THE QUEEN v. SIU YUK SHING

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

Appellate Jurisdiction

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 172 OF 1993

________________

________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. The appellant pleaded guilty before Mr. Mackintosh to one charge of carrying on business as a moneylender without a licence and three charges of lending money at excessive interest. He was sentenced to a total of 3 months’ imprisonment and fined $10,000. The maximum sentence for each of these offences is imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of $100,000. The appellant now appeals against sentence generally on the ground that it is too severe and in relation to charge 1 that it was wrong in principle in that the learned magistrate took into consideration a similar previous conviction which took place some 18 years ago.

2. The interest charged in respect of the three charges ranged from 360% to 675% which was 6 to 11 times in excess of the statutory maximum.

3. In sentencing the appellant, the learned magistrate took into consideration that there was no evidence of triad involvement or intimidation. He gave credit to his guilty plea, his good record for charitable works and the appellant had worked hard in legitimate businesses. The magistrate rightly rejected submission that the appellant had been motivated by sympathy for his victims and regarded what the appellant did as an exploitation of people who were in desperate need of money and were therefore prepared to pay interest at excessive rates. He further rejected suggestion that the act of the appellant was akin to trading on unfair contract terms.

4. I entirely agree with the learned magistrate that what the appellant did was utterly distastely and disgraceful. The appellant certainly does not deserve much sympathy. Looking at the facts of this case, which is perhaps not the worst of this type, coupled with the strong plea by Mr. Sanguinetti for a chance to be given his client and noting that he was last in prison in 1986, I believe that the interest of justice would be served if I take a slightly different approach from the magistrate, without criticism of the magistrate in any way. I am satisfied that a total sentence of 3 months imprisonment plus a fine is not wrong in principle. The sentence I am about to announce will remain an adequate punishment and has all the features of an effective deterrent.

5. In the result, I allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment will be suspended for 2 years. The fine on the first charge will be increased to $30,000, Mr. Sanguinetti having indicated that his client is financially capable of paying this fine. He will have 7 days to pay.