HKSAR v. CHOW ALICE SHUN LING

 DCCC173/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 173 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The Defendant pleads guilty to one count of possessing false instruments, namely 3 forged credit cards.

2.  At about 4.20 pm on 4 January 2011, a police officer spotted the Defendant acting furtively during an anti-crime operation at the junction of Middle Road and Nathan Road, Tsim Sha Tsui.

3.  The police officer then stopped the Defendant for enquiry. Upon search, 3 suspected forged credit cards were found inside the Defendant’s wallet and the name “Chow Alice Shun” appeared in all these 3 suspected forged credit cards.

4.  The Defendant was then arrested for possessing false instruments.

5.  Under caution, the Defendant admitted the offence and stated that she knew the 3 forged credit cards were false instruments and they were given to her by someone in France.

6.  The 3 suspected forged credit cards were sent to the Government Chemist for examination and were confirmed to be forged documents.

7.  The Defendant is aged 24. She has a clear record in Hong Kong. She completed her secondary school education in Vancouver in Canada, and she is now a part-time student studying law in the University of London. She is now working as a salesperson in the financial sector earning about $6,000 a month.

8.  According to Mr Hon, counsel for the Defendant, the Defendant comes from a traditional Chinese family. Her father is a strict Chinese. Because the Defendant is rebellious, the relationship between the Defendant and the family is not particularly good. The Defendant’s father works as a senior manager in a factory in Singapore while the Defendant’s mother is a housewife.

9.  By reason of the Defendant’s playful attitude, the Defendant engaged in a lot of social activities. She was invited to attend a party in Paris by her friend who told her that all the expenses of the trip would be taken care of by others.

10.  After arriving in Paris, she found that something was wrong. She was given some forged credit cards and she was asked to use those credit cards to purchase various merchandises.

11.  Initially, the Defendant refused. However, she was told that if she did not do so, she had to pay for the cost of the trip in the sum of HK$40,000. As she had no means to come back to Hong Kong, she reluctantly accepted the arrangement.

12.  After coming back to Hong Kong for 2 weeks, she was struggling with herself and she did not use the credit cards during such time.

13.  On the day in question, she was still undecided whether to use the forged credit cards when she was intercepted by the police.

14.  By reason of the Defendant’s clear record, the plea of guilty and also the unique features in the present case, Mr Hon asks the court to call for a community service order report before sentencing the Defendant.

15.  Possession of counterfeit credit cards is a serious offence. The court, in the past, has repeatedly emphasised that such kind of offence would destroy the integrity of the credit card system.

16.  In Chan Sui To and Another [1996] 2 HKCLR 128, the Court of Appeal had identified the factors to be considered in sentencing such kind of offence, including the size of the operation, the planning that has gone into perpetrating the fraud, whether there is an international dimension, whether the accused played a major role, and whether there is a plea of guilty.

17.  In HKSAR v Cheung Ka Wo [2002] 2 HKC 517, the defendant used 2 credit cards to purchase goods with a value less than $9,000. A starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment was approved in that case.

18.  In the case of HKSAR v Tu I Lang, CACC464/2006, the Court of Appeal had indicated that where the facts of the offence point to a small, unsophisticated operation involving only one or a few forged cards, uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the offender to a larger operation, then a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate.

19.  As possession of credit card is a serious offence, imposing a community service order is not appropriate in the present case.

20.  Further, the Defendant had received so much education in the past and she should have known that possession of forged credit cards is a very serious offence. What she should have done was to report the matter to the police.

21.  Further, in sentencing the Defendant, the court has to take into account the potential loss caused by the Defendant’s use of the credit cards. In such circumstances, to impose a sentence of immediate custodial sentence is the only option open to the court.

22.  The proper starting point is one of 3 years’ imprisonment. However, the Defendant was not playing a major role in the operation. Hence, I accept that a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment would adequately reflect the culpability of the Defendant based on the facts of the present case.

23.  Taking into account the Defendant has pleaded guilty to the offence and she has a clear record, I give the Defendant one-third discount and so the sentence is one of 20 months’ imprisonment.

24.  The Defendant does not have a positive good character which justifies a further reduction in the sentence, and so 20 months’ imprisonment is the sentence I impose in the present case.