HKSAR v. RATTANAPORN SANJUMLA also known as SANJUMLA TATSANEE AND ANOTHER

DCCC 862/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 862 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendants have pleaded to the following charges:-

The 1st defendant has pleaded guilty to charge 1, using another person’s identity card. Charge 2, which both defendants plead to, conspiracy to defraud Aeon Credit Services. The 1st defendant has pleaded guilty to charge 3, breach of a condition of stay; she has overstayed in Hong Kong by about 5 months. And lastly, the 2nd defendant has pleaded to charge 4, breach of a deportation order dated 16 March 2009.

2.  The facts are that the 1st and 2nd defendant together conspired to defraud AEON.  They tried to get a loan of $30,000 using an identity card belonging to another and false documents.  On 14 July this year, both defendants went to the AEON Credit Services premises in Mongkok. They were served by a member of staff.  The 2nd defendant told that member of staff they had applied for a loan over the phone on 9 July.  The 1st defendant gave the staff member an identity card belonging to a Ms Tang Chi Chui.  Ms Tang is a Hong Kong resident.  The 2nd defendant gave this member of staff some documents that were required for such loans.  They included an employment contract, proof of employment, salary slips, a name card, proof of address and a credit card.  All these were in the name of Ms Tang. They were all false documents made for the purposes of defrauding AEON Credit Services. 

3.  That member of staff was suspicious of the 1st and 2nd defendant because the photograph on the identity card did not look like the 1st defendant.  She told them to leave the premises and come back later.  She then was able to contact this Ms Tang.  Ms Tang told her that she had lost her identity card some three years ago and did not apply for this loan.  She confirmed to AEON that those documents and the details in those documents were all false. 

4.  When the defendants returned later that day, the Police were waiting for them and they were arrested.  Under caution they both made full admissions to the Police.  They admitted the following:-

(1) The 1st defendant admitted she was only a tourist in Hong Kong and had overstayed her visa since 21 February. This is the basis of charge 3.

(2) The 2nd defendant admitted that she was not allowed to enter Hong Kong as a result of a Deportation Order dated March 2009. At home in Thailand she changed her name, must have got new travel documents and came back to Hong Kong. It is very hard for the Immigration Department to detect these offences. This is the basis of charge 4.

(3) The defendants also admitted to the Police that an unknown Thai woman had put them up to this fraud. She gave the 1st defendant Ms Tang’s identity card. The 1st defendant knew what they were to do, they were to try and borrow money from AEON with that card. The 2nd defendant admitted knowing that the documents she submitted were false and they were for the purpose of obtaining a $30,000 loan. The 1st and 2nd defendant would get 30 per cent of the loan which is $9,000 between them.

5.  Both defendants do not have a clear record.  The 1st defendant has one previous similar to charge 3.  In September 2015 she was sentenced to 2 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 3 years for breach of condition of stay.  She is in breach of that suspended sentence.

6.  The 2nd defendant has seven previous convictions obtained in four court appearances.  She has on three occasions breached her condition of stay.  The 2nd defendant also has a conviction for remaining in Hong Kong unlawfully.  The last conviction was in 2008 where she was sentenced for a total of 19 months’ imprisonment for several immigration related offences as well as using and possessing a false instrument.  It was after these convictions that a Deportation Order was served. 

7.  Both defendants’ best mitigation today is their pleas of guilty.  I have heard all that can be said on their behalf in mitigation. 

8.  The 1st defendant is 32 years old, divorced, with two young children.  She works as a kindergarten teacher earning HK$1,500 a month.  She needs to support her grandparents who she lives with as well as the children who live with her ex-husband.  The 1st defendant said she came to Hong Kong as a tourist and met some bad people who convinced her to commit this offence.  It is more likely that she came here because she had financial difficulties and was hoping to make money in Hong Kong.  She would be an easy target for those who are looking for foot soldiers, as they have been described, to commit such offences.

9.  The 2nd defendant is 47 years old, single and a farmer in Thailand.  In Thailand she lives with her mother and her grandmother who both are advancing in years with their own health issues.  Her mother has incurred debts through medical bills and the 2nd defendant decided to come back to Hong Kong despite the Deportation Order to hopefully find work. 

10.  This fraud was not a sophisticated fraud.  They were not likely to succeed, the photograph on the identity card did not even look like the 1st defendant.  I accept that there is no evidence that either defendant were masterminds.  Luckily no loan was made and nor did AEON suffer any loss.  I also take into account this was one attempt rather than a series of fraud charges.  However, it is serious that the 1st defendant committed this offence whilst overstaying in Hong Kong and the 2nd defendant committed the offence whilst here illegally. 

11.  Defendants, please stand up.  Having considered all those factors I have just referred to as well as the mitigation and background of both defendants, I find the following starting points appropriate:-

(1) For charge 1 for the 1st defendant, I find 15 months’ starting point appropriate.

(2) For charge 2 which concerns the 1st and the 2nd defendant, I find a 24 month starting point appropriate.

(3) For charge 3 which concerns the 1st defendant, I find a 6 months’ starting point appropriate.

(4) For charge 4 which concerns the 2nd defendant, I find a 24 month starting point appropriate.

12.  Both defendants pleaded, they are entitled to a discount of one-third from those starting points.  After that discount is applied, the defendants are sentenced as follows:-

(1) The 1st defendant, charge 1, 10 months’ imprisonment.

(2) The 1st defendant, charge 2, 16 months’ imprisonment.

(3) The 1st defendant, charge 3, 4 months’ imprisonment.

(4) The 2nd defendant, charge 2, 16 months’ imprisonment.

(5) 2nd defendant, charge 4, also 16 months’ imprisonment.

13.  I have considered the totality principle.  I have also taken into account the 1st and 2nd charges were committed at the same time in the same situation or transaction.  I also take into account that although it is a serious offence it is the 2nd defendant’s first time she has breached her Deportation Order.  I make the following orders:-

14.  For the 1st defendant, charges 1 and 2 will be served concurrently, that is 16 months.  I then order one month of charge 3 be served consecutively to charge 2.  That is a total of 17 months.  I activate the 2 week sentence of ST3015/2015 and make it consecutive to today’s sentence.  Therefore the 1st defendant’s total sentence is one of 17 months and 2 weeks.

15.  The 2nd defendant, I order 10 months of charge 4 to be served consecutively to charge 2 and the balance concurrently.  Therefore the overall sentence for the 2nd defendant is one of 26 months.