HKSAR v. YEOH SOOI HONG AND OTHERS

 DCCC235/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 235 OF 2009 

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

---------------------- 

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendants, all four of you pleaded guilty to a single offence of conspiracy to use false instruments, contrary to sections 73, 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200.

2.  You each admitted the brief facts and I convicted you.  In my verdict at the end of the trial of D1 I dealt at length with those facts.  Those facts are well-known to all of you and I do not intend to repeat them in full.

3.  D2, D4 and D5, you are Malaysians, whilst you, D3, are Singaporean.  You each flew to Hong Kong and together, using counterfeit credit cards, bought leather goods, mainly famous brand handbags.  The total value of the goods acquired was some HK$201,650.  The total number of counterfeit credit cards used was 41, or perhaps more accurately I should say the number of counterfeit credit cards seized was 41.  All the improperly obtained goods have been recovered.  They have been, or will be shortly, restored to their owners.  You are all of hitherto clear records in Hong Kong.

4.  Mitigation was entered on behalf of each of you.  Mr Tsu, on behalf of D2, told me that you are 33 years of age, you have a common-law wife who has three children, and you have four brothers.  You were educated to Form 4 and you are in employment in Malaysia.  Mr Tsu told me that you are very remorseful and stressed your clear record and your plea of guilty.

5.  On behalf of you, D3, Mr Richmond told me that you are 37 years of age, from Singapore, and married.  You worked in the construction and engineering business, earning the equivalent of HK$21,000 per month, and that was up until 2008, when you became unemployed.  You were then forced to borrow money to make ends meet and you were recruited to this scheme in November 2008.  Your clear record and plea of guilty was stressed, as was your remorse. 

6.  Mr Richmond referred me to the case of R v Chan Sui To and Another [1996] 2 HKCLR 128, which laid down the principles to be considered in cases such as this; also HKSAR v Lee Tsung Lin, CACC53/2002.  In conclusion, Mr Richmond, suggested that a starting point of 4½ years could be considered, even allowing for the international dimension in this case.

7.  Mr Hung entered mitigation on behalf of D4.  He told me that you are 35 years of age, Malaysian, and reside with your parents and three elder brothers in Kuala Lumpur.  You used to work in a restaurant there, earning the equivalent of HK$5,000 per month.  You are a man of clear record. 

8.  In mid-November 2008 you were recruited by a friend to come to work at a restaurant in Hong Kong where you would double your earnings to some $10,000 per month.  You were provided with a free plane ticket.  However, upon arrival, you were told that the work was no longer available, so you joined the scheme out of desperation. 

9.  Mr Hung stressed your co-operation to the authorities and your plea of guilty.  He also referred me to the same case of Chan Sui To.  He submitted that your role in this matter was that of a foot soldier and that your part was relatively minor.  Mr Hung suggested that a proper starting point would be one of approximately 3 years’ imprisonment.

10.  Finally, on behalf of you, D5, Mr Ross entered mitigation.  He told me that you are 27 years of age, single, Malaysian, and living with your parents.  In Malaysia you were employed as a casual worker.  You too were recruited to come to Hong Kong ostensibly to work in a restaurant, earning $10,000 a month.  You were supplied with a free ticket.  Indeed, your experience is very similar to that of D4, and eventually you agreed to take part in the scheme.

11.  Two letters of mitigation were submitted and they have been considered.  Mr Ross pointed out that you were not the instigator of the scheme, and whilst the case did have an international dimension, it was not until you came to Hong Kong that you joined the scheme.

12.  That briefly sums up the mitigation that was put before me on behalf of each of you.

13.  I turn now to the sentence.

14.  The misuse of credit cards is a very serious offence.  Here we are dealing with a very large number of counterfeit credit cards which were seized.  Various of those cards were used to obtain luxury goods worth over $200,000. 

15.  In this case there is a clear international dimension, all of you having come to Hong Kong, all of you being foreigners.  The scheme itself, in my opinion, was well-organised and well-planned, with at least one potential fence in the person of D1 having been contacted and introduced to the goods.  That there was no actual trading in illicit goods on the part of D1 is purely fortuitous and due to the actions of the police.

16.  In assessing sentence, I took into account the facts of the case, including the value of the goods involved and the number of counterfeit credit cards for potential or actual use, the mitigation that was advanced on behalf of each of you, and the nature of the charge.  I noted and took into account that all goods were recovered. 

17.  It has been suggested that you, D4 and D5, had been lured to Hong Kong and then were forced for economic reasons to become involved.  Whilst I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on that, it is clear that you knew full well that you were acting criminally, that you had the choice to resist involvement, and you became full and integral participants in the scheme.  The high quality of at least some of the counterfeit credit cards is evidenced by the successful purchase of so many goods. 

18.  I noted and took into account the fact that you were all of hitherto clear record in Hong Kong.

19.  Taking all factors into account, I resolved to treat all the defendants in the same way.  You were effectively part of one gang, effectively part of one conspiracy.

20.  I return to my original theme, that of the serious nature of the criminal conduct and the international dimension, the sophistication of the operation, and the high value luxury goods involved.

21.  Considering all factors in this case, I take as a starting point 5 years' imprisonment, that is 60 months, reduced to 40 months for your plea of guilty.  You will each go to prison for 40 months.