HKSAR v. LI PUI KA AND OTHERS

DCCC 725/2019

[2020] HKDC 239

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 725 OF 2019

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  D1, D2 and D3 individually pleaded guilty before me to a number of charges on a charge sheet.

2.  Charges 1 to 5 are charges of Using a false instrument, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

3.  Charges 1 to 2 are laid against D1 only.  Charges 3 to 5 are laid against D2 only.

4.  Charges 6 and 7 are charges of Handling stolen goods, contrary to section 24 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, laid against D3 only.

5.  All charges are framed in terms that the relevant defendant committed the offence together with other persons unknown.

Admitted Facts

6.  The facts admitted by the defendants may be summarized as follows.

Charge 5 (against D2)

7.  In early March 2019, Seller 1 intended to sell a diamond ring via online platform for $128,000.  On 18 March, Seller 1 received a message from an intended buyer.  On 20 March, Seller 1 met D2 appearing on behalf of the intended buyer at the Bank of China branch in United Centre, Admiralty.  D2 passed to Seller 1 a cashier order in the sum of $128,000 purportedly issued by the Bank of Communications.  Seller 1 deposited it before handing over the diamond ring to D2.  CCTV captured the incident.  Later the same day, Seller 1 received a call from the bank informing her that the cashier order was bounced.  Seller 1 tried but failed to contact the intended buyer. A report was lodged.  Subsequently, Seller 1 identified D2 in an identification parade.  The cashier order was later confirmed to be forged.

Charge 4 (against D2)

8.  On 24 March 2019, Seller 2 intended to sell his Rolex Daytona watch via online platform for $113,000.  Later the same day, Seller 2 received a message from an intended buyer.  Eventually, the price was agreed at $110,000.  A meeting was arranged for Seller 2 to meet the intended buyer’s assistant at the Hang Seng Bank branch on Des Voeux Road in Sheung Wan.  On 25 March, Seller 2 met D2 at the bank.  D2 passed to Seller 2 a cashier order in the sum of $110,000 purportedly issued by the Bank of Communications.  Seller 2 deposited it before handing over the Rolex watch to D2.  CCTV captured the incident.  Later the same day, Seller 2 received a call from the bank informing him that the cashier order was bounced.  Next day, the bank informed Seller 2 that the cashier order was forged and suggested that he makes a report to the police.  Subsequently, Seller 2 identified D2 in an identification parade.  The cashier order was later confirmed to be forged.

Charge 3 (against D2) (related to Charge 6)

9.  On 5 April 2019, Seller 3 intended to sell his Rolex GMT watch valued at $110,000 via online platform.  Later the same day, he received a message from an intended buyer.  The price was agreed at $130,000. A meeting was arranged for Seller 3 to meet the intended buyer’s assistant at HSBC branch in Tai Wai MTR Station.  On 9 April, Seller 3 met D2 appearing as the assistant at the bank.  D2 passed to Seller 3 a cashier order purportedly issued by the Bank of Communications in the sum of $130,000.  Seller 3 deposited it before handing over the Rolex GMT watch to D2.  CCTV captured the incident.  The next day, Seller 3 was informed that the cashier order was bounced.  Seller 3 lodged a report.  Later, police arrested D2 near her residence.  Subsequently, Seller 3 identified D2 in an identification parade. The cashier order was later confirmed to be forged.

D2’s whatsapp records

10.  D2’s whatsapp records show she was instructed by “Ah Ko” about the trade on 9 April 2019 (Charge 3).

D2’s cautioned statements

11.  Under arrest and caution, D2 stated that she used the cashier order seized from her to settle the payment of a Rolex watch.

12.  Under caution in her 1^st video recorded interview, D2 stated, among other things, that:

(a) “Ah Ko” offered her a job of passing a cashier order to someone;

(b) On 9 April 2019, in Tai Wai, “Ah Ko” gave her a mobile SIM card and told her that someone would contact her;

(c) At around 12:30 pm the same day, an unknown male called her and instructed her to pick up the cashier order;

(d) Shortly after, she arrived at HSBC at Tai Wai MTR station and was instructed to contact the client;

(e) She met the said client inside the HSBC and purchased a Rolex watch with a $130,000 cashier order; and

(f) She passed the watch to an unknown person in return for a reward of around $1,000.

13.  Under caution in her 2^nd video recorded interview, D2 stated, among other things, that:

(a) On 20 March 2019, “Ah Ko” approached her and asked if she was interested in making monies by making purchase with cashier order;

(b) On the same day, D2 met “Ah Ko” and two other unknown males at a bistro in Mong Kok where she was given a mobile SIM card;

(c) The two unknown males took taxi with her to the United Centre;

(d) She went up to United Centre alone and received a call from an unknown person who passed her the cashier order and instructed her to contact the client for purchasing a ring;

(e) She met the said client inside a Bank of China branch and queued up for depositing the cashier order;

(f) When the deposit was done, the said client passed the ring to her;

(g) She then went down to Admiralty MTR station and passed the ring to an unknown male;

(h) She removed the SIM card from her phone and threw it away;

(i) She took taxi with the two unknown males again;

(j) She met “Ah Ko” in Mong Kok and the latter gave her $1,500 as reward;

(k) On 25 March 2019, “Ah Ko” called her and they met up in Mong Kok;

(l) “Ah Ko” asked if she was interested to take up the job of purchasing goods with a cashier order again;

(m) She took the offer and the two of them took MTR towards Sheung Wan;

(n) “Ah Ko” bought a mobile SIM card at a 7-Eleven at Yau Ma Tei station and inserted the card into D2’s mobile phone;

(o) On arriving at Sheung Wan, someone whatsapp her, asked for her outfit and said that a fat male would pass her the cashier order;

(p) She called the client and met him at Hang Seng Bank;

(q) After depositing the cashier order, the said client passed her the watch;

(r) While she was walking towards Sheung wan MTR station, the same fat male approached her and took the watch;

(s) She met “Ah Ko” at Sheung Wan MTR station where she was given $1,500;

(t) The whatsapp record was deleted by “Ah Ko”; and

(u) She never met “Ah Ko” again.

Charge 2 (against D1)

14.  In April 2019, Seller 5 offered to sell his Rolex watch via online platform.  On 10 April, he received a message from an intended buyer.  The price was agreed at $228,000.  A meeting was arranged for Seller 5 to meet the intended buyer’s secretary at HSBC branch at Metro City in Tseung Kwan O.  On 12 April, at the bank, Seller 5 met D1 who claimed to be the secretary.  D1 passed to Seller 5 a Dah Sing Bank cashier order as payment. After confirming with bank staff that the cashier order could not be cashed at once, Seller 5 called off the deal.  CCTV captured the incident.

Charge 1 (against D1)

15.  In early March 2019, Seller 6 offered to sell his Rolex Daytona watch via online platform.  On 28 March, Seller 6 received a message from an intended buyer who told Seller 6 that his staff would deal with the trade on his behalf and would settle payment with a cashier order.  On 13 April, Seller 6 met D1 appearing on behalf of the intended buyer at the HSBC branch in Tai Wai MTR Station.  D1 passed to Seller 6 a cashier order in the sum of $115,000 purportedly issued by the Bank of Communications as payment. When the duo were queuing inside the bank, the police approached and arrested D1.  The cashier order was later confirmed to be forged.

D1’s whatsapp records

16.  D1’s whatsapp records show she had had discussions with three unknown males about the trade on a chat group opened on 12 April 2019.  In particular, D1 reported on whatsapp how she dealt with Seller 6 (Charge 1).  On whatsapp, a “Milk” and a “Jacky” were kept updated with the encounter with Seller 6.

D1’s cautioned statements

17.  Under arrest and caution, D1 said an unknown male told her to pass the cashier order to Seller 6 for a Rolex watch (Charge 1).

18.  Under caution in a video recorded interview, D1 said, among other things, that:

(a) On 12 April 2019, “Milk” offered her a job via whatsapp for a reward of $10,000 afterwards;

(b) At around 3 pm on 12 April 2019, as instructed, she arrived at Po Lam MTR station where a male “Ah Fung” gave her a Dah Sing Bank cashier order to purchase a Rolex watch from a client;

(c) She met the said client at HSBC at Metro City and they queued up together for depositing the cashier order;

(d) After knowing it might take a few days for processing the cashier order transaction, the said client called off the trade;

(e) She called her “boss” for help but the said client refused to sell his watch;

(f) She was told to destroy the cashier order;

(g) On 13 April 2019, “Milk” instructed her via whatsapp to go to Tai Wai MTR station to buy a Rolex watch on promise of a reward of $7,000 to $8,000;

(h) At around 10 am the same day, at Tai Wai MTR station “Ah Fung” passed her an envelope containing a Bank of Communications cashier order;

(i) She was provided with the contact number of the client;

(j) After the said client appeared, they both went into the bank for depositing the cashier order; police turned up and arrested her; and

(k) “Milk” had instructed someone else named “Ka Kei” to deal with those transactions.

Charge 6 (against D3) (related to Charge 3)

19.  On the same day (9 April 2019) as and soon after Seller 3 had parted with his Rolex GMT watch, D3 approached the proprietor of Time Art Watches Tsang and offered to resell the watch obtained from Seller 3. Tsang agreed to take the watch for $80,000 and issued D3 a receipt.  In the process, D3 provided his HKID card number and his real name and his mobile phone number 6543 4722.  On 24 April 2019, police informed Tsang that the watch was a piece of stolen property.  Seller 3 later confirmed his ownership.  Police seized the watch.

Charge 7 (against D3)

20.  Seller 4 passed over his Rolex Daytona watch which he bought for $83,500 for a cashier order later found to be forged in much the same way as the above charges.  Seller 4 lodged a report.  On 19 March 2019, D3 approached the proprietor of RWW Watch Company Wong and offered to sell the said Rolex Daytona watch.  Wong offered to take it for $95,000.  D3 agreed and provided his HKID card number and his real name.   Wong issued a receipt to D3 and paid $95,000 in cash.  On 11 April, the watch was onward sold to a dealer from Italy.  On 4 June, D3 was arrested at his residence.  Upon search, the T-shirt and jeans D3 wore on 9 April 2019 (Charge 6) and his mobile phone were seized.

D3’s cautioned statements

21.  Under arrest and caution, D3 stated that the Rolex watch was stolen by his friend and he just assisted to resell it for $1,000 as reward.

22.  Under caution in his 1^st video recorded interview, D3 stated, among other things, that:

(a) On 9 April, 2019, an unknown person “Hung Chung” called and asked him if he could help reselling a watch in return for a $1,000 reward;

(b) He went to Kwong Wah Street in Mong Kok and collected the watch from “Hung Chung”;

(c) “Hung Chung” told him that the watch was “exchanged” by his friend with a cashier order;

(d) He was not sure about the authenticity of the cashier order;

(e) After selling the watch for $80,000, D3 passed the money to “Hung Chung” who paid D3 $1,000;

(f) He had been to “Hung Chung”’s residence in Western District once;

(g) He did not know D1-D2 nor “Milk” and “Ah Ko”;

(h) The HKID card number and the phone number 6543 4722 stated on the receipt of Time Arts Watch belonged to him;

(i) In early March 2019, “Hung Chung” had asked him to resell another Rolex watch which was “exchanged” with a forged cashier order which he did and he was given a $1,000 reward;

(j) “Hung Chung” had no fixed contact number; and

(k) He felt strange that “Hung Chung” sought help from him and suspected that the watches were stolen properties.

23.  Under caution in his 2^nd video recorded interview, D3 stated, among other things, that:

(a) He found “Hung Chung” suspicious because there should have been no reason for the latter to purchase watches with cashier orders and resold them for monies rather than simply deposited the cashier orders directly;

(b) He believed the cashier orders were forged and they were used as tools to purchase the watches illegally;

(c) The other Rolex watch that was sold in early March 2019 was sold at RWW Shop Company;

(d) He sent a photo of the receipt copy to “Hung Chung” after selling the watch and he had lost the original receipt; and

(e) He helped “Hung Chung” because he needed money.

24.  Under caution, in his 3^rd video recorded interview, D3 stated, among other things, that:

(a) At around 12 or 1 pm on 19 March 2019, “Hung Chung” approached and asked him to resell a watch with a promise of a $1,000 reward;

(b) “Hung Chung” told him that it was bought/exchanged with a cashier order by his friend;

(c) He found it suspicious that the cashier order should be forged or else “Hung Chung” could have cashed the cashier order directly;

(d) He believed “Hung Chung” made him a scapegoat;

(e) He took the watch and resold it in a shop at TST for $95,000 which was passed to “Hung Chung” in return for $1,000; and

(f) He was involved in the reselling of the watches only.

Criminal records

25.  D1 has one previous court attendance with 7 convictions (similar to the present ones) earning her 36 months’ imprisonment sentenced on 29 March 2017.

26.  D2 has a dissimilar previous conviction in 2012.

27.  D3 enjoys a clear record.

Antecedents

28.  D1 is aged 41, married, educated to F2, unemployed at the time of arrest, last discharged in July 2018.

29.  D2 is aged 32 (31 at the time of the offences), single, educated to F4, unemployed at the time of arrest on 13 April 2019.

30.  D3 is aged 19 (18 at the time of the offences), single, educated to F4, unemployed at the time of arrest.

Mitigation

D1

31.  Mr Dick Lee of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D1.

32.  D1’s mitigation submissions may be summarized as follows.

33.  D1’s criminal record is agreed.

34.  D1’s husband has petitioned for divorce from their marriage which bore no children.  D1’s own parents became divorced when she was 3 years old and she was brought up by her grandmother who is 85.  D1 had been a part-time waitress but was unemployed at the time of the offences; she has been remanded in custody since the date of arrest.

35.  After last discharge from prison, D1 could only live in a motel.  She tried hard to find employment and eventually became a part-time waitress for a salary of up to $5,000 a month.  In September 2018, a new boyfriend supported her financially to rent an apartment in her name for $7,000 monthly rent.  In March 2019, they broke up.  She then found herself in financial difficulty.  On 12 April, a male nicknamed “Milk” offered D1 a job of buying watches from sellers with cashier orders promising her a reward in amounts of up to $10,000 on one transaction.  D1 committed the offence out of urgent need for quick money and stupidity.  D1 never contacted the sellers by online means.

36.  D1 felt regretful she was unable to see her grandmother during her remand.  In a mitigation letter, D1 wrote that she was remorseful and promised she would not re-offend and would wish to re-unite with her grandmother as soon as possible.

37.  D1 has become a Christian with the help of Prison Pastoral service which will assist her find a job on release.  Mr Lee submitted a letter issued by the service containing more details.

38.  There is no tariff for the offence of “Using a false instrument”.

39.  Mr Lee referred to two sentencing cases of the District Court namely HKSAR v Rambuyon Noel Enterina, DCCC 544/2018, and HKSAR v Leong Wa Chong, DCCC 285/2019.

40.  In Rambuyon, the court there adopted a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment whereas in Leong, the court adopted a starting point of 21 months’ imprisonment.  Mr Lee submitted that two charges here in this case are less serious than the two cited cases; that the total amount of the counterfeit cashier orders was $343,000.

41.  On mitigating factors, Mr Lee relied on D1’s early indication of plea; that D1 was not the mastermind; that this was not a typical case of e-fraud; that there was no loss; that the victim of Charge 2 was not able to identify D1, hence her confession was more significant to show her genuine remorse; that the pandemic and unprecedented public health situation caused extra hardship and stress during her detention; and that both offences were committed with the same MO conducted within 16 days.

42.  Mr Lee asked the court to take into account totality and impose concurrent sentences on both charges.

D2

43.  Mr Alan Tang of counsel mitigated on behalf of D2.

44.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

45.  Criminal record and antecedents are agreed; agreed to obtain background report.

46.  D2 decided to plead guilty at the outset; resided with her mother who is in court to support her.  Prior to arrest, she worked as a part-time saleslady earning approx. $12,000 per month and contributed $4,000 to her family.  D2 is a first-time offender of this nature of crime.

47.  D2 was really in financial difficulty; she owed substantial amount of money ie $12,000 from Aeon (two pieces of payment advice submitted).

48.  There are no sentencing guidelines.  Ask court to adopt a holistic approach and consider the amount involved, modus operandi and whether the property was returned to true owner.  The case against D2 involved 3 cashier orders, one Tiffany diamond ring and 2 Rolex watches pertaining to a total sum of $368,000.  A Rolex watch was retrieved.

49.  Similar to what Mr Lee has done for D1, Mr Tang referred to the cases of Rambuyon and Leong Wa Chong.  Also similar to Mr Lee’s submissions, Mr Tang also argued extra psychological hardship of the Covid-19 outbreak.  Mr Tang also submitted a letter issued by Christian Prison Pastoral Association Ltd vouching for D2’s determination to turn over a new leaf upon conversion to the Christian faith.

50.  D2’s reasons for commission of offence were the fact that she owed a large sum of money and her foolishness to earn quick money.  Mr Tang submitted a letter written by D2 herself the contents of which are generally that D2 was remorseful and promised to cut ties with harmful affiliation.  D2’s role was replaceable and she was not the mastermind nor did she communicate with victims online.

51.  Mr Tang suggested a starting point of 21-30 month’s imprisonment and urged concurrent sentences for all three offences.  He asked the court to give D2 a last chance and impose a lenient sentence.

D3

52.  Mr Hui Chun Sing of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D3.

53.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

54.  D3’s antecedents are agreed.

55.  Mr Hui submitted two mitigation letters respectively written by D3 himself and by his family members.  The first letter spoke of his total reward for committing the two offences coming to $2,000; that he had been in custody since June 2019; that since 2018 he has registered in a two-year full time western chef course (since interrupted because of his current custody); that he had to work as a part-time chef for about $7,000 a month to finance his studies; that because of the inadequacy of the income, he succumbed to temptation offered by bad companion; that he is now remorseful; that he wants to become a chef upon release.  The second letter disclosed that D3 having already spent 10 months in custody has become remorseful and the family asked for a lenient sentence.

56.  Mr Hui submitted the case of HKSAR v Xiao Wei, CACC 225/2003, and said that the Court of Appeal there suggested, at para 10, that an examination of the factors set out in R v Bernard Webbe & Others would assist the court in arriving at the appropriate sentence.  Mr Hui submitted that in Xiao, the defendant pawned a stolen watch valued at about $11,200 for another person and was given $1,000 from the proceeds; the Court of Appeal considered a starting point of 18 months was appropriate.

57.  Mr Hui referred to another case HKSAR v Poon Yiu Fai, CACC 36/2011, where the defendant pawned a stolen watch for a sum of $14,000.  Mr Hui submitted that in view of the defendant’s previous record, the Court of Appeal considered a sentence after trial of 2 years 3 months was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

58.  Mr Hui submitted that there was no evidence to suggest that D3 knew of both fraud at the time of selling the watches.  Mr Hui explained that what he meant was D3 did not know of the modus operandi that the perpetrator(s) employed in order to get his/their hands on the watches but there is no denial that D3 knew or believed that the watches were stolen property and were of considerable value.

59.  Mr Hui submitted there was a considerable lack of sophistication in the method of handing the two watches.  He further submitted that D3 committed the offences because of financial reasons; that D3 tried to obtain the tuition fee for his chef course.

60.  D3 is 19 and a person of clear record.  He has indicated his plea early.  He has provided a statement to the police which led to the arrest of “Hung Chung”; he has offered himself as a prosecution witness.  Mr Hui submitted that this showed that D3 is remorseful and “wished to make amends for the damage caused by his criminal conduct”: HKSAR v Lo Sze Tung Stephanie, CACC 190/2017, [2018] HKCA 421, para 34.

61.  Mr Hui submitted that by the totality principle, the sentence of each offence, or a substantial part thereof, should run concurrently with one another.

62.  On being told that detention centre and training centre suitability reports would likely be obtained in the case of D3, Mr Hui submitted that subject to what the reports might say, imprisonment might be the optimal sentence as against a training centre order for two reasons: (a) in light of the period D3 had already spent in remand custody; and (b) D3 has already appreciated he ought to live in a lawful way eg to work as a chef.

D2’s Background Report

63.  D2’s background report came back as being unremarkable.  The probation officer confirmed that D2 committed the offences out of greediness and foolishness; that D2 and her mother asked for a lenient sentence.

64.  D3’s Detention Centre/Training Centre Suitability Report

65.  The report found that D3 is mentally and physically fit for detention in a Detention Centre or a Training Centre.

66.  The report found that after leaving school after repeating F4, D3 enrolled in a diploma course in “Hotel Culinary Management” but quitted in less than 5 months in January 2019; then he became idle; that out of greediness he committed the present offences.

67.  The report finally assessed D3 to be more suitable for detention in a Detention Centre.

Additional mitigation in light of the reports

D2: in light of Background Report

68.  D2 agreed the Background Report.  D2 agreed she did wrong but the report showed that she did not want to bother her family with her trouble.  This shows D2 cared for her family.  D2 agreed the contents of the two latest statements about the watch in Charges 3 and 6 recently served on her by the prosecution.

D3: in light of Detention Centre/Training Centre Suitability Report

69.  D3 has no objection to the contents of the DC/TC Suitability Report.  On second thought due largely to the safety of himself and his family, D3 will withdraw from the earlier scheme to assist the authorities in respect of bringing “Hung Chung” to justice.  D3 asked for a sentence fitting to his culpability.

Sentence

70.  Given D3’s age, I ordered a detention centre and a training centre suitability reports on him.

71.  Since I was going to adjourn for D3’s reports, and D2 had never served a prison sentence before, I asked D2’s counsel if a background report on her might be useful; the answer was yes.  I therefore so ordered.

72.  Both D2 and D3 have been told that all sentencing options were open to them.

73.  I have now considered the various reports.

74.  I have considered the mitigation submissions including all the cases referred to and all the material submitted.

75.  There is no sentencing guideline on “using a false instrument” nor “handling stolen goods”.

76.  The maximum penalty for “Using a false instrument” offence is 14 years’ imprisonment.

77.  The maximum penalty for “Handling stolen goods” offence is also 14 years’ imprisonment.

78.  The District Court sentencing cases are no more than instances of how other District Judges had dealt with individual defendants before them.  They have no binding force on me.

79.  I note that in the case of Poon Yiu Fai referred to by counsel for D3, the starting point adopted by the sentencing judge for the handling offence was 2 years 6 months and it was only reduced by 3 months to a sentence of 2 years 3 months’ imprisonment on the single basis that the defendant there had agreed to most of the prosecution case at trial.

80.  In respect of the submission that a defendant may suffer extra hardship even if only psychologically, I note that there is no evidence of any Covid-19 outbreak within the walls of any prison in Hong Kong. To date, there is no report of any confirmed cases in any of the correctional institutions in Hong Kong.  Thanks no doubt to the hard work of correctional services officers in Hong Kong in keeping institutions under their care clean and hygienic, it may even be said that it is safer inside than out from a public health perspective.  In my judgment, this defence submission has no firm basis on which to make a difference to the sentence that may otherwise be imposed.

81.  In the case of D1, it is noted that she was last discharged from prison on 21 July 2018 ie only less than 9 months before the commission of the present similar offences.  This is clearly an aggravating factor in addition to the aggravating factor that she committed the offences together with other persons unknown.

82.  I note that there has been no loss to the victims because the criminal activities did not succeed.

83.  In the absence of aggravating factors, I would have adopted a starting point for each offence of 22 months’ imprisonment. Because of the two aggravating factors, I will enhance the starting point by 5 months resulting in a sentence before plea of 27 months for each offence.

84.  The two offences were committed on different dates though in close temporal proximity to one another.  Subject to totality, they call for consecutive sentences.  Having taken into account totality, I deem a global starting point of 36 months to be appropriate in the circumstances of this case and of D1.

85.  Because of her plea, I will give D1 the customary 1/3 discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of sufficient weight to warrant a further discount.

(D1, please stand)

86.  To achieve the overall sentence of 2 years, I order for Charge 1, D1 will go to prison for 18 months; for Charge 2, she will also go to prison for 18 months; but that 6 months of the sentence for Charge 2 will be served consecutively to that for Charge 1.  Hence, the total sentence is 24 months or 2 years’ imprisonment.

(D1, please take a seat)

87.  In the case of D2, she is convicted of 3 charges. I note that in only one of the three charges, ie Charge 3, was the stolen property recovered.  The loss to victim of Charge 4 was $110,000 whereas that of Charge 5 was $128,000.  Victim of Charge 3 ie the owner has to pay $45,000 to the watch company (Charge 6 refers) to get back his watch; the watch company in turn would still suffer a loss of $35,000 after receipt of the sum of $45,000 from the owner.  Therefore, for her action in Charge 3, D2 has caused a loss to others of $80,000.  Taking all 3 charges together, the loss caused to others by D2 came to $318,000 which is no small amount.

88.  There is of course the aggravating factor that D2 worked with other persons unknown to commit the offences.

89.  In the case of D2, because of the substantial loss caused to others, I would have taken as a starting point 24 months for each offence if there had been no aggravating factors.  However, there is present the aggravating factor of her acting in concert with others for which an enhancement of 3 months is justified making the sentence of 27 months before plea for each offence.  The offences were committed on different dates for which consecutive sentences, subject to totality, are warranted.

90.  Having considered all the circumstances pertaining to D2’s commission of the offences, I deem a global starting point of 3 ½ years to be appropriate.

91.  Because of her pleas, D2 is entitled to a 1/3 discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of sufficient weight to justify a further discount.

(D2, please stand)

92.  To achieve an overall sentence of 2 years 4 months, I sentence D2 to 18 months’ imprisonment for each of Charges 3, 4 and 5.  I order that 5 months of each of the sentences for Charges 4 and 5 are to be served consecutively to each other and to the sentence for Charge 3.  Hence the total sentence for D2 is 28 months or 2 years 4 months’ imprisonment.

(D2, please take a seat)

93.  In the case of D3, the Detention Centre/Training Centre Suitability Report recommends a period of detention in the Detention Centre.  D3 is apparently under 21 years of age.  Despite the fact that he has been in remand custody for a number of months and that he has started to assist the authorities to have “Hung Chung” brought to justice, I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case and having regard to his character and previous conduct, it is in his interest and the public interest that he should undergo a period of detention in a Detention Centre.

(D3, please stand)

94.  I therefore make a Detention Centre order against D3 for each of Charges 6 and 7, to be served concurrently.