HKSAR v. FOK CHI PAN

DCCC1303/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1303 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to three charges, the first being an offence of attempting to obtain property by deception, contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, Laws of Hong Kong, and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, Laws of Hong Kong.

2.  Charges 2 and 3 are both offences of obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, Laws of Hong Kong. 

3.  The Summary of Facts, which you have agreed, establish that on 22 September of last year, you went to a Louis Vuitton store at Chinachem Golden Plaza in Mody Road and attempted to purchase two LV handbags valued at $21,500 by using the credit card particularised in Charge 1.  When the staff attempted to obtain the approval code you left the shop immediately, leaving the card in the shop.  This is Charge 1. 

4.  Later the same day you went to an outlet known as the Hong Kong Suning Citicall Appliance in Ginza Plaza, Mongkok, and used the credit card particularised in Charge 2 to purchase two mobile phones, totally valued at $8,920.  This relates to Charge 2.

5.  Enquiries with the genuine cardholder revealed another transaction with the card, particularised in Charge 3, when it was used by you on 17 September of last year to purchase two LV handbags at the Louis Vuitton outlets at the Peninsula Hotel Shopping Arcade for a total sum of $20,150.  You were captured on CCTV footage carrying out the purchase.  This is Charge 3.

6.  What is unusual in this case is that the victim had not, in fact, lost the cards which were used for the perpetration of these three offences.  The Summary of Facts indicate that they were still in his possession at the time of the offences, but that someone - I emphasise not you, defendant - had reported these cards lost impersonating the victim. Replacement cards were issued and somehow intercepted.  This, in my mind, indicates a degree of sophistication in the operation.  You, defendant, of course, were the end user of the cards in the sense that you made or attempted to make the purchases and would receive a reward of $800 for every $10,000-worth of stolen goods sold. 

7.  You are 32 years of age and have two previous convictions for theft, although now quite some time ago, in the year 2000. 

8.  Offences such as this, involving, as they do, credit cards, are extremely serious because they not only bring distress and unnecessary trouble to the genuine cardholder, but they also impact upon the integrity of the credit card system itself which is relied upon by people in the course of their every day life. 

9.  The size of the operation that you were involved in was not particularly large, nor was it sophisticated, save to the extent that I have already touched upon. 

10.  I propose to adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment in respect of each of the charges.  I will reduce that by one-third to take account of your plea of guilty, coming to 2 years' imprisonment on Charges 1, 2 and 3. 

11.  In order to reflect the total criminality involved, but at the same time to reflect totality of sentence, I propose to order 6 months' imprisonment on each of Charges 2 and 3 to run consecutively to each other and consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1, coming to an overall sentence of 3 years' imprisonment.