HKSAR v. YEUNG HO YU

DCCC 1318/2024

[2025] HKDC 1718

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1318 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Mr Yeung pleaded guilty before me to a total of 29 charges on a Charge Sheet as follows.

2.  Charge 1 is Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.  Particulars are that he, on 6 December 2023, at Room 702, Mei Cheung House, Mei Tin Estate, Sha Tin, New Territories, in Hong Kong, stole 3 watches, 3 rings, 4 wrist chains, two pendants, one necklace, two handbags, 3 iPhones and two credit cards, property belonging to Au Wing Ho.

3.  Charge 2 is Inhaling and ingesting dangerous drugs, contrary to section 8(1)(b)  and (2)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  Particulars are that he, on or about 7 January 2024, at Flat A, 5^th Floor, Arts Building, Nos 36-40 Robinson Road, Mid-Levels, in Hong Kong, inhaled and ingested dangerous drugs, namely methamphetamine hydrochloride and gamma-hydroxybutyric acid.

4.  Charge 3 is Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.  Particulars are that he, on or about 7 January 2024, at Flat A, 5^th Floor, Arts Building, Nos 36-40 Robinson Road, Mid-Levels, in Hong Kong, stole one watch, two rings, one iPhone, one Hong Kong Identity Card and 4 credit cards, property belonging to Ho Wai Hung Tony.

5.  Charges 4 to 14, and 16 to 22 are each Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.  Particulars are that he, on A, at B, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to staff of C (“the said company”)  that he was authorized and entitled to use one DBS E issued in the name of Ho Wai Hung Tony (“the said credit card”), and with intent to defraud, induced staff of the said company to commit an act or a series of acts, namely, to accept the said credit card for payment of F, which resulted in benefit to Mr Yeung, or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said company.

6.  For Charge 4, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 7, Ground Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels; C is The Diary Farm Company; E is MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is one can of energy drink.

7.  For Charge 5, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 7, Ground Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels; C is The Diary Farm Company; E is MasterCard numbered 5418-1996-1957-4002; F is one box of batteries.

8.  For Charge 6, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 7, Ground Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels; C is The Diary Farm Company; E is VISA Card numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one box of batteries.

9.  For Charge 7, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 7, Ground Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels; C is The Diary Farm Company; E is MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is one box of chocolates, one box of biscuits and one flask.

10.  For Charge 8, A is 8 January 2024; B is Ground Floor, Yu Sung Boon Building, Nos 107-111 Des Voeux Road Central, Central; C is AS Watson Retail (HK)  Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one smart door lock.

11.  For Charge 9, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 2096A, IFC Mall, No 8 Finance Street, Central; C is Lady M Hong Kong Limited; E is MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is one meal.

12.  For Charge 10, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop No UG1, UG Floor, Temple Mall South, No 103 Ching Tak Street, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon; C is FX Creations International Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one suitcase and one neck pillow.

13.  For Charge 11, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop No G12A, Ground Floor, Temple Mall South, No 103 Ching Tak Street, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon; C is Champion Luck Development Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one meal.

14.  For Charge 12, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop UG39, UG Floor, Temple Mall South, No 103 Ching Tak Street, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon; C is Wang Da Communication Co; E is VISA Card numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one power bank.

15.  For Charge 13, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop No UG1, UG Floor, Temple Mall South, No 103 Ching Tak Street, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon; C is FX Creations International Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is two bags.

16.  For Charge 14, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop No 45, LG2 Floor, Festival Walk, No 80 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon; C is Luk Fook Jewellery & Goldsmith (HK)  Co Limited; E is MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is one gold bar, one ornament and one pendant.

17.  For Charge 15, see below.

18.  For Charge 16, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop Nos 236 and 351A, Pacific Place, No 88 Queensway, Central; C is Louis Vuitton Hong Kong Limited; E is MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is one handbag, two passport covers, two necklaces and two rings.

19.  For Charge 17, A is 9 January 2024, B is Shop Nos 236 and 351A, Pacific Place, No 88 Queensway, Central; C is Louis Vuitton Hong Kong Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014; F is one belt and two pairs of sneakers.

20.  For Charge 18, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop Nos 236 and 351A, Pacific Place, No 88 Queensway, Central; C is Louis Vuitton Hong Kong Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014; F is two pairs of sunglasses.

21.  For Charge 19, A is 9 January 2024; B is 2^nd Floor, No 28 Russell Street, Causeway Bay; C is Alma Trend Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is 3 cock rings.

22.  For Charge 20, A is 10 January 2024; B is Shop H, Ground Floor, Yardley Commercial Building, No 3 Connaught Road West, Sheung Wan; C is Sheung Wan Fung Shing Restaurant Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one meal.

23.  For Charge 21, A is 10 January 2024; B is Shop Nos 211-212, Time Square, No 1 Matheson Street, Causeway Bay; C is Fendi Hong Kong Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014; F is one sweater and one necklace with pendant.

24.  For Charge 22, A is 10 January 2024; B is Shop Nos 3 and 5, Ground Floor, Emperor Watch and Jewellery Centre, No 8 Russell Street, Causeway Bay; C is Luk Fook Jewellery & Goldsmith (HK)  Co Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014; F is one gold bar and one ornament.

25.  Charge 15 is also Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.  Particulars are that he, on 9 January 2024, at Ground Floor, Yu Sung Boon Building, Nos 107-111 Des Voeux Road Central, Central, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to Lok Tin Yin that he was authorized and entitled to use one DBS MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007 issued in the name of Ho Wai Hung Tony (“the said credit card”), and with intent to defraud, induced the said Lok Tin Yin to commit an act or a series of acts, namely, to accept the said credit card for payment of two pens, which resulted in benefit to Mr Yeung, or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said Lok Tin Yin.

26.  Charge 23 is also Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.  Particulars are that he, on 10 January 2024, at Shop Nos 3 and 5, Ground Floor, Emperor Watch and Jewellery Centre, No 8 Russell Street, Causeway Bay, in Hong Kong, on an occasion other than that referred to in Charge 22, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to staff of Luk Fook Jewellery & Goldsmith (HK)  Co Limited (“the said company”)  that he was authorized and entitled to use one DBS VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014 issued in the name of Ho Wai Hung Tony (“the said credit card”), and with intent to defraud, induced staff of the said company to commit an act or a series of acts, namely, to accept the said credit card for payment of one ring, which resulted in benefit to Mr Yeung, or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said company.

27.  Charges 24 to 28 are each Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

28.  Particulars of Charge 24 are that he, on or about 10 January 2024, in Hong Kong, stole one heater, one charger, one iPhone and one mobile phone, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK)  Limited.

29.  Particulars of Charge 25 are that he, on or about 10 January 2024, in Hong Kong, stole two phone cases, one screen protector and one light strip, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK)  Limited.

30.  Particulars of Charge 26 are that he, on or about 10 January 2024, in Hong Kong, on an occasion other than that referred to in Charge 24, stole one iPhone, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK)  Limited.

31.  Particulars of Charge 27 are that he, on or about 10 January 2024, in Hong Kong, on an occasion other than those referred to in Charges 24 and 26, stole one iPhone, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK)  Limited.

32.  Particulars of Charge 28 are that he, on or about 10 January 2024, in Hong Kong, on an occasion other than those referred to in Charges 24, 26 and 27, stole one iPhone, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK)  Limited.

33.  Charge 29 is Possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 36(1)  and (2)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  Particulars are that he, on 21 January 2024, at Room A, 20^th Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels, in Hong Kong, had in his possession apparatus, namely one inhaling device, fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug, namely methamphetamine hydrochloride (a salt of methamphetamine).

Facts admitted by Mr Yeung

34.  In gist, the facts are as follows.

Charge 1

35.  Mr Yeung met PW1 through a mobile dating application “Grindr” in mid-2023.  On 6 December 2023, Mr Yeung arrived at the residence of PW1 and stayed overnight.  Thereafter, PW1 discovered that his property totaling $335,309, including two credit cards, went missing.  However, a total of $219,900 worth of property was subsequently recovered at Mr Yeung’s residence.

Charge 2

36.  On or about 7 January 2024, Mr Yeung visited the residence of Tony Ho and took ICE and GHB there.

Charge 3

37.  There on the same day, Mr Yeung stole a watch, two rings, one iPhone, a Hong Kong Identity Card (which he later used for the purpose of pawning the stolen watch)  and four DBS credit cards from Tony Ho’s residence.

Charges 4 to 28

38.  From 8 to about 10 January 2024, Mr Yeung used Tony Ho’s four DBS credit cards (with a combined credit limit of $400,000)  that he had stolen to conduct in-store and online transactions without permission totaling $258,968.30.

Charge 29

39.  On 21 January 2024, the police searched Mr Yeung’s residence and found an ICE bottle containing a solid containing 0.33 gramme of ICE and 218 ml of a liquid which when dried was found to contain 0.08 gramme of a solid containing methamphetamine.

Criminal record

40.  Mr Yeung has through three previous court appearances accumulated 32 previous convictions 31 of which are similar to the present theft and fraud offences.

Antecedents

41.  Mr Yeung is aged 32 (29 at the time of the offences), educated to Year 1 tertiary level in Hong Kong.  Mr Yeung has previously worked as a mobile phone salesman.  In April 2023, he incorporated a company and his monthly earnings varied.  Mr Yeung is single.

42.  Mr Yeung was last discharged from prison on 25 March 2023.

Mitigation

43.  Mr Kay Chan of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Yeung.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

44.  Mr Yeung pleaded guilty at the first opportunity showing remorse and saving court’s time.  He was fully cooperative with the police.  Defence asked for 1/3 sentencing discount.

45.  Mr Yeung is the only child of his parents who got divorced when he was two years old.  Since that time, he lost contact with his parents.  He was raised by his paternal grandparents (now in their 70s)  who are both in court to give him support.  Mr Yeung lived with them until he was 20 years old.

46.  Mr Yeung received formal education in Hong Kong to F4 level.  Prior to the offences, he was studying for advertising media courses at HK Baptist University in conjunction with a Taiwan university.  He worked as a telephone salesperson and legislative assistant.  He was unemployed beginning 2020.  In mid-2023, Mr Yeung established a company named “Work Done Production Workshop Ltd” – about banner design, post-production for music video and other multimedia work.  He earned around $20,000 to $25,000 per month.  He supported his grandparents giving them about $7,000 per month.

47.  Mr Yeung committed cases of similar nature in DCCC 220/2021.

48.  Mr Chan referred to the sentencing guidelines set out in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776, and HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing & Anor [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 relating to theft involving breach of trust.

49.  Regarding the fraud offence, Mr Chan after reminding the court of the maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, referred to a case of fraud involving credit cards namely R v Chan Sui To and Anor CACC 115/1996 which stated at para 13 the factors that a court may take into account when sentencing an offender:

(a)  The size of the operation eg whether it involves large sums of money, whether it concerned a large number of persons or forged credit cards;

(b)  The planning that has gone into perpetrating the fraud, whether it is elaborate or simple, whether technical skills were used, and to what extent;

(c)  Whether there is an international dimension;

(d)  Whether the accused played a major role, eg running a syndicate, engaging in actual manufacture, organizing the use of forged cards, or whether he is a mere “cog in the wheel” as a courier or a custodian or keeper; and

(e)  Whether there is a plea of guilty.

50.  In determining whether a large sum of money is involved, Chan Sui To regarded the amount below $50,000 is relatively small, an amount between $50,000 and $150,000 is medium, and an amount exceeding this amount is large.

51.  In HKSAR v Tu I Lang CACC 464/2006 at paras 9 to 10, the Court of Appeal stated that where there is no evidence of links between the offender and a bigger criminal organization, a sentence of three years or less may be appropriate for simple and small-scale crimes involving one or a few forged credit cards:

“9. … Small scale credit card offences cannot be subjected to strict guidelines. That is because the facts of such offences can vary significantly in a number of ways, the number of cards possessed or used being perhaps the most obvious factor.

10. Where the facts of the offence point to a small unsophisticated operation, involving only one or a few forged cards uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the offender to a larger operation, then a starting point of three years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate.”

52.  The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Lam See Chung Stephen [2013] 5 HKLRD 242 at paras 38 to 40 held that same sentencing principles are equally applicable to credit card fraud cases involving forged credit cards and stolen credit cards.  A starting point of three years’ imprisonment or less may be appropriate.

53.  Regarding Charge 2 of Inhaling and ingesting dangerous drugs, Mr Chan referred to a District Court sentencing case HKSAR v Yiu Wah Wai DCCC 629/2017 and the starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment adopted therein.

54.  Regarding Charge 29 of Possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug, Mr Chan referred to two cases.  In R v Law Sing HCMA 890/1996, Stock J (as Stock NPJ then was)  stated that in the absence of aggravating factors, the typical sentence for such offence is around 3 months.  In HKSAR v Lee Siu Pui (transliteration)  DCCC 1130/2021, Judge Lee noted that the typical sentence for this offence ranges from a fine to a short term of imprisonment.

55.  Mr Chan also referred to two other cases of the District Court namely HKSAR v Wong Yu Hin DCCC 19/2023 [2023] HKDC 1836 and HKSAR v Cheng Bou Gwai & Anor DCCC 970/2018 [2019] HKDC 218.  In Wong Yu Hin, the court adopted a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment where the defendant was in possession of an instrument that could be used to inhale methamphetamine.  In Cheng Bou Gwai, the court adopted a starting point of 4 ½ months’ imprisonment where D1 in that case was in possession of instruments that could be used to inhale cocaine.

56.  Mr Chan submitted that the court may impose a proportionate sentence to ensure the overall sentence reflects Mr Yeung’s culpability; even if the sentence is increased due to any aggravating factor(s), the court may impose concurrent sentences for some of the charges.

57.  Mr Yeung committed the offences of theft and fraud out of greed and pressure from work.  He chose to take drug to escape from reality and became addicted again.  However, he has now quitted drug during remand.  The amount of dangerous drug found under Charge 29 was not large, only a little more than 0.33 grammes of ICE.

58.  It was submitted that the prosecution has no evidence to show Mr Yeung is involved in any complex criminal organization.

59.  It was submitted Mr Yeung used a relatively simple method when committing the crime, which was to steal the deceased’s credit card and remove the SIM card from the deceased’s phone to retrieve the verification code for credit card transaction authentication.

60.  Some of the items under Charge 1, ie the property totaling $219,900, were subsequently recovered from Mr Yeung’s residence, meaning that Mr Yeung did not sell those items.

61.  For Charges 4 to 28 relating to fraud and theft, Mr Chan submitted that these were committed within only 4 days, and some transactions were made at the same store within a short period of time.  Mr Chan submitted that, in view of the above, the court may consider imposing concurrent sentences for these offences.

62.  Mr Yeung took advantage of trust from his friends and committed crimes at their houses.  Mr Yeung is also a repeated offender.  These may constitute aggravating factors.

63.  Mr Yeung promises not to commit any crime again.

64.  Mr Chan submitted on behalf of Mr Yeung three mitigation letters written in Chinese respectively by Mr Yeung himself, his paternal grandparents and his boyfriend.  The contents are generally that Mr Yeung is regretful for his misdeeds and apologizes to all parties affected; that Mr Yeung promises not to re-offend.  The letter writers all asked for a chance to be given to Mr Yeung and urged the court to pass a lenient sentence on him.

Report

65.  Before sentencing, I called for a background report on Mr Yeung.  The report concluded with the following passage:

“8. … Prior to the present offences, the Accused had two previous convictions (sic)  with a certain pattern of crime. He repeatedly stole the belongings of the victims he got acquainted on Grindr over a period of time. Despite two custodial experiences, he failed to learn his lesson and committed the present offences again, citing greed and the influence of drugs as the reasons. However, his actions, such as sending a message to the colleague of [Tony Ho] to falsely report sick leave, selling out part of the stolen items, … were apparently planned and premeditated to a certain extent, rather than under the influence of drugs…”

Sentence

66.  Prosecution told me after Mr Yeung’s conviction that there was a typographical error on page 10 of the Amended Summary Facts in that in para 23(j), the “One gold ornament and one gold bar” should relate to Charge 14 instead of Charge 22.  Although it came a bit late, I still appreciated the prosecution’s effort because it is better by far to be open about one’s mistake than simply to hide it under the carpet and hope that no one will discover it.

67.  Since the mistake should not affect sentence and would at most impact upon the disposal of exhibits, I did not deem it necessary to ask My Yeung to re-confirm it.  I deemed it sufficient to merely mark on record that this has happened.

68.  Prosecution also confirmed that they would not be seeking additional penalty for what is contained in para 4 of the Amended Summary of Facts, namely the fact that three unauthorized transactions had been made with PW1’s two credit cards stolen under Charge 1, for the reason that Mr Yeung has not been separately charged in relation to those unauthorized transactions.

69.  Before sentencing Mr Yeung, I should state that I do not regard thefts from PW1 and Tony Ho as being offences relating to breach of trust, at least not relating to the type of breach of trust envisaged in Cheung Mee Kiu and Ng Kwok Wing.  Hence, the sentencing guidelines set out in those cases do not apply to Mr Yeung.

70.  Charge 1 relates to theft of valuables (and two credit cards)  from PW1 whom Mr Yeung met through “Grindr”.  The theft took place at the latter’s home with a total value in excess of $335,000 part of which (to the total value of about 2/3 of the value stolen)  have been recovered.  In this light, I am of the view that a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment will be sufficient.

71.  For Charge 2 relating to inhaling and ingesting dangerous drugs, I will adopt a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment.

72.  Charge 3 relates to theft from the residence of Tony Ho, whom Mr Yeung met through “Grindr”, of one Rolex watch (value unknown and later recovered)  and two diamond rings (value unknown), one iPhone, one HKID card (which Mr Yeung later used to feign an identity)  and 4 DBS credit cards which Mr Yeung later used for in-store and online transactions.  For this charge, I will adopt a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment.

73.  For Charges 4 to 28 relating generally to the dishonest use of another’s genuine credit card for purchases, I have borne in mind the authorities urged upon me.  I am satisfied that this case belongs to the small-scale operation unconnected with any criminal syndicate.

74.  However, some simple planning must have been involved such as was manifested by the testing of the Cards 1 to 3 by small purchases in the same convenience store (Charges 4 to 6).

75.  Although the total spending with the 4 stolen DBS credit cards amounted to just under $260,000, I note the combined credit limit was $400,000.  Under caution, Mr Yeung said that after finding from DBS what that limit was, he intended to use the credit cards until the credit limit was exhausted or until the cards were suspended.  In the circumstances, I am of the view that the sum of money involved is large.

76.  Given the multiplicity of transactions over a period of about 3 days, I intend to adopt a global starting point for these 25 charges relating to credit card use.  The global starting point I shall adopt is 4 years’ imprisonment.

77.  For Charge 29 relating to possession of dangerous drug apparatus, I adopt a starting point of 4 ½ months’ imprisonment.

78.  For the theft and credit card offences, Mr Yeung is a repeat offender (see his most recent previous case DCCC 220/2021 [2023] HKDC 311 involving 27 theft convictions)  with his last discharge date being 25 March 2023.  A dose of deterrence must be added to the sentences of Charge 1, Charge 3, and Charges 4 to 28 herein.  For Charges 1 and 3, I will add 3 months to each of the respective starting points.  For Charges 4 to 28, I will add 6 months to the global starting point.

79.  Mr Yeung pleaded guilty to the charges earning for himself the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

80.  The dangerous drug charges (Charges 2 and 29)  are completely separate from the rest in terms of their nature and therefore ought to attract sentences consecutive to the rest, subject to totality.  As between themselves, these two offences took place on different dates and in two different places and, again, ought to attract consecutive sentences, subject only to totality.

81.  Charges 1 and 3, though of the same nature, relate to offences that took place on different dates and in different places.  In principle, they ought to attract consecutive sentences, subject again to totality.

82.  For Charges 4 to 28, some of them took place on the same day and in the same shop (ie Charges 4-7, Charges 10 & 13, Charges 16-18, Charges 22-23). Where this is so, the corresponding sentences will be made to run concurrently, otherwise the sentences should be made to run consecutively, subject only to totality.

83.  For all of the charges, individual sentences will be imposed.  For credit card use charges, the individual sentence reflects the dollar value of the particular transaction.

84.  In determining the final aggregate sentence, I will bear in mind what I have stated above in terms of global starting point, the dose of deterrence, concurrency and consecutiveness in the sentences, and the principle of totality.

85.  I will make sure the final aggregate sentence is a balanced one free from multiple counting of the dosage of deterrence added for Mr Yeung’s status as a repeat offender aforesaid.

(Mr Yeung, please stand)

86.  For Charge 1, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

87.  For Charge 2, the sentence is 2 months’ imprisonment.

88.  For Charge 3, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

89.  For Charge 4, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

90.  For Charge 5, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

91.  For Charge 6, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

92.  For Charge 7, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

93.  For Charge 8, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

94.  For Charge 9, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

95.  For Charge 10, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

96.  For Charge 11, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

97.  For Charge 12, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

98.  For Charge 13, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

99.  For Charge 14, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

100.  For Charge 15, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

101.  For Charge 16, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

102.  For Charge 17, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

103.  For Charge 18, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

104.  For Charge 19, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

105.  For Charge 20, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

106.  For Charge 21, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

107.  For Charge 22, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

108.  For Charge 23, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

109.  For Charge 24, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

110.  For Charge 25, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

111.  For Charge 26, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

112.  For Charge 27, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

113.  For Charge 28, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

114.  For Charge 29, the sentence is 3 months’ imprisonment.

115.  I order that the sentences of Charges 4 to 7 are to run concurrently. This is Group A sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment.

116.  I order that the sentences of Charges 10 and 13 are to run concurrently.  This is Group B sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment.

117.  I order that the sentences of Charges 16 to 18 are to run concurrently. This is Group C sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment.

118.  I order that the sentences of Charges 22 and 23 are to run concurrently.  This is Group D sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment.

119.  For the remainder of the credit card use charges, namely Charges 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, and Charges 24 to 28, by application of the totality principle, I order their sentences to run concurrently.  This is Group E sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment.

120.  I order that 3 months of Group A sentences, 3 months of Group B sentences, 5 months of Group C sentences, and 5 months of Group D sentences, are each to run consecutively to Group E sentences.  The resulting aggregate sentence for Charges 4 to 28 is therefore 36 months’ imprisonment.

121.  By application of the totality principle, I order that 3 months of the sentence on Charge 1, 1 month of the sentence on Charge 2, 2 months of the sentence on Charge 3, and 1 month of the sentence on Charge 29, are each to run consecutively to the sentences on Charges 4 to 28.  The final aggregate sentence for Mr Yeung is therefore 43 months’ imprisonment.