HKSAR v. POON CHUN YIU

DCCC 945/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 945 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to five charges of fraud, contrary to the Theft Ordinance. In early 2013, the defendant was a hairdresser running a hair salon in Tuen Mun. Between December 2012 and May 2013 he deceived a total of five victims into either paying for packages that would not be honoured or into handing over credit cards for making investments in the red wine trade. That investment was never made but their credit cards were used by the defendant for his own personal gain.

2.  For Charges 1 and 2 there were two victims both convinced to buy hair packages on their credit cards with a promise that they would receive a full refund after several months.  Obviously, that it is an offer too good to be true, but they agreed anyway.

3.  The victim in Charge 1 was deceived of $20,000, the victim of Charge 2 was deceived out of $15,000. The victim of Charge 3 was a neighbouring shopkeeper.  She was persuaded to buy a haircare treatment package for $5,000.  She handed the defendant her credit card and he dealt with the transaction on a credit card machine.  Instead of $5,000, he debited the card $55,000.  He told her of his mistake and promised he would cancel the transaction on her card which he never did.  Ultimately, the victims of Charges 1, 2 and 3 did receive some hair treatment, but not long after, the salon was closed and the defendant disappeared.  They could not locate him and their money was not refunded as promised.

4.  The two victims of Charges 4 and 5 are a different category of victim.  Both victims of Charges 4 and 5 were not hair salon customers but, I assume, friends.  The defendant persuaded them to invest in some red wine and promised to double their profit in three months.  They both lent him several credit cards to finance the red wine investment.  The victim of Charge 4 gave the defendant five credit cards, and the victim of Charge 5 gave the defendant two credit cards. 

5.  He, the defendant, did not buy any red wine with their credit cards.  He created bogus credit card sales records and, in fact, used the money for his own personal gain.  Over four to five months he spent $141,200 on the fourth victim’s cards.  Over the same period of time he spent $88,800 on the fifth victim’s credit cards.  All those transections added up to a total of $230,000.

6.  The facts of this case show that there was a deception operated by the defendant, a breach of trust on the defendant’s part and an element of credit card fraud using genuine credit cards.  There is nothing sophisticated in this case.  Clearly the defendant was very persuasive and the victims believed him, but ultimately the defendant was going to get caught.  There is no restitution to date.

7.  The defendant is a man with a clear record.  He is 27 years old, divorced and living with his mother.  His father lives in a healthcare home.  The defendant got into financial difficulty which led to these offences.  His business was not good and he was losing money.  He had rents to pay, he had his dad’s healthcare home fees to pay and, lastly, it seems he has a gambling problem.  The total loss suffered by all five victims is $320,000.

8.  There are obviously guidelines for credit card frauds, there are guidelines for breach of trust cases, but there are no specific guidelines for these facts, but I take into account those other guidelines used in those types of cases.

9.  The defendant’s best mitigation today is his plea of guilty.  However, the loss is significant and the defendant is unable to repay any victim.  I also take into account there are five victims involved and the types of deceptions they fell for. 

10.  I take into account, in reaching a starting point, the defendant’s plea.  Defendant, I take into account you had, until now, a clear record.  I also take into account that you were cooperative with the police and made a full admission.  Also, as I have said, the crimes you have committed were not sophisticated nor did they take place over a long period of time.  Lastly, I will also take into account the loss suffered by the victims as well as a modus operandi of these offences.

11.  After taking all those factors into consideration, for Charges 1, 2 and 3 I take a starting point 2 years’ imprisonment.  For Charges 4 and 5 I take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  You pleaded guilty, you are entitled to a discount of one-third.  Therefore, after that discount is applied, for Charges 1, 2 and 3 you are sentenced to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment.  For Charges 4 and 5, after that discount is applied, you are sentenced to 1 year and 8 months for each charge.  I will order that all five charges be served concurrently.  The total sentence you will have to serve is 1 year and 8 months.