HKSAR v. TEH PENG MICHAEL AND OTHERS

DCCC815/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 815 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The four defendants in this case, of whom D1 and D4 are husband and wife respectively, and D2 and D3 their two sons, have been convicted after trial of all of the charges laid against them and which are contained in the indictment.

2.  In my reasons for verdict, I have set out in detail the charges that each defendant stands convicted of. For reasons of brevity, I do not propose to repeat myself, save to say that D1 stands convicted of all 17 charges, 7 of which are for offences of using a false instrument, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, 8 of which are for dealing and 1 for attempted dealing with property known or reasonably believed to be the proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, and the 17th charge of possession of false instruments, contrary to section 75(1) of the Crimes Ordinance.

3.  The 2nd defendant has been convicted of 5 joint charges of using false instruments, and D3 and D4 a single joint charge with other defendants of using false instruments.

4.  All of the offences took place between January and April of 2009 and involved the defendants embarking on a joint enterprise to deceive Citibank and DBS by knowingly depositing false cheques and drafts into accounts opened up by them, and in the case of the 1st defendant, subsequently making various remittances and cash withdrawals from the accounts. The amount of loss suffered by Citibank as a result comes to something slightly over HK$1 million.

5.  These sort of offences are, in my judgment, becoming ever more prevalent in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a major international banking centre not only in the Far East but globally. By their actions, the defendants strike at the very heart of the integrity of the banking system.

6.  Mr Collins is right in his submission that it is very difficult to discern who it was that was the ringleader in what effectively was a joint enterprise between the defendants in the commission of these offences, save to say that I am satisfied and accept the submission of Mr Donald that the 4th accused was very much more of a follower than a leader. I will reflect this in my sentence of the 4th accused.

7.  In sentencing the defendants I take into account all that has been said by way of mitigation and put forward on their behalf by their respective counsel. With regard to the 1st defendant, I decline to further adjourn sentence on him for a psychological report. I do not see that this will assist me.

8.  On the charges of using a false instrument against D1, that is, Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12 and 16, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment on each of these charges. On Charges 5 to 10, 13 and 14, the charges of dealing, and Charge 15 of attempted dealing, the 1st defendant will be sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. On Charge 17, the charge of possession of false instruments, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 2½ years’ imprisonment.

9.  Due to the question of totality of sentence, I order all sentences to run concurrently with each other, arriving at an overall sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with regard to the 1st defendant.

10.  With regard to the 2nd defendant, on Charges 1, 2, 3, 11 and 16, I impose sentences of 3 years’ imprisonment on each charge which again due to the question of totality will be ordered to run concurrently with each other.

11.  D3 is sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment on Charge 16, and for the reasons that I have stated, D4 is sentenced to 2½ years’ imprisonment on Charge 16.

12.  Those are my reasons for sentence.