HKSAR v. TSE LOI FUK

DCCC 956/2021

[2022] HKDC 445

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 956 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charge

1.  The defendant was charged with one count of fraud under s.16A of the Theft Ordinance, involving a loan of $83,200 by using forged documents.

Plea

2.  The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts.

Summary of facts

3.  On 9 September 2005, a staff member of Inchroy Credit Corporation approved the loan application of HK$83,200 to the defendant after checking the relevant documents including the followings:-

(1)  Bank statements in respect of an account;

(2)  An employment letter issued by KTL company.

4.  A cheque of $79,950 (after deducting handling fees)  in the name of the defendant was issued.

5.  Later, the bank confirmed that the said account number did not exist.

6.  The company search could not find any company named KTL.

7.  On 26 January 2007, upon arrest, the defendant admitted since he was in short of money, a friend, called Frankie, told him to apply for loan by using forged documents.  He then made the application to the said credit corporation.  He was rewarded of HK$10,000.

8.  The defendant had absconded since June 2008.  On 30 August 2021, he surrendered to the police and was re-arrested.

9.  He managed to repay $8,914 to the said corporation.

The defendant’s background

10.  He (aged 40)  was born in China.  He came to Hong Kong in 1995.  He was single living with his mother in public housing.  Before his surrender to the police, he worked as a salesperson in a spectacles company.

11.  He had 9 previous convictions, mostly related to dishonesty with one similar.  The last one was dated in 2006.

Reasons for sentence

12.  I have considered the following points:-

(1)  The facts of the case, involving $83,200 and using of forged documents.

(2)  The mitigation put forward together with the mitigation letters from the defendant, his mother and pervious employers.

(3)  The defendant had absconded for 13 years but surrendered to the police.

(4)  The defendant had repaid $8,914 to the corporation.

(5)  The defendant’s previous records.

13.  I have further considered the following authorities submitted by the defence:-

(1)  HKSAR v Ho Ka Keung, CACC 196/2007

(2)  HKSAR v Man Kam Fai, CACC 309/2009

(3)  HKSAR v Lao Hang Hong, CACC 218/2009

(4)  HKSAR v Lo Kam Fai [2016] 2 HKLRD 308

(5)  HKSAR v Lam Hoi, CACC 105/2016

(6)  HKSAR v Chow Tak Fuk, CACC 428/2004

14.  In Man, the loan obtained from the finance company was $78,000. The Court of Appeal considered that it was a carefully planned operation with the appellant being a key participant.  The appellant had 28 criminal records with 12 related to dishonesty.  The starting point should be 3 ½ years.

15.  In Lao, the loan was $156,000 with some repayment made.  Forged documents were used in the application.  The appellant had 4 previous records with 3 related to dishonesty.  The starting point of 3 years was adopted.

16.  In Lo, for a defendant who had absconded and later pleaded guilty, the discount should be in the range of 20-25% instead of the normal one-third.

17.  In Lam, a further discount of 4 months was allowed for voluntary surrender to the police.

Starting point

18.  I have considered the facts of the case, the mitigation and the background of the defendant.

19.  The facts were quite similar to that of the case Lao as cited by the defence.  Also, there was no evidence as being a syndicate.  The present loan amount was well below the case of Lao.

20.  I adopted a starting point of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Discount

21.  Following Lo, I allowed a discount of 25%.  After deduction, the term for imprisonment was 24 months.

22.  For the defendant’s voluntary surrender to the police, I allowed further discount of 3 months.

23.  For the defendant’s repayment of $8,914, I further allowed a discount of 1 month.

Sentence

24.  After all the discounts made, I now sentenced the defendant to 20 months’ imprisonment.