HKSAR v. UKEH SIMON CHIBUEZE

DCCC 762/2023

[2024] HKDC 1243

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 762 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

________________________

1.  The defendant has pleaded not guilty to a single charge of passing or tendering counterfeit currency notes, contrary to section 99(1)(a)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

2.  The prosecution evidence was that the defendant attempted to pay into his bank account eleven 100 dollar US dollar notes.

3.  The entirety of the prosecution case was admitted.

4.  The admitted evidence shows that at 14:15 hours on 26 January 2023, the defendant approached a bank teller at HSBC in Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong and handed over 11 x 100 USD banknotes and his ATM card requesting that the USD be deposited into the defendant’s HSBC account. The defendant also presented his identity card.

5.  The teller suspected the banknotes were forgeries and confirmed this by using a currency detector.

6.  The Police were informed.

7.  The defendant was interviewed by Police in two video recorded interviews which were made voluntarily.

8.  In the video recorded interview the defendant said that he had bought the banknotes from a man in Nigeria on the street.

9.  That it was a bank holiday. He was unware all the banknotes had the same serial number or that the words souvenir production was printed on them.

10.  He admitted he was trying to pay the banknotes into his own account at HSBC.

11.  Expert evidence showed:

(1)  No security thread or watermark existed;

(2)  The printing was by offset lithography process;

(3)  The serial numbers were the same; a genuine note would have a unique number. It can also be seen that the notes are printed with “souvenir” production in English and Cyrillic.

The defence case

12.  The defendant did not give or call evidence. He relied upon his explanation given in the video recorded interview.

13.  The defendant is of clear record in Hong Kong.

Legal considerations

14.  The prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, the burden to do so remains upon them at all times.

15.  The prosecution must prove the defendant passed or tendered counterfeit currency knowing or believing it to be counterfeit.

16.  The defendant is of clear record. This is relevant to considering his propensity to commit an offence of this nature and the credibility of any explanation offered by him.

17.  There can be no doubt on the evidence that:

(1)  The banknotes are proved to be counterfeits of a currency note;

(2)  The defendant tendered the banknotes as genuine.

18.  What is in issue is that the defendant knew or believed them to be counterfeits of a currency note.

Resolution of the issue

19.  The prosecution say that the banknotes are obvious forgeries that anyone would be able to see that. The defendant must have known their counterfeit nature just by looking at them and that the inference can be drawn that the defendant must have known or believed them to be counterfeit.

20.  In order to draw an inference of fact from a fact already proved, it must be the sole reasonable inference that can be drawn or, the court must be able to make this finding of fact beyond all reasonable doubt.

21.  The prosecution say the doubtful origin of the banknotes overseas combined with the dubious appearance of the banknotes proves a criminal standard that the defendant must have known or believed the notes to be counterfeit.

22.  The defence say that this inference cannot necessarily be drawn as the defendant took the notes to his own bank, to be paid into his own bank account using his own identity card. This being a situation when detection of their counterfeit nature would immediately follow. No one with knowledge or belief of their counterfeit status would try to tender these banknotes in that situation when other easier and less detectable methods of disposal are available.

23.  It is also said the defendant is a person of clear record and has resided in Hong Kong for nine years.

24.  He displayed naivety and carelessness towards the banknotes, but few people actually inspect banknotes and the defendant’s action with the notes illustrate the fact that he was unware of their status. Why would he take these notes to a bank?

25.  I find that when considered overall the prosecution evidence is unable to prove that the only available inference that can be reasonably drawn from the facts is that the defendant knew or believed the banknotes to be counterfeit. It is possibly the case, however other evidence exists that casts doubt on this conclusion. Therefore, it cannot be the only inference that can be reasonably drawn on these facts.

26.  Having made this conclusion of fact. I must accordingly dismiss the charge.