HKSAR v. LEE WANG KAM (also known as LEE CHI WANG)

DCCC 1098/2023

[2024] HKDC 1971

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1098 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant faces 2 charges of "Passing or tendering counterfeit currency notes" (Charges 1 and 2); a charge of "Making counterfeits of currency notes" (Charge 3); a charge of "Using a forged identity card" (Charge 4); a charge of "Having custody or control of counterfeiting materials and implements" (Charge 5); a charge of "Possession of identity cards relating to other persons" (Charge 6); a charge of "Possession of forged identity cards" (Charge 7)  and a charge of "Handling stolen goods" (Charge 8).

2.  He pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.  I granted the prosecution's application to leave Charges 5 and 8 in the court file; not to be proceeded against him without leave of court.

Summary of Facts

Charge 1

3.  On 16 November 2022, Ms. Tsang (PW1), manager of a 7-11 Store situated at Ground Floor, 100 Castle Peak Road, Yuen Long, discovered 2 counterfeit HSBC $500 notes in the till.  Upon reviewing the CCTV footage, PW1 discovered that about 9:39 p.m. on 16 November 2022, the defendant passed one counterfeit HSBC $500 note (Serial No.AN287845)  and 5 genuine HSBC $100 notes to the cashier for topping up a Tap & Go account for $1,000.  The defendant then passed another counterfeit HSBC $500 note (Serial No.AN287845)  to the cashier for topping up his Octopus card for $200.  The Police was alerted.

Charge 2

4.  In the morning on 29 November 2022, Mr. Chan (PW2), manager of a 7-11 Store situated at Shop 4A, Ground Floor, Cheuk Ming Building, Nos.10-22 Tsuen Wan Market Street, Tsuen Wan, was informed by his colleague that he had received 2 counterfeit Bank of China (BoC)  $500 notes (both having the same Serial No.SH151175)  from 2 men.

5.  Upon reviewing the CCTV footage, PW2 discovered that the defendant (who was wearing the same outfit which he wore on 16 November 2022 in Charge 1)  and a male entered the store one after another.  The defendant first passed a counterfeit BoC $500 note to the cashier for buying a pack of cigarettes and a bottled drink (whereas the male passed the merchandise to the cashier to ring up). Later, the defendant passed another counterfeit BoC $500 note to the cashier for topping up his Octopus card (No.169260842)  for $100.  The defendant and the male then left the store together.  The Police was alerted.

Arrest

6.  On 24 December 2022, police officers searched Room 1104, Silka Seaview Hotel, Mongkok. They found the defendant and a female inside.  They also found the following items in a drawer in the room :-

(a)  a purple packet containing:

(i)  9 counterfeit BoC $1,000 notes (Serial Nos.DQ128987 x3; AE662267 x3; EL013390 x3);

(ii)  a brown card holder containing 10 HKID cards relating 10 persons; 3 suspected forged HKID cards relating to 3 persons; and some broken windowed metallic thread (a security feature of genuine banknotes); and

(b)  3 genuine BoC $20 notes without the windowed metallic thread.

7.  At the scene, the defendant said under caution "These 9 counterfeit $1,000 notes were made by me here.  These 12 HKID cards of other people were given to me by my friend to see whether they would be useful or not."  In relation to Charge 1, the defendant said "Because I did not have money, so I used these counterfeit $500 notes at 7-11 to buy things."

Other evidence

8.  In one of the 5 mobile phones of the defendant seized from Room 1104, it contained softcopy templates of BoC $500 note and $1,000 note.  An Octopus card (No.169260842)  was found linked to the same mobile phone.  The same Octopus card was related to the topping up by using counterfeit banknotes in both Charges 1 and 2.

9.  Records of Silka Seaview Hotel revealed that the defendant and a female occupied Room 1412 between 18 and 23 December 2022; whereas the room was registered in the female's name.  The housekeeper found a printer insider Room 1412 on 23 December 2022 and was asked to discard it.  The Police subsequently seized that printer.  Room 1104 was registered in the name of Mr. Chan Kong Chuen (using one of the forged HKID cards seized)  from 21 to 23 December 2022 (Charge 4).

Expert evidence

10.  All counterfeit banknotes seized were confirmed to be fake.

11.  9 of the 10 HKID cards seized from Room 1104 were confirmed to be genuine (Charge 6).  The 3 suspected forged HKID cards were confirmed to be fake.  The defendant used one of them to check into Room 1104 (Charge 4)  and had possession of the other 2 (Charge 7).

Admissions

12.  In his video recorded interview, regarding Charge 1, the defendant admitted having tendered 2 counterfeit $500 notes to make purchases at a 7-11 Store in Yuen Long.  He claimed that he booked Room 1412 first and then Room 1104.  He made counterfeit banknotes in the hotel room when no one else was present.  He used the printer to print 9 counterfeit BoC $1,000 notes and 2 counterfeit HSBC $500 notes (Charge 3).  The defendant also explained how he extracted the windowed metallic thread from genuine $20 notes and glued them onto counterfeit banknotes. He admitted that the banknote images contained in his mobile phone were for making counterfeit banknotes.  Regarding the HKID cards found, he claimed that they were all given to him by a friend.  Regarding Charge 4, the defendant said he booked the room online and presented a forged HKID card to the hotel staff upon check-in.

Mitigation & Sentence

13.  The defendant is 34 and has 8 conviction records, which included 1 offence of "Passing counterfeit currency notes", 1 offence of "Using an ID card relating to another person" and 2 dishonesty-related offences.  Defence counsel Mr. Liu informed me that the defendant resides with his girlfriend.  Prior to his arrest in this case, he was a bartender earning $700 per day.

14.  In mitigation, Mr. Liu submitted that the defendant was cooperative with the Police and made frank admissions.  During his remand in jail custody in the past 21 months, the defendant has become religious and is determined to turn a new leaf.

15.  Any counterfeiting operation which uses an over-the-counter printer to print fake banknotes must be unsophisticated and amateurish.  I have looked at the real exhibits (though not in their original state after being examined by the Government Chemist).  Judging on the quality of the counterfeit notes, I do not think they could be used in any meaningful way, except making small purchases for the purpose of receiving genuine banknotes as change.

16.  There are no sentencing tariffs or guidelines for offences related to counterfeit notes.  I have considered 2 cases (HKSAR v Hu Wan Xia [2009] 4 HKLRD 449 and HKSAR v Wong Hoi Yat & others [2006] 3 HKLRD 150)  and 2 other cases submitted by Mr. Liu[1]. I take the view that a starting point in the range of 18 months' to 2 years' imprisonment is appropriate and just for the present counterfeiting scheme.

Charges 1 and 2

17.  Based on the monetary value involved, the modus operandi of the scam, I adopt a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment for each charge.  I note that this is the defendant's 2^nd conviction of a similar offence, but I would not increase the starting point.  With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 12 months each.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 12 months' imprisonment each for Charges 1 and 2.

Charge 3

18.  As primitive as the present homemade banknotes found in the hotel room, a clear message must be sent to the general public that any scheme devised to produce counterfeit banknotes (however amateurish or professional)  must be deterred.  Having considered the scale and quality of the defendant's production, I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment.  With the timely guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 16 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 4

19.  The defendant has produced a forged HKID card to check into a hotel room.  Following the sentencing guidelines laid down in HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2004–2005] HKCLRT 193, I adopt a starting point of 22.5 months’ imprisonment for this charge.  I note that this is the defendant's 2^nd conviction of a similar offence, but I would not increase the starting point. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence him to 15 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 6

20.  Following the guidelines laid down in HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2004–2005] HKCLRT 193, the sentence for mere possession of a HKID card relating to another person is 12 months' imprisonment upon a guilty plea.  Although there is no evidence as to how the defendant would use the HKID cards found in Room 1104, Yeung JA (as he then was)  has remarked in Li Chang Li that identity cards are not collector's items[2], it follows that people who possess forged ID cards or ID cards relating to others must be up to no good.  The defendant possessed 9 genuine HKID cards relating to other persons.  I shall adopt a slightly higher starting point of 21 months’ imprisonment.  With the timely guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 14 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 7

21.  The defendant possessed 2 forged HKID cards.  According to Li Chang Li, I adopt a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment.  With the timely guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 12 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

22.  Bearing in mind the totality principle, I consider a global starting point of 39 months' imprisonment appropriate for all 6 charges. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence becomes 26 months.  Today, Mr. Liu informed me that the defendant has compensated both 7-11 Stores fully together with documentary proof.  I will grant a discount of 1 month to reflect the pre-sentence compensation, further reducing the overall sentence to 25 months.  Hence, I order:  (i)  Charges 1 to 3 to run concurrently; (ii)  Charges 4, 6 and 7 to run concurrently, but 9 months in Charges 4, 6 and 7 to run consecutive to Charges 1 to 3.  Thus, arriving at a total prison term of 25 months.