HKSAR v. ZHOU ZHENXIONG

DCCC678/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 678 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to four offences of obtaining property by deception and one offence of attempting to obtain property by deception, and the facts of the case have been agreed by him and I have convicted him on the basis of those facts of these offences.  

2.  Essentially, the defendant used a credit card on five separate occasions to either obtain or attempt to obtain the goods.  The facts show that all these offences occurred on 3 May this year, all within a fairly short period of time.  The defendant presented on five separate occasions a credit card, an ANA Mileage Club JCB card, in the name of a Japanese gentleman at different premises in Nathan Road, obtaining jewellery.  And specifically, on the 1st charge, there was a gold bar valued at 24,670; on the 2nd charge, a gold necklace valued at $23,129; on the 3rd charge, a gold bar valued at $18,494; on the 4th charge, another gold bar valued at $9,467.  In respect of the 5th charge, the attempt to obtain, the goods tentatively obtained was a gold bar valued at $24,670. 

3.  On all five occasions, the defendant had presented the JCB card.  On the fifth occasion, the staff of the jewellery shop became suspicious because the defendant spoke Putonghua and the card was in the name of a Japanese gentleman, and the staff called the card centre and they found that the card presented had been suspended.  After that, the defendant presented some more cards which in fact belonged to him.  In any event, the police arrived.  The defendant was arrested and later interviewed.

4.  Now, the defendant has made an admission and said that he knew a person called Ah Bor in the mainland, and he had to contact him if he wanted to find out how to make money in Hong Kong.  It was Ah Bor who presented him with the credit card, E1, and told him how to use it to make money.  The defendant was to pay Ah Bor 10 per cent of the total amount of the successful transactions.

5.  The defendant also admitted using the credit card at locations 1 to 4.  But the circumstances in which the offences were committed seemed to be quite commonplace, and the defendant falls to be sentenced on the basis of the use of one card on multiple occasions within a short space of time to obtain jewellery, and the transaction by the standards of these kind of offences is not a large transaction.  There is no use of multiple cards, and there is no foreign element at all, and it seems to involve not a great deal of planning either.

6.  As far as the defendant’s personal circumstances are concerned, he is a man aged 40 years.  He is married now.  He has a previous conviction for dishonesty dating back to 2001 where he was imprisoned for using a false instrument.  The defendant has also committed two offences of pickpocketing, for which he received sentences of imprisonment, and most recently, in 2005, offences relating to immigration matters where he was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.

7.  The defendant, as I said, is married.  I am told that his wife is now pregnant and due to deliver a child in December of this year.  The defendant, I am told, used this method to try and obtain money to help with the expenses to do with the child.  And the defendant, it can be said in his mitigation that he has shown remorse by his plea of guilty today.

8.  As far as these offences are concerned, I have already averted to the kind of factors the courts look at when determining the sentence, and a sentence of up to 3 years’ imprisonment can be adopted as a starting point where there is the use of one card on a number of occasions.

9.  Now, in this case, I will adopt that starting point as a starting point.  I shall take into account the defendant’s plea of guilty and reduce the initial sentence or starting-point sentence by one-third down to 2 years’ imprisonment, and I will impose that sentence on each charge.  Having regard to the overall totality, I do take into account the point made by counsel that these offences were committed one after another, using the same card.  For that reason, I will impose concurrent sentences on these charges.  So I impose a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment on each of the five charges to be served concurrently, leading to a total of 2 years’ imprisonment of the defendant.