

3.  Police later arrived and revealed identity to the defendant.  The defendant shouted and patted the shoulder of companions and they all fled but were arrested immediately. 

4.  Under caution, defendant admitted that he had gone to Nokia shop to buy cell phone with the said credit card but in vain.  The card was, in fact, in the name of Kramer Marijn.  The defendant was not the genuine holder nor was he authorised to use it for payment.

5.  Defendant aged 25, clear record.  A national of Ghana.  Mr Stirling submits that the defendant has been living in Hong Kong for more than 6 years, married and a responsible family man.  He worked as a scaffolder earning about $500 per day.  For the present offence defendant knew the card holder and was sorry for what he had done.  Mr Stirling also suggests suspended sentence or community service order which may also be a suitable sentence, particularly as he had been detained for more than 7 months.

6.  Attempting to obtain property by deception is a serious offence.  In HKSAR v Cheung Ka Wo, Johnny [2002] 2 HKC 517, it was held that an overall starting point of 3 years for a small scale credit card fraud involving a sum of less than $9,000 was not manifestly excessive.  In HKSAR v To I Lang CACC464/2006, it was stated that where the facts of the offence point to small unsophisticated operation involving only one or a few forged cards, uncomplicated by other evidence materially linked the offender to a large operation, then a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate. 

7.  I am mindful that the present case was not one of forged credit card but instead a genuine card of other person used by the defendant.  However, it was certainly premeditated and a calculated act to use other person’s card attempting to obtain property. Had it not been the vigilance of sales person, defendant would have already gone with the property obtained by deception.  In the circumstances, I do not think suspended sentence nor community service order are suitable options. 

8.  After consideration I assess that the starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment be appropriate.  Upon his guilty plea, this be reduced to 20 months, therefore defendant is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.