R. v. WU LAI TONG

No. 252 of 1995
(Criminal)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Ryan, J. :

1. The applicant, Wu Lai Tong, was convicted after trial on four charges of procuring the making of an entry in a record of a bank by deception, contrary to s.18D of the Theft Ordinance. He now seeks leave to appeal against those convictions.

2. The brief facts were that on 10th May 1992 the complainant, Madam Siu, received a telephone call from a man claiming to be a Dr Poon, a friend of hers whom she believed had recently returned from the United States.

3. The same person made several more telephone calls to her either introducing himself as Dr Poon or confirming that he was Dr Poon when asked by Madam Siu. The caller said that he was now a businessman and that he had a cousin, Wu Lai Tong, the applicant's name, who was a licensed share broker. As a result of the advice that Madam Siu received from the caller who she still believed to be Dr Poon, she proceeded to make four deposits at the request of the caller into the account of Wu Lai Tong, sums totalling $641,000 on the understanding that the money was to be used to purchase shares. These deposits were made over a period from 28th May 1992 to 14th July 1992. On the 31st July 1992, Madam Siu received a telephone call from Dr Poon who had returned to Hong Kong at the end of June. She then realised that he could not possibly have made the telephone calls to her and she reported the matter to the police.

4. At her request, sums totalling $230,000 were repaid to her in the period from 12th August 1992 to 20th August 1992. The police monitored some of the telephone conversations between Madam Siu and the applicant and then proceeded to arrest him. There was no dispute at the trial that it was the applicant who had made the several telephone calls to Madam Siu. It was the applicant's case that he had met Madam Siu by chance and that she had invited him to accompany her on a joy ride, that an arrangement was made for him to call her the next evening and that from then on through the various telephone conversations he gave her advice about investments and that she provided him with funds to carry out those investments. He denied he had ever claimed himself to be Dr Poon. The evidence that he gave at the trial was basically in line with the content of the statement that he had given to the police after his arrest. In that statement when asked about the investments that he had made on behalf of Madam Siu, his recorded answer was that most of the money had been lost.

5. The prosecution case depended upon the credibility of Madam Siu and that while in his appeal the applicant claims that her story was inherently unbelievable, the Deputy District Judge carefully considered all of the evidence including that of the applicant and came to the conclusion that Madam Siu was a witness upon whom he could rely. The applicant further complains that in the monitored telephone conversations he never at any time claimed himself to be Dr Poon. The Judge made reference to this, but considered it more pertinent that in the recorded conversation on 14th September 1992 Madam Siu was heard to tell the applicant that she preferred not to pay the money to the account of Wu and asks "how about the account in your name of Poon Tak Lun". The Judge referred to the response of the applicant as being vague and rambling and he considered it very relevant that the applicant did not in any way query the reference to Poon Tak Lun. The Judge carefully considered the applicant's evidence and found that his evidence was totally without credit and did not in any way raise a query in his mind as to the credibility of Madam Siu.

6. The applicant today makes a complaint about the level of legal assistance that he received at the trial and he challenges the impartiality of the judge. There is nothing in any of those complaints. On the evidence that the judge had before him, he was entitled to come to the view that he did about the evidence of Madam Siu.

7. We refuse leave to appeal against conviction and the application is dismissed.