HKSAR v. AHMED KAZI MUNZURUL

DCCC 444/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 444 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  This defendant has been found guilty of one charge of fraud by misrepresentation.

2.  PW1 was an employee of a company that printed and packaged paper products.  The defendant placed two orders with PW1.  The victim gave the defendant very favourable terms having been duped into believing from a false HSBC bank reference letter that the defendant’s company was very solvent, having a cash balance of approximately US$2 million in a Hong Kong HSBC bank account.  As a result of this letter, PW1 departed from normal company policy of usually insisting on cash on delivery for new clients to accepting 15 per cent deposit and giving 45 days credit, meaning 45 days to pay the balance.   PW1 then fulfilled one of two purchase orders and shipped goods worth over US$138,000.  Defendant received the goods but payment was not forthcoming.  The only money that PW1 did receive for this order was a $20,000 deposit which was not even 15 per cent.

3.  The defence very desperately tried to discredit PW1 and PW2, in particular alleging they conspired to forge this HSBC bank reference letter.  The defence very desperately tried to distance itself from the two purchase orders where terms of payment were expressly agreed in writing.  Defence also very desperately tried to argue at trial when it was not once mentioned before trial that all the goods were rejected because of poor quality and that there had been in fact a breach of contract by the victim company.  The defence was rejected outright and I accepted the prosecution witness’s evidence as credible and truthful.

4.  I repeat that I was very conscious of the fact that the defendant was not present in court to present the defence case when the trial proceeded in his absence and I only proceeded in his absence when I was sure that he deliberately avoided the trial and waived his right to be present.  However, as I said, the defence case was put in detail to prosecution witnesses and I was very aware of the defence case before the defendant absconded.

5.  The defendant is not a Hong Kong resident.  He is 45 years old and holds a Canadian passport but lives in the United States.  He has a clear record in Hong Kong which is not surprising as he is not a Hong Kong resident.  He was arrested here when he came to attend a trade fair in January 2013. 

6.  I can go no further where mitigation is concerned.  I did consider the fact that there has been no restitution and will not likely be any restitution.  I have considered the amount of loss suffered is about HK$920,000 and that is the loss that was quantifiable by PW1. 

7.  I also considered the facts of the fraud and the lengths the defendant went to to obtain the goods, in effect having the goods shipped to him on credit, credit that he ultimately did not honour.

8.  After considering these factors, I find an appropriate starting point to be 21 months’ imprisonment.  I see no reason to discount this starting point so ultimately the defendant is sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment.