HKSAR v. YEUNG WAI MAN

DCCC88/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 88 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to conspiracy to obtain services by deception, contrary to section 18A of the Theft Ordinance and Section 159A and C of the Crimes Ordinance.

2.  The facts reveal that between February and March 2009, the defendant had conspired with Chan Ka-bo (“Bo”), Leung Ho-yan, Jiang Zongxing and others to dishonestly obtain the services of Cathy Pacific Airways Limited.

3.  The defendant had on 23 March 2009 checked-in for Flight CX838 to Vancouver.  He then gave the boarding pass to “Bo”, whereupon later on Jiang had used this boarding pass with a forged passport in the name of the defendant trying to go on board but was intercepted.

4.  The defendant admitted being offered and accepted from “Bo” of $4,000 to act as the boarding pass facilitator, he also gave a copy of his own passport to “Bo”. And the defendant was aware that he would not travel to Vancouver on 23 March 2009. 

5.  The defendant is aged 41, he has criminal convictions of 12 counts of offences, mostly between 1993 to 1996 for burglary and theft, and the last one in 2005 of importing infringing copies of VCD and was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment.

6.  Mr Woo for the defendant says that he only played a minor role in the plot and the Airways had suffered no loss.  The defendant pleaded guilty at early stage and in full co-operation with the police. 

7.  There has not been any sentencing tariffs on this kind of case and each case shall depends on it owns facts.

8.  On mitigation I cannot agree that the defendant only played a minor role in this matter.  It was the fact that he had not only actively presenting himself to the counter and got the boarding pass but also had earlier on gave a copy of his own passport to “Bo” and also introduced his friend to accompany the “customer”.

9.  Mr Woo also refers to a case of similar background, HKSAR v Liaqut Ali Khan HCMA278/2009, where the defendant had transferred his ID to another person and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.  However, the present case was a conspiracy and the facts were different.

10.  Considering all the circumstances of the facts, I shall adopt a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment.  Upon his guilty plea, I reduce it to 16 months. 

11.  Therefore, the defendant is now sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.