HKSAR v. HO CHI HANG

DCCC 532/2023

[2023] HKDC 1730

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 532 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of having custody or control of counterfeit currency notes contrary to Section 100(1)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

2.  Both offences were committed on 21 September 2022.  The facts that have been agreed show that between the 10 September 2022 and 12 September 2022 counterfeit notes had been used to pay for a taxi fare, top up a WeChat account and also at a convenient store and massage shop.  On 21 September 2022, police conducted an operation at a premises in Shanghai Street that had been rented by the defendant since 20 July 2022.

3.  The defendant was intercepted leaving the premises.  He had in his possession three HK$1,000 counterfeit notes and a $500 counterfeit note.  The notes themselves bore the same serial number which had been used in the top-up of the WeChat account and also at the massage shop.  Inside the premises, police found a further 106 counterfeit banknotes with a value of $70,600 in denominations of HK$1,000, HK$500 and HK$100 notes.  They also found laptop computers and a printer were found.  Some of the notes recovered bore the same serial numbers as those found in the defendant’s possession and the same as those used on the 10^th and 12 September.

4.  The defendant admits being in possession of the counterfeit notes in both Charges 1 and 2 and having them in his custody and under his control.

5.  As far as the defendant’s background is concerned, he is now aged 35.  I am told he is single and living at a premises in Shanghai Street, Yau Ma Tei when he was at liberty.

6.  He has a number of previous convictions.  Convictions in 2021 are related where he faced offences of making counterfeits of currency notes, possession of counterfeit instruments, passing and tendering of such notes. These are offences similar to the one he is currently charged with.  He appears to have received an overall sentence in the region of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment from which he was discharged from Pak Sha Wan Correctional Institute on 14 December 2021.

7.  The defendant I am told committed the offences due to financial difficulties.  The expert himself opined that the counterfeit notes were of inferior quality and probably made by using an inkjet printer which is a very simple operation and the materials to conduct that operation were found within the premises.  More than half the notes, however, are in the $1,000 denomination would most likely be subject to more intensive scrutiny than the other notes if the defendant tried to pass them.

8.  As far as the approach to sentencing is concerned there is no guideline or tariff for this offence.  The maximum sentence is up to 14 years’ imprisonment, however the major considerations the court will take into account are the value of the notes, sophistication of the counterfeit notes on the operation and whether the notes had in fact been passed successfully.  Substantial sentences of imprisonment can be imposed.  Each case is very much dependant on its own facts so other cases that are cited are not necessarily of great help in determining what the outcome should be.

9.  The defendant in this case pleaded guilty and indicated the plea from an early stage.

10.  As far as aggravating factors, he does have a previous conviction which shows a failure of deterrence on the last occasion the defendant was sentenced. Furthermore, it seems that the notes of the same denominations and numbers had already been passed on the 10^th and 12th September and these are, as I say, aggravating factors which could increase the sentence.  Balanced against those are the fact that the notes themselves are of very poor quality.

11.  I do bear in mind, taking all those figures, I will set the sentence as follows.  On Charge 1, I will take the starting point for that offence of 27 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 18 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  Charge 2, I am going to take a starting point of 42 months’ imprisonment, reducing that to 28 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.

12.  Having regard to the overall totality I will order the sentences to run concurrently leading to a total again of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for the defendant.