HKSAR v. CHAN CHI HENG AND ANOTHER

DCCC 465 & 759/2016 (Consolidated)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NOS 465 AND 759 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  There are two defendants before me: the 1^st defendant, Chan Chi Heng, and the 2^nd defendant, Li Pui Ka.

2.  D1 faces 18 charges, ie six charges of conspiracy to defraud (Charges 1 to 6), one charge of possession of false instruments (Charge 7), four charges of fraud (Charges 8 to 11), four charges of attempted fraud (Charges 12 to 15), one charge of possession of forged identity cards (Charge 16), one charge of possession of an identity card relating to another person (Charge 17) and one charge of possession of dangerous drugs (Charge 18). 

3.  D1 pleaded guilty to Charges 2 to 4, 6 to 10, 12 to 14 and 16 to 17 and admitted the facts pertaining to those charges.  He pleaded not guilty to the remaining charges.

4.  D2 faces 12 charges, ie six charges of conspiracy to defraud (Charges 1 to 6, jointly charged with D1), one charge of possession of false instruments (Charge 7, jointly charged with D1), one charge of fraud (Charge 10, jointly charged with D1), one charge of attempted fraud (Charge 14, jointly charged with D1), one charge of possession of forged identity cards (Charge 16, jointly charged with D1), one charge of possession of an identity card relating to another person (Charge 17, jointly charged with D1), and one charge of possession of dangerous drugs (Charge 18, jointly charged with D1). 

5.  D2 pleaded guilty to Charges 3 to 7, 10 and 14 and admitted the facts pertaining to those charges.  She pleaded not guilty to the remaining charges.

6.  I convicted D1 of Charges 2 to 4, 6 to 10, 12 to 14 and 16 to 17 and D2 of Charges 3 to 7, 10 and 14. 

7.  For the charges that D1 and D2 had pleaded not guilty, upon the request of the prosecution, I ordered that those charges be put on the court’s file. 

8.  I shall adopt largely the re-amended Summary of Facts dated 20 February 2017 prepared by Miss Claudia Ng, senior public prosecutor.

Taking over of Chen’s credit card account

9.  On 12 February 2015, a male, representing himself to be Mr Chen Lan (“Chen”) contacted Hang Seng Bank Limited (“HSB”) via telephone and reported loss of his credit card.  Having verified Chen’s personal particulars over the phone, the issuance of a new card was approved.  The male requested to pick up the replacement card direct at DHL centre.  HSB agreed.

10.  At about 3 pm on 16 February 2015, D1 and an unknown female arrived at the DHL centre in Kwun Tong.  Having verified an identity card purported to contain Chen’s particulars as presented by D1, the staff gave the letter containing Chen’s replacement card to D1.  The incident was captured by CCTV. 

The 12^th charge: attempted fraud

11.  At about 9:20 pm on the same day, D1 and two unknown males attempted to purchase goods at Broadway, APM shopping mall, Kwun Tong, amounted to $317,746 with Chen’s card but the transaction was declined.  Case was reported by the staff thereat as it was suspected that Chen’s card was forged.  The trio suddenly abandoned Chen’s card at the shop and left.  The attempted purchase was captured by CCTV.

Submission of two sets of credit card applications

12.  At about 8:20 pm on 20 April 2015, D2 left Bayview, To Kwa Wan and went to a newspaper stall situated on Mei King Street, To Kwa Wan.  She handed over two sets of documents to stall owner Mrs Lau, requested to fax them to two different numbers and told Mrs Lau that she would return later.  D2 then returned to Bayview.  As she was about to enter Flat D, 19^th Floor, Bayview (“the premises”), she was intercepted by the police.

13.  Meanwhile, the police seized the two sets of documents from the newspaper stall.  They were two filled credit card application forms, one of Wing Lung Bank Limited (“WLB”), the other of Citibank (Hong Kong) Limited (“Citibank), in the name of Cheung Wai Ling (“Cheung”), each attached with an identity card copy and a HSB bank statement, both in the name of Cheung Wai Ling.  Upon police arrival, the Citibank set of documents were successfully faxed while the WLB set of documents were still in the faxing process.

Premises search

14.  At the material time, D1 and D2 resided at the premises together.  Upon police entry of the premises, D1 and two other males were present.  Laid on the dining table in the living room, table and window sill of the master bedroom and table and window sill of the other bedroom were false bank statements, papers containing around 90 copies of identity cards, credit card application forms, 89 papers and lists containing personal particulars of around 2,400 persons, 6 identity cards, 5 credit cards, none of which was in the name of D1 or D2, either spread out or kept in plastic folders with labels of different names, 11 mobile phones (some stuck with stickers with names), 2 plastic bottles, 2 plastic bags and a $10 banknote containing suspected dangerous drugs.  Also found in the premises were 2 computers, 2 USB drives, 2 shredders and a printer.

15.  10 complete credit card applications under the name of nine different applicants involving five banks can be identified amongst the items and documents seized from the premises.

The 2^nd charge: conspiracy to defraud

16.  Involving HSB were credit card applicants named Mr Chan Chee Kong (“Chan”), Mr Fung Wa Tim (“Fung”) and Mr Chan Kwan Wai Victor (“Chan V”). For Chan, seized from the premises include Chan’s credit card issued by the bank and a printed list of people’s personal particulars containing that of Chan’s.  For Chan V, seized from the premises include Chan V’s credit card issued by the bank, an identity card copy purported to belong to Chan V which bore false particulars and a notebook containing people’s personal particulars which includes that of Chan V’s.  

17.  HSB confirmed that applications of Chan, Fung and Chan V’s credit cards were received, approved and with credit cards issued between 11 January 2015 and 12 March 2015.  HSB retained the identity card copies purported to belong to Chan and Fung which bore false particulars, Citibank bank statements in the name of Chan and Fung and HongKong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (“HSBC”) bank statement in the name of Chan V, all submitted to and retained by them for the purpose of the credit card applications.  Citibank and HSBC confirmed the bank statements were false.

Conspiracy to defraud: the 3^rd Charge

18.  Involving Citibank were credit card applicants named Mr Chan Chi Wah (“Chan CW”) and Cheung.  For Chan CW, seized from the premises include Chan CW’s credit card issued by the bank, an identity card copy purported to belong to Chan CW which bore false particulars, one page of Citibank credit card application form, a set of HSBC bank statement in the name of Chan CW, two pages containing Chan CW’s personal particulars and a notebook containing people’s personal particulars which includes that of Chan CW’s.  For Cheung, seized from the premises include two identity card copies purported to belong to Cheung which bore false particulars, three papers containing Cheung’s personal particulars and a telephone SIM card labelled with Cheung’s full name, the phone number of which was the same as that filled on the application form seized by the police from the newspaper stall.

19.  Citibank confirmed that applications of Chan CW and Cheung’s credit cards were received, and Chan CW’s application was approved with credit cards issued between 24 March 2015 and 15 April 2015.  Citibank retained the same application form, identity card copy purported to belong to Chan CW and HSBC statement in Chan CW’s name as those seized from the premises, all submitted to and retained by them for the purpose of the credit card application.  Citibank also confirmed receipt of Cheung’s application with the attached documents.  HSBC confirmed that the bank statement of Chan CW’s name was false.

Conspiracy to defraud: the 4^th Charge

20.  Involving Fubon Bank (Hong Kong) Limited (“Fubon”) were credit card applicants named Mrs Cheung Shuk Kwan (“Cheung SK”) and Mr Chung Chi Bun Alan (“Chung”).  For Cheung SK, seized from the premises include Cheung SK’s credit card issued by the bank, an identity card copy purported to belong to Cheung SK which bore false particulars, two pages of Fubon credit card application form, a set of Citibank statement in the name of Cheung SK, some papers containing Cheung SK’s personal particulars, a notebook containing people’s personal particulars which includes that of Cheung SK’s and a telephone SIM card labelled with Cheung SK’s full name, the phone number of which was the same as that filled on the application form seized.  For Chung, seized from the premises include a set of Fubon credit card application form, an identity card copy purported to belong to Chung which bore false particulars, a set of HSB bank statement in the name of Chung, some papers containing Chung’s personal particulars, a notebook containing people’s personal particulars which includes that of Chung’s and a mobile phone with SIM card labelled with Chung’s full name, the phone number of which was the same as that filed on the application form seized. 

21.  Fubon confirmed that applications of Cheung SK and Chung’s credit cards were received, with Cheung SK’s application approved and credit card issued, and Chung’s application declined between 20 March 2015 and 4 May 2015. Fubon retained the same application form, identity card copy purported to belong to Cheung SK and Chung and Citibank bank statement in Cheung SK’s name and HSB bank statement in Chung’s name as those seized from the premises, all submitted to and retained by them for the purpose of the credit card applications.  Citibank and HSB confirmed that the bank statements were false.

Conspiracy to defraud: the 5^th Charge

22.  Involving Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) Limited (“Bank of Communications”) was credit card applicant named Mrs Tsoi Ying Ying Ida (“Tsoi”).  Seized from the premises include one page of Bank of Communications credit card application form, a paper containing Tsoi’s personal particulars and a notebook containing people’s personal particulars which includes that of Tsoi’s.

23.  Bank of Communications confirmed that application of Tsoi’s credit card was received and declined between 31 March 2015 and 9 April 2015.  Bank of Communications retained the application form, one page of which was the same as that seized from the premises, submitted to and retained by them for the purpose of the credit card application. 

Conspiracy to defraud: the 6^th Charge

24.  Involving WLB were credit card applicants named Mr Chung Wai Kei (“Chung WK”) and Cheung.  For Chung WK, seized from the premises include a set of WLB credit card application form, an identity card copy purported to belong to Chung WK which bore false particulars, a set of HSB bank statement in the name of Chung WK, some papers containing Chung WK’s personal particulars, a notebook containing people’s personal particulars which includes that of Chung WK’s and a mobile phone with SIM card labelled with Chung WK’s full name, the phone number of which was the same as that filled on the application form seized.  For Cheung, seized from the premises include two identity card copies purported to belong to Cheung which bore false particulars, three papers containing Cheung’s personal particulars and a telephone SIM card labelled with Cheung’s full name, the phone number of which was the same as that filled on the application form seized by the police from the newspaper stall.

25.  WLB confirmed that application of Chung WK’s credit card was received and declined between 16 April 2015 and 20 April 2015. Wing Lung Bank retained the same set of application form, identity card copy purported to belong to Chung WK and HSB bank statement in Chung WK’s name as those seized from the premises, all submitted to and retained by them for the purpose of the credit card applications.  HSB confirmed the bank statement in Chung WK’s name was false.

Possession of false instruments: the 7^th Charge

26.  Also seized from the premises were four sets of credit card application forms attached with required supporting documents in the name of Tsoi, Mrs Mak Choi Kuen (“Mak”), Mr Leung Yuk Hung Paul (“Leung”) and Mr Shum Tak Lai Donald (“Shum”).  Amongst the supporting documents were two pages of Citibank bank statements in the name of Mak, two pages of HSB bank statements in the name of Leung and a set of HSBC bank statements in the name of Shum.

27.  Citibank, HSB and HSBC confirmed that the bank statements in Mak, Leung and Shum’s names respectively were false.

Information and documents extracted from the computers and USB drives

28.  All information and documents stored in the two computers and the two USB drives seized from the premises could be accessed without any password. Upon analysis, retrieved from these devices included identity card copies bearing false particulars in the names of Chan V, Chan CW, Cheung SK, Tsoi, Chung WK, Chung, Leung and Cheung, some of them matched with the version submitted and retained by the respective banks for the purpose of credit card applications; bank statements in the names of Chan, Fung, Chan V, Tsoi and Mak submitted for the purpose of credit card applications, all confirmed by the respective banks to be false; and documents containing personal particulars of Chan V, Chan CW, Cheung SK and Tsoi. 

Fraud: the 8^th Charge

29.  The credit card issued by HSB in the name of Chan as a result of the application in relation to the 3^rd Charge was used between 22 January 2015 and 5 February 2015.  D1 had used the credit card in question to make a total of 17 purchase transactions which amounted to a total sum of HK$249,994.20.  CCTV captured D1 making some of the purchase transactions.

Charge 9: fraud and Charge 13: attempted fraud

30.  The credit card issued by HSB in the name of Fung in relation to Charge 2 was used by the D1 between 28 March 2015 and 5 April 2015. During the said period, D1 had used the credit card in question to make a total of 23 purchase transactions which amounted to a total of HK$350,961.32.  D1 had attempted to use the same credit card to make nine purchase transactions which amounted to a total sum of HK$90,844.53, but they were declined.  CCTV captured D1 making some of the purchase transactions.

Charge 10: fraud and Charge 14: attempted fraud

31.  The credit card issued by HSB in the name of Chan V in relation to Charge 2 had been used between 17 March 2015 and 9 April 2015 by D1 and D2.  During the said period, D1 and D2 had used the credit card in question to make a total of 51 purchase transactions which amounted to a total sum of HK$549,667.97.  D1 and D2 had attempted to use the same credit card to make three purchase transactions which amounted to a total sum of HK$15,338, but they were declined.  CCTV captured D1 and D2, either alone or together, making some of the purchase transactions.

Possession of forged identity cards: the 16^th Charge

32.  For five out of the six identity cards seized from the premises, namely, three identity cards in the name of Lee Ki Kam, one in the name of Leung and one in the name of Chen Man Cheung were forged.

Possession of an identity card relating to another person: the 17^th Charge

33.  For the remaining identity card seized from the premises, namely, the identity card in the name of Moe Mie Tjoen (“Moe”), Moe confirmed that she had reported loss of it in February 2015 and she did not know D1 or D2.

Fingerprint examination

34.  Upon fingerprint examination of documents and items seized from the premises, D1’s fingerprints were found on four folders containing documents in relation to Chung WK, Chung, Mak, Shum and Cheung; on a page of HSBC bank statement, an identity card copy which bore false particulars and a paper containing personal particulars, all in the name of Chan CW; on a page of HSBC bank statement in the name of Chen and inside the notebook which contained personal particulars of Chan V, Chan CW, Cheung SK, Tsoi, Chung WK, Chung, Mak and Leung as mentioned above.

35.  Upon fingerprint examination of the same documents and items, the 2^nd defendant’s fingerprints were found on one of the pages kept inside a folder which contained documents and personal particulars of Mak, Shum and Cheung; and inside the notebook which contained personal particulars of Chan V, Chan CW, Cheung SK, Tsoi, Chung WK, Chung, Mak and Leung as mentioned above.

Arrests

36.  After the premises search, D1 and D2 were arrested for conspiracy to defraud.  Under caution, D1 said he understood and D2 said she had nothing to say.

Background information and criminal record

37.  D1 is now 42 years old, locally born.  He had been convicted of six criminal offences in two cases between August 2008 and May 2016.  It should be noted that D1 committed the two offences of using a forged Hong Kong identity card - that is the last two items of his criminal record - after the present case.  He owned a computer and printing business in Hong Kong.  He is addicted to “Ice”.

38.  D2 is aged 38, locally born.  She has received Form 2 education in Hong Kong. She has a clear record.  D2 is married.  She was D1’s girlfriend when the offences took place.  She had worked as a waitress in Hong Kong but was jobless when she was arrested by the police.

Mitigation

39.  I am grateful to Mr Ng for D1 and Mr Tse for D2 for their detailed written mitigation and authorities submitted.  Mr Tse submitted three mitigation letters written by D2, D2’s grandmother and Pastor Reverend Ching of Christian Pastoral Association Limited.

Discussions

40.  Both defendants pleaded guilty.  They are entitled to one-third reduction for their guilty pleas.  Mr Ng told me in mitigation that D1 was under financial pressure at the time as he had to provide financial support for his father’s cancer treatment drugs.  He used to work two jobs.  He lost his daytime job.  He was persuaded by a familiar customer at the restaurant where he worked at night to try applying for credit cards with false documentation. Mr Ng submitted D1 fell for it for the easy money and is now remorseful.

41.  The financial pressure and family difficulties of the kind that Mr Ng told me cannot be accepted as a mitigating factor.  D1 had no excuse to commit the offences in question.  The only mitigating factor in his favour is his guilty pleas. 

42.  Mr Tse told me in mitigation that D2 was not the prime mover of the offences.  She committed the offences under the influence of D1, her boyfriend.  She is remorseful for what she did, and she promises to be a law-abiding citizen in the future. 

43.  The facts show that D2’s role in the operation was less important than that of D1.  Hence, her criminality was less serious.  The facts show that D2 played an active role.  As for D1, the facts show that he played a key role in the operation. 

44.  D2 is entitled to one-third reduction for her clear record and guilty pleas.

45.  The Court of Appeal in R v Chan Sui To & Another [1996] 2 HKCLR 128 identified various factors that a sentencing judge should consider in ascertaining the sentence for credit card frauds:-

(a) the size of the operation, for example, whether it involved large sums of money, whether it concerned a large number of persons or forged credit cards;

(b) the planning that had gone into perpetrating the fraud, whether it was elaborate or simple, whether technical skills were used and to what extent;

(c) whether there was an international dimension;

(d) whether the accused played a major role, for example, running a syndicate, engaging in actual manufacture, organising the use of forged cards or whether he was a “mere cog in the wheel” as a courier or a custodian or keeper; and

(e) whether there was a plea of guilty.

These factors are not meant to be exhaustive.

46.  The Court of Appeal further said at page 134 of the judgment:-

“Allowing for the different facts and the varying degrees of culpability, it is impossible to formulate a set of principle of sentencing from those decisions. We think however it would be helpful to the courts if they were guided by some criterion. We would therefore suggest that an accused who plays an active but not necessarily a key role in a medium-size operation involving between $50,000 and $150,000 with no elaborate planning and equipment, and without an international dimension, should receive a sentence of 5 to 6 years after trial. Sentences may be adjusted upwards or downwards according to circumstances. The sum of money involved is of course only one of the factors to be taken into account. It is not even the most significant factor.”

47.  In HKSAR v Mak Chun Kong CACC 446 of 2013, the Court of Appeal considered a sentence of 5 and a half years imposed after trial on the applicant for a charge of conspiracy to defraud which involved a conspiracy reached by the applicant and others to apply for credit cards from two banks using false information.  After they had obtained the credit cards, they then used the cards to obtain cash advances and to pay for goods and services.  The total losses amounted to HK$527,457.26.  The Court of Appeal discussed the principles applicable to conspiracy to defraud of this nature at paragraph 61 of the judgment:-

“… In sentencing the offender for his criminal conduct, a court always looks to the consequences of that criminal conduct. Here, the criminal conduct was the forming of a conspiratorial agreement to defraud two banks by dishonestly causing them to issue credit cards so that they could be used to fraudulently obtain goods. The applicant and Tam formed that agreement and then they committed a number of acts pursuant to it. But the offence of conspiracy is not concerned with the execution or carrying-out of the agreement, but rather with its formation. But when it comes to sentencing an offender for being a party to that unlawful agreement, all that was done pursuant to that unlawful agreement and the harmful consequences to any victims from that which was done will of course be relevant to that offender’s culpability. So long as the act is pursuant to the previously formed agreement, then it becomes part of the culpable conduct of the conspirators for which they should be sentenced. …”

48.  The facts show that 10 complete credit card applications under the name of nine different applicants involving five banks can be identified amongst the items and documents seized from the premises.  Large sums of money were involved in terms of the amount of purchase transactions successfully made and in terms of the failed purchase transactions. 

49.  For Charge 12, D1 attempted to make purchase with the credit card he had collected with two unknown males.  D1 and D2 committed Charges 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 14 jointly.  D1 had successfully purchased goods or attempted to purchase goods with four cards.  D2 had successfully purchased goods or attempted to purchase goods with one card.  D1 committed the offences between January and April 2015.  D2 committed the offences in April and May 2015.  On the facts admitted by the defendants, the potential for creating large-scale losses to the banks and credit card companies can only be described as enormous. 

50.  Different mobile telephones and telephone numbers were used in perpetrating the fraud.  Information of the applicants involved, for example, identity card copies bearing false particulars and documents used in the credit card applications, for example, false bank statements were stored in the computers and USB drives seized from the premises.  The planning that had gone into was elaborate. 

51.  D1 played a key role in what I see as a medium-size operation.  D1 was involved in the application of the credit cards with false instruments and the use of the credit cards.  D2’s role was active, though not as important as D1. She was also involved in the application of the credit cards with false instruments and the use of one credit card.

52.  Both defendants pleaded guilty to the offences they now stand convicted of.

Sentences

Charge 2: conspiracy to defraud (D1)

53.  Charge 2 concerned three credit card applications made to HSB involving three applicants.

54.  False copies of identity cards and bank statements of the applicants were used.  All three applications were received and approved by HSB with credit cards issued.

55.  I adopt a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment.  D1 is given one-third reduction for his guilty plea.  I sentence D1 to 32 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 3: conspiracy to defraud (D1 and D2)

56.  Charge 3 concerned two credit card applications made to Citibank involving two applicants. 

57.  False copies of identity cards and bank statements of the applicants were used.  A telephone SIM card labelled with an applicant’s name was seized from the premises.  The said telephone number was used in the application form seized by the police from the newspaper stall. 

58.  Both applications were received by the bank, and one of the applications was processed and approved with credit card issued.

59.  I adopt a starting point of 3 and a half years’ imprisonment, ie 42 months in the case of D1 and a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, ie 36 months in the case of D2. 

60.  Each defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for their guilty plea. 

61.  D1 is sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment, and D2 is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

Charge 4: conspiracy to defraud (D1 and D2)

62.  Charge 4 concerned two credit card applications made to Fubon Bank involving two applicants. 

63.  False copies of identity cards and bank statements of the applicants were used.  In each application, a telephone number was provided.  The police found from the premises two mobile phones, each with a SIM card labelled with the name of the respective applicant.  The particulars of the applicants were found written on some papers and a notebook seized from the premises. 

64.  Both applications were received by the bank.  One of the applications was processed and approved with credit card issued.  The other application failed.

65.  I shall adopt a starting point of 3 and a half years’ imprisonment, ie 42 months in the case of D1 and a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, ie 36 months in the case of D2. 

66.  Each defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for the guilty plea. 

67.  D1 is sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment, and D2 is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

Charge 5: conspiracy to defraud (D2)

68.  Charge 5 concerned a credit card application to Bank of Communications involving one applicant.  The police seized from the premises one page of the credit card application form and a piece of paper and a notebook containing personal particulars of the applicant. 

69.  The application was received and declined by the bank.

70.  I shall adopt a starting point of 2 and a half years’ imprisonment, ie 30 months. 

71.  D2 is entitled to one-third reduction for the guilty plea. 

72.  I sentence D2 to 20 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 6: conspiracy to defraud (D1 and D2)

73.  Charge 6 concerned two credit card applications to WLB involving two applicants. 

74.  False copies of identity cards and bank statements of the applicants were used.  In each application, a telephone number was provided.  The police found from the premises two mobile phones, each with a SIM card labelled with the name of the respective applicant.  The particulars of the applicants were found written on some papers and/or a notebook seized from the premises. 

75.  One of the applications was received, processed but declined by the bank. 

76.  I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, ie 36 months in the case of D1 and a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment in the case of D2. 

77.  Each defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for the guilty plea. 

78.  D1 is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, and D2 is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 7: possession of false instruments (D1 and D2)

79.  Charge 7 concerned four sets of credit card application forms in the name of four applicants, all seized from the premises.  Amongst the supporting documents with three false bank statements of the three applicants.

80.  I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, ie 36 months in the case of D1 and a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment in the case of D2. 

81.  Each defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for the guilty plea. 

82.  D1 is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, and D2 is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 8: fraud (D1)

83.  Between 22 January 2015 and 5 February 2015, D1 had used the credit card in the name of Chan issued by HSB in relation to Charge 2 to make a total of 17 purchase transactions which amounted to a total sum of HK$249,994.20.

84.  I adopt a starting point of 3 and a half years’ imprisonment, ie 42 months. 

85.  D1 is given one-third reduction for his guilty plea. 

86.  I sentence D1 to 28 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 9: fraud (D1)

87.  Between 28 March 2015 and 5 April 2015, D1 had used the credit card in the name of Fung issued by HSB in relation to Charge 2 to make a total of 23 purchase transactions which amounted to a total sum of HK$350,961.32.

88.  I adopt a starting point of 3 and a half years’ imprisonment. 

89.  D1 is given one-third reduction for his guilty plea. 

90.  I sentence D1 to 28 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 10: fraud (D1 and D2)

91.  Between 17 March 2015 and 9 April 2015, D1 and D2 had used the credit card in the name of Chan V issued by HSB in relation to Charge 2 to make a total of 51 purchase transactions which amounted to a total sum of HK$549,667.97.

92.  I adopt a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment, ie 48 months in the case of D1 and a starting point of 3 and a half years’ imprisonment, ie 42 months in the case of D2. 

93.  D1 and D2 are each entitled to one-third reduction for their guilty plea. 

94.  I sentence D1 to 32 months’ imprisonment.  I sentence D2 to 28 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 12: attempted fraud (D1)

95.  Charge 2 concerned a replacement credit card in the name of Chen issued by HSB.  On 12 February 2015, a male representing himself to be Chen called HSB and reported loss of his credit card.  Having verified Chen’s personal particulars over the phone, the issuance of a new card was approved. 

96.  On 16 February 2015, D1 presented an identity card purported to contain Chen’s particulars and collected a replacement card of Chen.  Later on the same day, D1 and two unknown males attempted but failed to use the credit card in the name of Chen issued by HSB to purchase goods at a shop in Kwun Tong amounted to HK$317,746.

97.  I adopt a starting point of 3 and a half years’ imprisonment, ie 42 months.

98.  D1 is entitled to one-third reduction for his guilty plea. 

99.  I sentence D1 to 28 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 13: attempted fraud (against D1)

100.  Between 28 March 2015 and 5 April 2015, D1 had attempted but failed to use the credit card in the name of Fung issued by HSB in relation to Charge 2 to make a total of nine purchase transactions which amounted to a total sum of HK$90,844.53.

101.  I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, ie 36 months. 

102.  D1 is given one-third reduction for his guilty plea. 

103.  I sentence D1 to 2 years’ imprisonment.

Charge 14: attempted fraud (D1 and D2)

104.  Between 17 March 2015 and 9 April 2015, D1 and D2 had attempted but failed to use the credit card in the name of Chan V issued by HSB in relation to Charge 2 to make three purchase transactions which amounted to a total sum of HK$15,338.

105.  I adopt a starting point of 2 and a half years’ imprisonment, ie 30 months in the case of D1 and a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment in the case of D2. 

106.  D1 and D2 are entitled to one-third reduction for their guilty pleas. 

107.  I sentence D1 to 20 months’ imprisonment. 

108.  I sentence D2 to 16 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 16: possession of forged identity cards (D1)

109.  Charge 16 concerned five forged identity cards found from the premises.  I have no doubt that these forged identity cards were related to the credit card fraud activities that D1 was involved at the time.

110.  I adopt a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. 

111.  D1 is entitled to one-third reduction for his guilty plea. 

112.  I sentence D1 to 12 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 17: possession of an identity card relating to another person (against D1)

113.  Charge 17 concerned the remaining identity card seized from the premises.  I have no doubt that the identity card was related to the credit card fraud activities that D1 was involved at the time.

114.  I adopt a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment. 

115.  D1 is given one-third reduction for his guilty plea. 

116.  I sentence D1 to 8 months’ imprisonment.

Totality principle

117.  I have considered the totality principle. 

118.  In the case of D1, in my judgment, a total sentence of 44 months should adequately reflect the overall criminality of the 13 charges D1 stands convicted of on his own pleas of, ie four charges of conspiracy to defraud (Charges 2 to 4 and 6), one charge of possession of false instruments (Charge 7), three charges of fraud (Charges 8 to 10), three charges of attempted fraud (Charges 12 to 14), one charge of possession of forged identity cards (Charge 16) and one charge of possession of an identity card relating to another person (Charge 17).

119.  A total term of 44 months’ imprisonment represents a notional starting point of 5 and a half years’ imprisonment after trial (66 months). 

120.  To achieve that result, I order that the sentence for Charge 2 (32 months) shall run concurrently with the sentences for Charge 3 (28 months), Charge 4 (28 months), Charge 6 (24 months), Charge 7 (24 months), Charge 8 (28 months), Charge 9 (28 months), Charge 10 (32 months), Charge 12 (28 months), Charge 13 (24 months) and Charge 14 (20 months). 

121.  The sentences for Charge 16 (12 months) and Charge 17 (8 months) shall run concurrently with each other. 

122.  I further order that the sentences for Charge 16 and 17 shall run consecutively to the sentences for Charges 2 to 4, 6 to 10 and 12 to 14. 

123.  The total term of D1’s sentence is 44 months’ imprisonment.

D2

124.  In my judgment, a total sentence of 36 months should adequately reflect the overall criminality of the seven charges D2 stands convicted of on her own pleas, ie four charges of conspiracy to defraud (Charges 3 to 6), one charge of possession of false instruments (Charge 7), one charge of fraud (Charge 10) and one charge of attempted fraud (Charge 14). 

125.  A total term of 36 months’ imprisonment represents a notional starting point of 4 and a half years’ imprisonment after trial. 

126.  To achieve that result, I order that the sentences for Charge 3 (24 months), Charge 4 (24 months), Charge 5 (20 months), Charge 6 (20 months), Charge 7 (20 months) and Charge 10 (28 months) shall run concurrently with each other. 

127.  I order that 8 months of the sentence for Charge 14 shall run consecutively to the sentences for Charges 3 to 7 and 10.

128.  The total term of D2’s sentence is 36 months’ imprisonment.