HKSAR v. SO NOK YI AND OTHERS

DCCC 628/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 628 OF 2014

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

---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------

1.  The details of the offences can clearly be set out in the findings made at the time of conviction, and the facts accepted by the 1st and 5th defendants at the time of their pleas of guilty and convictions.

2.  I consider, overall, that the starting point for sentence in respect of each offence, each conspiracy to defraud, should be one of 30 months’ imprisonment.

3.  Turning to the 1st defendant, she is now 21 years of age.  She was convicted on her own plea in respect of three conspiracies to defraud, Charges 2, 3 and 4, committed on the same day.  Her offences involving a total amount of about HK$86,000. 

4.  She played an essential role, and was the front of the operation, meeting the victims, persuading them to part with their goods in return for the false information about the cheques shown on their mobile devices. 

5.  She has a clear record, she has undoubtedly provide a substantial assistance to the police by providing statements and giving evidence against other accused.  Her evidence was, as I said, truthful and valuable in the case. 

6.  I consider that she should receive a discount of 50 per cent.  That would lead to a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment on each charge. Having regard to the overall totality of sentence, the value of her contribution and the fact that the offences were all committed on the same day, I order the sentences be served concurrently, for the total of 15 month’s imprisonment.

7.  Yes, the 2nd defendant has been convicted of three offences, 1st, 2nd and 4th offences.  These are committed on two separate days.  He is aged 27.  Total value of goods is in the region of $150,000.

8.  The defendant is, on evidence that I accepted, the prime mover in the offences, recruiting the participants, devising the scam, co-ordinating it whilst in progress, rightly described as the mastermind. 

9.  He has a poor criminal record, involving offences of, in the past, dishonesty, such as robbery and burglary.  He was sentenced to training centre as a young offender.  Following that, he has, since 2009, received sentences of imprisonment for offences of violence, such as assault and wounding.  The offences of dishonesty relate to occasions in 2001 and 2005, a substantial period of time ago.

10.  The defendant has been convicted after trial. 

11.  I obtained a background report on him.  It appears he was somewhat unhelpful in the compilation of some of the details. 

12.  Although the defendant has previous offences of dishonesty, they were some time ago.  So in respect of each charge of which he is convicted, I will adopt the starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment.  The 2nd offence and the 4th offence were committed on the same day, so they will be served concurrently.  The 1st offence was committed on another day, so I will order that 3 months of that sentence be served consecutively to that of 2 and 4, that gives us a total of 33 months’ imprisonment.

13.  The 3rd defendant is now aged 20.  He is convicted of the two offences, Charges 2 and 4.  His role, I found, was to ensure transportation was provided on that day.  At the time of the arrest, it appears he received no reward for this. 

14.  He has one previous unrelated conviction, and had been made subject to a probation order.  I did obtain reports upon this defendant, both due to his age, from the Department of Correctional Services, and also a background report.

15.  The background report reaches the conclusion that it appears that disciplinary training would be conducive to him rebuilding his character and law-abiding concept, self-control and self-discipline, and would be a promising path to rehabilitation.

16.  The report from the Correctional Services Department is in the same tone.  He is assessed as being suitable for detention in a training centre. 

17.  Given his age and the possibility and emphasis on rehabilitation for a person of his age, I consider that a sentence of the form of training centre is more appropriate for him than a sentence of imprisonment.  So I order that he be sent to a training centre on Charges 2 and 4.

18.  The 5th defendant has been convicted on his own plea of the four charges, 1, 2, 3, and 4.  He is aged 24, again, I obtained a background report upon him. 

19.  He played the role of inputting the details of the cheques into the bank ATMs.  He can properly be described as a foot soldier. 

20.  He has a poor criminal record, based on his addiction to drugs.  He is a drug abuser who has become overwhelmed by his drug problem who lacks the determination to successfully succeed in the drug detoxification regimes that he has been subjected to.  He has more recently been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for drug-related activities, and he has committed these offences shortly after release for drug-related offences.

21.  In respect of him, I will again adopt a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment on each of the offences.  He has pleaded guilty, so he is entitled to one-third discount, so that would be a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment on each charge.  The sentences in respect of 2nd, 3rd and 4th offences will be served concurrently.  I will order that 3 months of the 1st offence be served consecutively to those of the balance concurrently, gives us a total of 23 months’ imprisonment.