HKSAR v. KHAN SAJID

DCCC 623/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 623 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, after initially pleading not guilty to five offences of passing or tendering counterfeit notes, contrary to section 99(1)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, you changed your plea to guilty.

2.  You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you on those facts.

3.  The prosecution case was as follows.

Charge 1

4.  On 14 November of last year two South Asians went into the Hong Kong Jockey Club Off-course Betting Centre at 276-280 Electric Road, North Point.  One of them, that is yourself, handed over four $100 notes to PW1 who gave you change.  After you left, PW1 found that two of the $100 notes bore the same serial number, that is RN436029, these are Exhibits 1 and 2, he informed his superior.  Further checking revealed another in PW1’s drawer with the same serial number, but PW1 could not say when he received it.

Charges 2 and 3

5.  On 15 November at 0645 hours, the cashier, PW4, of 7-Eleven, 231-233 Electric Road, found a $100 note, Exhibit 4, which was of poor quality, but she could not recall when she received it. 

6.  At 0740 hours you attended the store, tendered a $100 note, Exhibit 5, for purchase.  PW4 found it too to be of poor quality. She checked it under the ultra-violet light.  You put down the goods and left without speaking or retrieving the note.  That is Charge 3.

7.  CCTV showed that you had visited the store at 0311 hours that day and paid using Exhibit 4, but she failed to notice it was counterfeit and accepted it and gave you change.  That is Charge 2.

Charge 4

8.  On 18 November 2012 at 1500 hours, PW6 was taking a lift in State Theatre Building, 277-291 King’s Road.  You approached to ask her if she could change five $100 notes, Exhibits 6 to 10, for a $500 note in her hand, and she agreed.  Subsequently, she was told by a remittance agent they were counterfeit.

Charge 5

9.  On 20 January of this year, you visited the Jockey Club Off-course Betting Centre at Kundamal House, 2-4 Prat Avenue, Tsim Sha Tsui, and placed a bet with a $500 note, that is Exhibit 11.  A member of staff, PW8, checked it under ultra-violet light but found no watermark.  He summoned his superior and the supervisor arrived, you turned and left without speaking or taking back the note.

10.  Examination revealed Exhibits 1 to 11 to be counterfeit.

11.  CCTV captured images of you in Charges 1 to 5. At about 1055 hours on 19 March of this year, police arrested you at premises on Queen’s Road West. 

12.  They later searched your house at 2B Belcher’s Street, Western, and seized clothing that you wore at the time of the offences.

13.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview under caution you said the following, inter alia:

(1) The notes used in Charge 1 were given to you by your friend “Din Din” to repay a debt. There were 15 $100 notes. You tendered four of them to the counter. After they were rejected, you tore up and threw away the remainder. You denied knowing they were counterfeit.

(2) For Charges 2 and 3, the notes involved were also given to you by Din Din. You denied knowing that they were counterfeit but tried to use the money at the store for the purpose of testing. You left at the time of the 3rd charge because you saw someone reporting to the police and you thought the money was not yours and it was not your fault.

(3) You later changed that version and claimed that you got the notes from a male called Jose through illegal gambling.

(4) For Charge 4, the $100 notes were given to you by Din Din who asked you to change them to a $500 note. You did so with a woman in a lift. She gave you the $500, you then gave the $500 note to Din Din.

(5) The $500 note in Charge 5 was the change given to you after purchasing cannabis at Chung King Mansions.

(6) You confirmed you were the person in the CCTV footage of Charges 1 to 5.

(7) You admitted that the clothing found at your home was worn in Charges 1 and 2 and 4 and 5.

14.  You are a man of hitherto clear record.

15.  Mr Marray entered mitigation on your behalf.  He told me that you are 26 years of age, educated to Form 5 and you were born in Hong Kong.  You are in good health and work as a chef prior to the offence.  You reside with your mother who is in poor health having a heart condition and your divorced elder sister and her daughter of 10 who of course is your niece.

16.  Since arrest you have obtained a day job as a delivery worker and various part-time evening jobs.   Your total income is some eight to nine thousand dollars a month.  You provided for your mother and niece.  Your sister is employed as a cashier but earns little.

17.  You are a loyal son and you are very close to your family.  I understand that your father deserted you when you were six, so your mother brought you up by herself.  

18.  The offence occurred because you got involved with a bad group of friends, especially the female Din Din.  You no longer associate with this group.  Din Din gave you the notes which you believed to be counterfeit. 

19.  Mr Marray went on to say that for Charges 3 and 4 the relevant staff spotted the counterfeit notes.  The notes themselves were of poor quality, having no watermark and no security thread and printed by inkjet.

20.  Mr Marray produced two sentencing authorities and Miss Ko also two sentencing authorities.

21.  The two sentencing authorities produced by Mr Marray on your behalf were HKSAR v Hu Wanxia, Court of Appeal, Criminal Appeal No 337 of 2008.  In that case the defendant was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty in respect of a large number of $100 Renminbi notes.

22.  The second authority was HKSAR v Arthur J Paymer, another Court of Appeal, Criminal Appeal No 3 of 2004.  In that case the defendant was sentenced after trial to 18 months’ imprisonment for a large number of Rupees.

23.  HKSAR v Li Ho Yin, Court of Appeal, Criminal Appeal No 128 of 2013, this case was not translated, but I am obliged to Miss Ko for her assistance.  There was one tendering case and one offence of possession of 26 $100 notes.  The tendering case involved one $100 note.  For the tendering case, a starting point of 3 years, reduced to 2 years, were approved, and for the possession, 3½ years for 28 months.  In that case Mr Yeung fairly conceded that the defendant had a very poor record having nine previous convictions. 

24.  The last authority provided was HKSAR v Hui Chi Tong, and this was a District Court case, DCC1221 of 2011.  This was a mixed bag of offences involving counterfeit $100 notes.  Basically, 2 years and 7 months was approved. 

The sentence

25.  You are a man of 26, with a clear record.  You are portrayed and I am prepared to accept you as such, as a good family man who has worked hard throughout your life to provide for your family.  The offences, I accept, occurred because you fell in with dubious friends which is often the case in Hong Kong.  You were tempted and fell preyed to that temptation. 

26.  The total amount of counterfeit notes is small and the value is small also.  The losses to the Jockey Club, 7-Eleven and PW6 were not large.  The notes are crude and on careful examination are clearly counterfeit.

27.  Despite your late plea of guilty, I do allow you the full discount.  Whilst there are five offences, my approach is to treat these as one course of events and I treat the criminality as a whole. Therefore, I take a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 20 months, concurrent on each charge, that is a total of 20 months’ imprisonment.

28.  You will also pay with the consent of defence which has been indicated by Mr Marray, $500 compensation to PW6 for the $500 note that she lost.