HKSAR v. LI TSZ CHUNG

DCCC620 & 611/2011(Heard Together)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 620 & 611 OF 2011 (Heard Together)

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a total of five charges arising from two separate investigations, and thus listed with separate case numbers, DCCC611/2011 and DCCC620 of 2011. These five charges cover a range of criminal activity over a period from 1 January 2010 to 18 February 2011. Let me turn first to those charges in file no. 611 of 2011.

2.  The 1st charge is fraud that took place between January and March 2010.  This was a fraud carried out on one Miss Lee, a woman whom the defendant had befriended when he had taught a class at the YMCA.  Miss Lee was a student in his class.  Miss Lee was worried about her daughter and wanted her daughter to change schools.  She told the defendant about this, and the defendant later gave Miss Lee a letter that purported to come from the school of Miss Lee’s choice.  That letter contained an offer of a place for her daughter. The defendant told Miss Lee that an admission fee was required, $25,000.  The victim, Miss Lee, paid the money. 

3.  Within a week or so you, defendant, were back for more, claiming that the initial $25,000 was insufficient.  Thus, over the next six weeks or so, Miss Lee, the victim, paid over another $17,700.  This was a sum of money which came not only from the victim but also from her sister who was financially helping the victim.  Miss Lee, the victim, was a recipient of comprehensive social security assistance or “CSSA”, and she had been a recipient since 2002.  I am told that because of what the victim believed was a successful application for a new school on behalf of her daughter she did not pursue other applications for other schools.  There has been no restitution and there has been no offer of any.  Those are the facts in respect of Charge 1.

4.  Charges 2 and 3 can be dealt with together.  Both charges are that of using a false instrument.  Both charges took place in May and June of 2010.  They both involved the same victim, Miss Lee, who was also the victim of Charge 1. 

5.  The facts are as follows.  As a result of your conversations with the victim, Miss Lee, you, defendant, had been told that Miss Lee had personal savings of a $190,000.  You had also been told that this money was kept for her by her elder sister.  You also knew that Miss Lee was a CSSA recipient.  In May 2010 you, defendant, wrote a letter to the victim, Miss Lee.  The letter purported to be from the International Social Service, Hong Kong Branch, and it asked her for information about her CSSA receipts. 

6.  The next month, June 2010, you followed up with another letter to Miss Lee, this time purportedly from the Financial Investigation Unit of the Social Welfare Department.  This letter stated that the victim had failed to disclose financial information to the Social Welfare Department when she had applied for CSSA between 2002 and 2007.  The letter also stated that an investigation had been started. 

7.  Having written these letters of course you knew about them and you followed up with an offer to help Miss Lee with her Social Welfare Department problems.  You offered to help her; of course for a fee. The fee that you asked for was $60,000.  Fortunately this time Miss Lee did not pay.  She contacted her Social Welfare officer or her social worker and the matter came to light.  Those are the facts in respect of Charges 2 and 3. 

8.  Charge 4 is another fraud.  This one took place between September and November 2010.  This fraud was on a separate victim, one Mr Chan.  Mr Chan was admitted to hospital in August of 2010, and he was there until the end of September 2010.  While he was at the Tsuen Mun Hospital he met you, defendant, and he got to know you.  You claimed that you were a social worker.  I am told that you, defendant, informed Mr Chan that you could help him claim an allowance from the government for his surgical operation and that you could arrange a discounted medical or body check for him. 

9.  Suffice to say that over the next few months, at your, defendant, request, suggestion or urging Mr Chan gave you a total of $6,425, and he gave you this money as a result of promises that you had made about medicals or body checks and/or about medical insurance.  No such medicals or body checks or medical insurance was ever arranged for Mr Chan or purchased on his behalf by you.  There has been no restitution or offer of any.  Those are the facts in respect of Charge 4.

10.  The next charge is under the other file number 620 of 2011.  It is a charge of making counterfeit currency.  The facts are these. You, defendant, used your domestic colour inkjet photocopier to copy banknotes.  You then used two $500 notes to purchase takeaway food.  Both requests for food were in February of 2011.  On each of these two separate occasions you telephoned the restaurant and you asked the restaurant to prepare change for a $500 note because that was how you were going to pay when the food was delivered.  I note that you called two separate restaurants, and I am entitled and I do consider that this was an element of forethought or the application of intelligence to this particular criminal activity. 

11.  I have looked at both of the two $500 notes charged. One of them is of poor or very poor quality.  The other note is of considerably better quality.  Once the note or the notes had been handed over and the change given on each occasion the counterfeit note was subsequently spotted by the cashier in each of the two restaurants.  The source of the bank notes was traced to you, defendant, through the mobile telephone number that had been used to order the food.  I note that by the time of your arrest you had disposed of the SIM card with the mobile telephone number that had been traced to you.  No restitution to either restaurant has been paid or has been offered. 

Mitigation

12.  There is really no mitigation to speak of.  I was told very briefly, defendant, about how your family had emigrated overseas in 1996 and how you had then returned to Hong Kong because you were unable to adapt to life overseas.  I was told you are a registered electrical worker, that you were unemployed at the time of your arrest, that you have a 9-year-old son of whom your ex-wife has custody and whom you see at weekends.  You have pleaded guilty to all of these offences.  That is the very best, and indeed essentially the only thing that can be said in your favour.

Your record

13.  You have a criminal record that can only be described as truly appalling.  You are 31 years old and you already have 28 previous convictions.  These 28 convictions are spread over 15 separate court appearances, 10 previous for theft, 10 previous for obtaining by deception, one previous for attempted obtaining by deception.  You were last released from prison on 10 October 2008, and this series of offences started on 1 January 2010.  I suppose it could be said on your behalf - it was not but it could be - that you are trying to go straight or stay out of trouble for just over a year. 

14.  Let me make some general remarks before I pass sentence on you.  The frauds that you carried out on Miss Lee and Mr Chan were despicable.  Miss Lee was trying to do the best for her daughter.  You knew that and you preyed on it.  You were not satisfied with your first $25,000 and you came back for more.  Then, having got more, you added insult to injury and you raised the specter of an investigation into Miss Lee’s social welfare payments.  You knew all along that Miss Lee was poor.  You knew it and you were trying to take as much of what little she had. 

15.  Mr Chan, the other victim, he was in hospital, and while he was there, in delicate health, you pretended to be there to help him and you pretended to be a Social Welfare officer.

16.  Cases such as this, activity such as yours undermine part of the fabric of our society whereby genuinely well-meaning individuals motivated by nothing more than a desire to assist their fellow citizens visit hospitals and offer genuine help, advice and assistance.  Cases such as this make the job of Social Welfare officers, and just as importantly the job of volunteers who genuinely want to help, that much harder.  And it makes their job harder because people justifiably, given cases like this, become more suspicious of the motives of those who claim to be helping them. 

17.  All of these offences indicate a degree of planning and sophistication, the application of a good degree of intelligence.  I have already noted your record and I note that quite clearly prison or the thought of prison has absolutely no bearing on your behaviour.  It seems to me that prison or the thought of prison has no deterrent effect in respect of you whatsoever.  I am well aware that no person should be punished twice for the same offence, but equally I can and I do take account of your previous records. 

18.  Let me turn now to the sentences. 

Charge 1

19.  I take a starting point of 3½ years.  I add 6 months to take account of your previous record. That is a total of 4 years.  I reduce that by one-third to take account of your plea of guilty, and thus arrive at 32 months. 

Charges 2 and 3

20.  Charge 2 and 3 I pass the same sentence on each.  I take a starting point of 2½ years for Charge 2, 2½ years for Charge 3.  I add 3 months to take account of your record.  That is a total of 33 months for each charge.  I reduce that by one-third, thus arriving at 22 months for Charge 2 and 22 months for Charge 3. 

Charge 4

21.  Charge 4, that is the fraud on Mr Chan, I take a starting point of 3 years.  Again I add 3 months to take account of your previous record.  That is 39 months, which I reduce by one-third, and therefore arrive at 26 months for Charge 4. 

22.  Turning to the file 620, making counterfeit currency charge, I take a starting point of 2½ years.  Again I add 3 months for your record - that is 33 months - which I reduce by one-third, thus arriving at 22 months. 

23.  Now I turn to the issue of totality and whether these sentences should be concurrent and/or consecutive.  I am also aware that in respect of each one of these charges I have added a period to take account of your record, and of course I must avoid double counting your previous criminal record.  As I have already said, the total sentence in respect of Charge 1, after the reduction for your plea of guilty, is 32 months. 

24.  In respect of Charge 2, I order that 3 months of the sentence I impose in Charge 2 is to be consecutive to the sentence in Charge 1.  The remainder will be concurrent to the sentences that I impose in Charge 1, 3 and 4, and the sentence I impose for the counterfeit currency charge. 

Charge 3

25.  I order that 3 months of the sentence that I impose in Charge 3 be consecutive to the sentences in Charge 1, 2, 4 and for counterfeit currency charge.  The remainder, of course, is concurrent. 

Charge 4

26.  I order that 12 months of the sentence in Charge 4 be consecutive to Charges 1, 2, 3 and the counterfeit currency charge. 

27.  Turning to the counterfeit currency charge in DCCC620, of the 22 months that I have sentenced you for in respect of that charge, I order that 8 months be consecutive to the Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 in DCCC611.  Let me recap the maths for you so that you know what your total sentence is.  So Charge 1, 32 months; Charge 2, 3 months consecutive; Charge 3, another 3 months consecutive; Charge 4, another 12 months consecutive; and the counterfeit currency charge another 8 months consecutive.

28.  That is a total sentence of 58 months or 4 years and 10 months for this period of criminal activity from 1 January 2010 to 18 February 2011.  So you have to go to prison for a period of 58 months.