HKSAR v. VU TRONG HUE

DCCC 1005/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1005 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of ‘possession of forged identity card’ contrary to section 7A(1) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap.177. Particulars of the charge are that the defendant on 3^rd September 2012 at a room in a hotel in Mongkok had in his possession 12 forged Hong Kong identity cards.

Summary of facts

2.  The defendant is a Vietnamese person who came to Hong Kong on 1^st September 2012 on a tourist package.

3.  At around 9:30pm on 3^rd September 2012, Police executed a search warrant and raided room 610 of Stanford Hotel in Mongkok.

4.  The defendant and another Vietnamese person were found inside the room. With the assistance of the tour guide and the defendant’s consent, Police searched the defendant’s personal belongings.

5.  From the defendant’s bag, 12 Hong Kong identity cards in the names of 12 different females were found in the pocket of a shirt. The defendant was then arrested for the offence of possession of forged identity cards.

6.  In subsequent cautioned interviews, the defendant claimed that he was asked by his friend “Ah Tung” in Vietnam to bring the 12 cards to Hong Kong and the defendant would be paid HK$60,000 as reward.

7.  The defendant further claimed that the 12 cards were given to him on 31^st August 2012, that Ah Tung told the defendant the 12 cards were identity cards and to them to bring them to Hong Kong for Ah Tung’s friend who will sell them to other Vietnamese friends for job-seeking purpose.

8.  Ah Tung told the defendant to wear the clothes and shoes given to him and to wander around outside the hotel on the morning of 4^th September 2012. Someone will approach the defendant for the identity cards and that person has 6 fingers on his left hand. They would confirm their identity by shaking hands. Ah Tung told the defendant that the cards will be sold for $300,000 and that the defendant would get $60,000. The defendant claimed that he did not know the identity cards were forged, nor the purpose for bringing them to Hong Kong.

9.  All 12 identity cards were later confirmed to be forged identity cards by Government Chemist.

Previous convictions

10.  The defendant has a clear record in Hong Kong.

Mitigation

11.  The defendant was born in Vietnam and is 51 years old. He received education up to secondary 2 level in Vietnam. He is married and had worked as a barber in Vietnam over 15 years ago.

12.  The defendant has clear record in Hong Kong and he has pleaded guilty. He entered Hong Kong legally arriving on 1^st September with a visa valid for 4 days, he was due to leave Hong Kong on 4^th September. There was no intention to use the cards for gaining employment in Hong Kong. Insofar as his reward for bringing the cards, he did not actually receive the money. He holds a return ticket back to Vietnam.

Sentence

13.  The maximum sentence under s.7A(1) is that of fine at level 6 and imprisonment for 10 years.

14.  Both Mr. Fung for the defendant and Ms. Ma for the prosecution confirmed that the applicable sentencing case for possession of forged identity card is that of HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2004–2005] HKCLRT 193. There the Court of Appeal laid down the guideline of 12 months’ imprisonment after plea for the simple possession of one forged identity card. If the forged identity card had been used to obtain employment or to conceal the person’s identity or to further the person’s stay in Hong Kong, the sentence should be increased to that of 15 months’ imprisonment after plea.

15.  The defendant in our present case was in simple possession of the identity cards. The difficulty in applying the case of Li Chang Li to ours lies in the quantity of cards involved. I find that this court must take into consideration any aggravating factors in the case and then in a way apply the principle of totality to arrive at the correct sentence.

16.  There is an international element in the present case in that the defendant was given the 12 forged identity cards by someone in Vietnam and had brought them into Hong Kong with the specific intention to pass them on to someone who will be selling the cards for other Vietnamese to use for job seeking purpose in Hong Kong. The defendant was in Hong Kong for no other purpose. This is an aggravating factor.

17.  I find that there are no mitigating factors other than the fact that the defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge.

18.  I find that for someone to act as a courier to bring in forged identity cards into Hong Kong so that they can be sold to those who will be using them to obtain employment in Hong Kong a serious matter. This kind of conduct must be deterred. I find that, given the amount of forged identity cards involved and the defendant’s role as an international courier acting for a substantial reward, an appropriate starting point for such a situation is that of 3 years’ imprisonment.

19.  I grant the defendant the full one third discount for his guilty plea and sentence him to 24 months’ imprisonment.