HKSAR v. NG TIK KI, CHANEKI

DCCC1084/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1084 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant was convicted after trial of three charges. The charges alleged that between November 2008 and March 2010 he defrauded Miss Wong Na-fong, PW1, and her daughter, Chan Wing-yan, PW2, of almost $1.6 million.

2.  At the relevant time PW1 was the proprietress of a restaurant called the Wah Yuen Dessert Restaurant which is in Lai Chi Kok. The defendant started to patronize that restaurant in November 2008.  He claimed that he was called Ho Pak-hin.  He said he was a surveyor and involved in work in the construction industry.  He turned up at the restaurant together with a young man whom he claimed to be his son.  He got to know PW1 and she obtained his telephone number and there were telephone calls between them.  He then started to obtain money from her.  He claimed that he needed the money for a construction project that he was engaged in. 

3.  Over the pursuing months, he obtained from PW1 over $1 million.  At a later stage in November of 2009, he got to know the victim’s daughter, PW2.  She is 24 years of age and works as a contract clerk in the labour department.  He spoke to her about borrowing money from her over the telephone.  Her mother had rung her and he took over the phone to speak to PW2.  She was told that the defendant wanted to borrow money and if she did not lend him money, monies previously lent to him by her mother would be lost.  She said she was very frightened. 

4.  Over the next few months, he obtain from her in the region of $100,000.  She borrowed $35,000 from the bank.  She borrowed money from friends.  I was satisfied on the sentence that she did so as she was desperate to assist her mother.  Her mother was distraught with worry because of what the defendant had done to her.  She claimed he forced her to sell two properties.

5.  On the evidence I was sure that defendant is a glib confidence trickster and he used his skills to inveigle his way into the lives of these two ladies and prise money out of them.

6.  I was satisfied that PW1, was a very foolish, highly excitable, gullible, naïve and greedy lady.  The defendant exploited those character flaws. 

7.  Counsel for the defence has said that little can be said in mitigation.

8.  The defendant has a clear record.  At the time of the offences, he was unemployed.  He has worked previously as a clerk of works.  He is single.  

9.  As counsel for the defence has said, the amounts involved are not at the highest and of the scale for this type of offence.  This was however an awful lot of money for PW1 and PW2 and they are not going to get any of it back. 

10.  In relation to Charge 1, I sentence the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment.  On Charge 2, I sentence the defendant to 3 years’ imprisonment and I order that it should run concurrent with Charge 1. On Charge 3, I sentence the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment and I order that 1 year of that should run consecutive to the sentences on Charges 1 and 2.

11.  The defendant will, therefore, go to prison for 4 years.