HKSAR v. WONG WING YAN TIFFANY

DCCC 268/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 268 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

CHARGES

1.  The defendant was charged with four counts of fraud and four counts of using a false instrument.

PLEA

2.  The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges. Upon admission of the facts, she was convicted of all eight charges.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Incident 1 (Charges 1 to 5)

3.  The defendant, by fraud, bought a private car from the owner for the price of $550,000.  The payment was made that a cheque was deposited into the owner’s bank account by the defendant on three separate occasions.  However, the three cheques were later found dishonoured. 

4.  It was further confirmed that the three cheques belonged to a company.  The secretary of such company confirmed that the signatures and the company chops on those three cheques were forged.

5.  The defendant then sold by fraud the said private car to a new buyer for the price of $375,000.  Most of the purchase price was deposited into defendant’s bank account by cash by the new buyer. 

6.  A report was made to the police with the said private car located from the new buyer.  Under an agreement, the owner gave $100,000 to the new buyer and the private car was returned to the owner. 

7.  In this incident, the owner and the new buyer suffered a loss of $72,000 and $266,000 respectively.

Incident 2 (Charge 6)

8.  The defendant, by fraud, bought four diamonds from the victim’s jewellery shop for the price of $2.1 million.  The defendant told the victim that she would deposit cash of $2.1 million into victim’s bank account.  However, it was later found that on the deposit slip it only showed a remark of “cheque deposit”.  Such cheque was found dishonoured on the following day. 

9.  A report was made to the police and the defendant was arrested.  Two of the diamonds were returned to the victim by the defendant.  The other two diamonds were later seized from a pawnbroker as the defendant had pawned them earlier with the value of $600,000.  The victim confirmed the value of the two pawned diamonds being $1,768,000.

Incident 3 (Charge 7 to 8)

10.  The defendant, by fraud, bought three diamonds from the victim’s jewellery shop for the price of $2.18 million.  The defendant claimed to deposit cash into victim’s bank account.  However, it was later found that the deposit was only made by cheque.  Such cheque was found dishonoured later. 

11.  It was further confirmed that such cheque belonged to a company.  The representative of the company confirmed that the signature and the company chop shown on such cheque being forged.

12.  The defendant later pawned the said three diamonds at a value of $920,000.  The three diamonds were later seized by the police from the pawnbroker.  The victim had paid $690,000 to the pawnshop, with the three diamonds being returned to the victim. 

13.  In this incident, the victim and the pawnshop suffered a loss of $510,000 and $230,000 respectively.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND

14.  Defendant aged 38, single, lived with her parents.  She lastly worked as an operation manager in a spa and beauty company.  She had five previous records, four being deception and one being theft.

15.  In sentencing, I have considered the followings:-

(1) the facts of the case, namely the total value being about $4.8 million, with the actual loss around $1.7 million;

(2) the mitigation put forward;

(3) a psychological report and a medical report; and

(4) her previous records.

16.  As referred by the defence, I have also considered the case of HKSAR v Tsang Mei Yuk Sylvia, DCCC 104/2014. 

17.  In that case, the total amount as particularised in the four charges of fraud was about $2.1 million, with a total unrecovered sum of $1.4 million.  The total sentence after plea adopted by the judge was one of 28 months’ imprisonment.  In view of clear record, the final sentence was reduced to one of 2 years.

DEFENDANT’S PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT

18.  A psychological report had been obtained for the defendant.  The conclusion in the report was: the defendant committed the present offences out of her weak consequential thinking and maladaptive coping towards her financial problem.  No major psychological problem was found.

COMPENSATION

19.  The defendant was willing to pay compensation of $130,000 to the victims.

FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE

20.  For incident 1, the value of the private car was $550,000.  After obtaining it, the defendant further sold it to another person for $375,000.  It also involved the using of three forged cheques.  The actual loss suffered by the two victims was $338,000.

21.  For incident 2, the four diamonds valued at $2.1 million.  Two of them had been returned to the owner by the victim after the arrest.  The remaining two diamonds were seized from the pawnbroker.  The actual loss by the victim and the pawnbroker was $600,000.

22.  For incident 3, the value of the three diamonds was $2.18 million.  It also involved the using of a forged cheque by the defendant.  The actual loss suffered by the owner and the pawnbroker was $740,000.

23.  All the offences arose from three incidents which were committed in a period of two months.  The total loss suffered by all victims was $1,678,000.

COMMITTING OFFENCES WHILE ON BAIL

24.  The defendant committed Charge 6 while on police bail of Charge 1 to 5.  She further committed Charge 7 and 8 while on police bail of Charge 1 to 6.

SENTENCE

Starting point

25.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment, both for fraud and using false instrument, is 14 years’ imprisonment. 

26.  Having considered the facts of the case, the mitigation, background of the defendant, her previous records, the psychological and medical report, I adopted the following starting points.

27.  For Charge 1 and 2, I adopted 18 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for each.  On guilty plea, each was reduced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

28.  For Charge 3 to 5, I adopted 15 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for each.  On guilty plea, each was reduced to 10 months’ imprisonment.

29.  For Charge 6 to 7, I adopted 30 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for each.  On her guilty plea, each was reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment.

30.  For Charge 8, I adopted 15 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.  On guilty plea, it was reduced to 10 months’ imprisonment.

Totality

31.  Having considered the totality principle and all the circumstances of the case, I made the following orders as to sentence.

32.  For Charge 1 and 2, each term of 12 months’ imprisonment was to be run concurrently.

33.  For Charge 3 to 5, each term of 10 months’ imprisonment was to be run concurrently, but 3 months to be consecutive with the term of Charge 1 to 2.

34.  For Charge 6, from the term of 20 months’ imprisonment, I ordered that 8 months was to be consecutive with the term of Charge 1 to 5.

35.  For Charge 7 and 8, of the term of 10 months’ imprisonment of Charge 8, 1 month was to be consecutive with the term of Charge 7. For Charge 7 and 8, the total sentence was 21 months’ imprisonment. I ordered 8 months to be served consecutively with the term of Charge 1 to 6.

Discount by compensation

36.  The compensation of $130,000 represented 7.7% of the actual total loss by all victims.  For this, I allowed a discount of 1 month imprisonment.

FINAL SENTENCE

37.  The total sentence was 12 months’ imprisonment plus 3 months, plus 8 months, plus 8 months, then minus 1 month, which made it altogether 30 months’ imprisonment.

COMPENSATION ORDER

38.  I ordered the defendant to pay compensation of $130,000 to the respective victims, in accordance with the compensation table submitted by the prosecution.