HKSAR v. LEUNG SIN KAN

DCCC 1319/2025

[2026] HKDC 33

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1319 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The Defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to 11 charges of Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

2.  At all material times, D was the holder of Tap & Go account numbered 141542591155 (“D’s Tap & Go Account”) and PAO bank account numbered 7522000464990 (“D’s PAO Bank Account”).  Between 2 July 2024 and 1 October 2024, D’s Tap & Go Account was linked to FPS with the mobile number 9021 0997 (“Mobile Number”), which was registered under M/LEUNG Wing-ki, D’s father (“D’s FPS”).  Since 18 October 2024, D’s PAO Bank Account was linked to D’s FPS.

Charge 1

3.  On 21 July 2024, M/LAM Wai-leung (“PW1”) came across a post on social media application Facebook by an account named “Kensin kensin” offering letting of parking spaces in village houses.  Feeling interested, PW1 contacted the user of the said Facebook account, which was later known to be belonged to D (“D’s Facebook Account”), and later received a call from mobile phone number 9021 0997, which was later known to be used by D and registered under his father (“D’s Number”), where D represented that he had a parking space in Wong Nai Tau Village for letting.  PW1 then went to Wong Nai Tau Village for site inspection and confirmed the location of the parking space with D.  Acting on such representation, PW1 made payments for the rent of the parking space to D’s FPS as requested and met up with D at Wong Nai Tau Village on 22 July 2024 who confirmed the location of the parking space.  Subsequently, D demanded further payments for various reasons including that PW1 was not a villager, a deposit was needed, the deposit had increased etc, and PW1 complied. PW1 and D met again on 6 August 2025 to sign the contract. 

4.  On 24 August 2024, D claimed to PW1 that the agreed parking space was not available for parking due to construction work and provided an alternative parking space outside the public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village.  Later, D claimed to PW1 that the parking space outside the public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village was no longer available for parking due to construction work and provided an alternative parking space in Tai Che Village.  The scam was unveiled when PW1 was told by a representative of Tai Che Village that he was not permitted to park therein anymore and D defaulted on rental payments for the parking space at Tai Che Village.  D then became out of reach.  Case was reported.

5.  All along, PW1 paid D under his representation and parted with a total sum of HKD 18,400 (with the last payment made on 6 August 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.

Charge 2

6.  On 26 August 2024, F/CHAN Hiu-lam (“PW2”) came across a post on Facebook by D’s Facebook Account offering letting of parking spaces in Shatin District.  Feeling interested, PW2 contacted D and agreed to meet up with D. On 16 September 2024, PW2 met up with D at Kwong Wing Lane where D represented that PW2 could rent a parking space at Kwong Wing Lane.  PW2 and D then signed the contract.  Acting on such representation, PW2 made payments for the rent of the parking space to D’s FPS as requested.  Later that night, PW2 received a call from D that he had already informed the village head who permitted PW2 to park her car at the parking space but required one-year lease period.  PW2 complied and made further payments to D. 

7.  On 25 October 2024, D claimed to PW2 that the agreed parking space was no longer available for parking due to construction work and provided an alternative parking space upon paying the difference in rent.  PW2 complied and made further payments to D.  D claimed to PW2 that the alternative parking space would be in the vicinity of Tai Nam Liu Village which was not yet available and asked PW2 to park her car at the meter-parking space at Kwong Sin Street.  The scam was unveiled when PW2 received further fixed penalty tickets for illegal parking and D became out of reach.  Case was reported.

8.  All along, PW2 paid D under his representation and parted with a total sum of HKD 12,600 (with the last payment made on 8 November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.

Charge 3

9.  On 15 September 2024, M/DONG Yuhao (“PW3”) created a post on Facebook asking for parking spaces in the vicinity of Kwong Yuen.  Later in that night, PW3 received a WhatsApp message from D’s Number where the sender represented that he had a parking space in the vicinity of Kwong Yuen for letting.  Feeling interested, PW3 agreed to meet up with the sender.  PW3 met up with D that night to confirm the location of the parking space for letting, which was situated at Tai Lam Liu Village.  D stated to PW3 that he could let the parking space to PW3.  D and PW3 then signed a contract.  Acting on such representation, PW3 made payments for the rent of the parking space to D’s FPS. 

10.  In October 2024, D claimed to PW3 that the agreed parking space was not available for parking due to construction work and provided an alternative parking space in Tai Che Village.  D demanded further payments for the alternative parking space and PW3 complied.  The scam was unveiled when PW3 was told by a representative of Tai Che Village that D defaulted on rental payments for the parking space at Tai Che Village.  D then became out of reach.  Case was reported.

11.  All along, PW3 paid D under his representation and parted with a total sum of HKD 8,800 (with the last payment made on 24 November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.

Charge 4

12.  In August 2024, M/CHAN Li-tat, Ryan (“PW4”) was referred by his friend to contact D for rental of parking spaces.  On 19 October 2024, PW4 and D met up and confirmed the location of the parking space to be near Lamppost VE4675 of Tai Nam Liu Village, which D confirmed that he would let the parking space to PW4.  A contract was signed between PW4 and D. Acting on D’s representation, PW4 made payments for the rental of the parking space to D’s FPS.  The scam was unveiled when D became out of reach.  Case was reported. 

13.  All along, PW4 paid D under his representation and parted with a total sum of HKD 24,000 (with the last payment made on 23 October 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.

Charge 5

14.  On 21 October 2024, M/CHAN Sheung-yin, Marco (“PW5”) parked his car at Kwong Wing Lane and left his mobile phone number at the windscreen of the car.  On 22 October 2024, he received a call from D’s Number where D stated that PW5’s car was parked at a parking space which belonged to D.  D stated to PW5 that the parking space would be available for letting.  Feeling interested, PW5 met up with D outside the public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village on 23 October 2024 and signed the contract.  Acting on D’s representation, PW5 made payments for the rent of the parking space to D’s FPS.  Subsequently, D demanded for further payments with various reasons including that the agreed parking space would no longer be available due to construction work and that D had to pay extra for the alternative parking space at Tai Che Village, the rent for Kwong Wing Lane would increase after construction etc., and PW5 complied. The scam was unveiled when PW5 failed to receive reimbursement of deposits from D as promised and D became out of reach.  Case was reported. 

15.  All along, PW5 paid D under his representation and parted with a total sum of HKD 17,800 (with the last payment made on 7 November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.

Charge 6

16.  At the material time, M/WONG King-chi (“PW6”) parked his car near the public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village and left his mobile phone number on the windscreen of his car.  On 23 October 2024, PW6 received a WhatsApp message from D’s Number that asking PW6 not to park his car near the public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village as the car blocked the way.  The sender further claimed that he was surnamed LAU and was a villager of Tai Nam Liu Village.  He asked PW6 if PW6 was interested to rent a parking space and he was responsible for managing the parking spaces in the vicinity on behalf of the village head.  Feeling interested, PW6 met up with D outside the public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village to confirm the location of the parking space situated near Lamppost VE3544 of Tai Nam Liu Village.  D stated to PW6 that he was responsible for managing the parking spaces of village houses.  Acting on D’s representation, PW6 made payments for the rental of the parking space to D’s FPS.  The scam was unveiled when D became out of reach.  Case was reported. 

17.  All along, PW6 paid D under his representation and parted with a sum of HKD 9,600 on 23 October 2024 as a result of D’s representation, which was false.

Charge 7

18.  On 29 October 2024, M/LEE Ka-chun (“PW7”) was told by his friend that D could recommend parking places.  PW7 then sent a WhatsApp message to D’s Number asking about the details of renting parking spaces and a meeting between PW7 and D was arranged on the same day.  D first brought PW7 to inspect a parking space at Tai Nam Liu Village and stated to PW7 that the same could be rented to PW7.  PW7 rejected D’s offer as he saw that there were fixed penalty tickets issued to the cars parked therein.  D then brought PW7 to another parking space in Siu Lik Yuen Village.  Acting on D’s representation and believing that D was an agent on behalf of the villager of Siu Liu Yuen Village, PW7 made payments for the rent of the parking space to D’s FPS.  Subsequently, D demanded further payments for various reasons including that a deposit was needed and the deposit was insufficient, and PW7 complied.  The scam was unveiled when PW7 received a call where the caller stated that the parking space occupied by PW7’s car belonged to the caller. PW7 contacted D who suggested PW7 to park his car at Tam Nam Liu Village.  PW7 declined D’s suggestion and D became out of reach.  Case was reported. 

19.  All along, PW7 paid D under his representation and parted with a total sum of HKD 14,400 (with the last payment made on 26 November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.

Charge 8

20.  On 11 November 2024, F/WONG Yin-ching, Ivy (“PW8”) came across a post on Facebook offering letting of parking spaces in Charming Garden. Feeling interested, PW8 responded to the post and communicated with D.  Later that day PW8 met up with D and confirmed the location of the parking space to be the parking space of No. 413, Charming Garden and signed the contract. Acting on such representation, PW8 made a payment for the rental of the parking space to D’s FPS.  Subsequently, D demanded for further payments with various reasons including that he could offer discount if PW8 paid more deposits and that a handling fee was required, and PW8 complied.  The scam was unveiled when PW8 failed to receive updates from D regarding the use of the parking space and D became out of reach.  Case was reported. 

21.  All along, PW8 paid D under his representation and parted with a total sum of HKD 12,500 (with the last payment made on 28 November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.

Charge 9

22.  In November 2024, M/WONG Tsz-wai (“PW9”) created a post on Facebook asking for parking spaces in Garden Rivera.  On 16 November 2024, PW9 received a Facebook message where the sender represented that he had a parking space in Garden Rivera for letting.  Feeling interested, PW9 agreed to meet up with the sender having communicated with the sender in WhatsApp who used D’s Number.  On 20 November 2024, PW9 met up with D to confirm the location of the parking space, which was the parking space of No. 88, Garden Rivera and signed the contract.  Acting on such representation, PW9 made payments for the rent of the parking space both by cash and by transfer to D’s FPS.  The scam was unveiled when PW9 failed to receive updates from D regarding the use of the parking space and D became out of reach.  Case was reported.  M/NG Kin-sun (“PW10”), the owner of the parking space, confirmed that he did not let the parking space to D or authorize D to let the same to anyone.

23.  All along, PW9 paid D under his representation and parted with a total sum of HKD 8,900 (with the last payment made on 24 November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.

Charge 10

24.  On 18 November 2024, M/HON Hoi-kin (“PW11”) came across a post on Facebook by D’s Facebook Account offering letting of parking spaces.  Feeling interested, PW11 contacted D where D represented that he had a parking space in Garden Rivera for letting.  On 19 November 2024, PW11 and D (who was also the ex-boyfriend of D’s ex-girlfriend) met up in Garden Rivera, confirmed the location of the parking space to be the parking space of No. 107, Garden Rivera and signed the contract for its rental.  Acting on such representation, PW11 made a payment for the rent of the parking space to D’s FPS.  The scam was unveiled when PW11 failed to receive updates from D regarding the use of the parking space and D became out of reach.  Case was reported.  M/TSANG Leung-ching (“PW12”), the owner of the parking space, confirmed that he did not let the parking space to D or authorize D to let the same to anyone.

25.  All along, PW11 paid D under his representation and parted with a sum of HKD 7,200 on 19 November 2024 as a result of D’s representation, which was false.

Charge 11

26.  On 24 November 2024, M/CHUNG King-lok (“PW13”) came across a post on Facebook offering letting of parking spaces in Hing Tin Estate, Lam Tin. Feeling interested, PW13 contacted the author of the post and communicated with D with D’s Number.  D later confirmed the location of the parking space to be the parking space of No. B10, Sky City and met up with PW13 on 25 November 2025 and signed the contract for the letting.  Acting on such representation, PW13 made a payment for the rental of the parking space to D’s FPS.  The scam was unveiled when PW13 failed to receive updates from D regarding the use of the parking space and D became out of reach.  Case was reported.  M/WONG Kwok-shing (“PW14”), the owner of the parking space, confirmed that he did not let the parking space to D or authorize D to let the same to anyone.

27.  All along, PW13 paid D under his representation and parted with a sum of HKD 2,200 on 25 November 2024 as a result of D’s representation, which was false.

Arrest and Caution

28.  On 11 December 2024, D was arrested in his residence in Tai Nam Liu Village for the offence of “Fraud”.  Under caution, D stated, inter alia, that he was heavily indebted so he deceived the car owners by stating that they could park their cars.  The parking spaces were government land.

29.  In subsequent video-recorded interviews, D stated, inter alia, the following under caution:-

Charge 1

(a) D was not authorized to let the parking space in Wong Nai Tau Village;

(b) D’s Facebook Account was registered by D. He created the Facebook post on 21 July 2024 offering letting of parking spaces in village houses as he was indebted;

(c) D used D’s Number to communicate with PW1. He met up with PW1 on 22 July 2024 and 6 August 2024;

(d) D used the rental payments he received from PW1 to repay his debts;

Charge 2

(a) D’s Facebook Account was registered by D. He created the Facebook post offering letting of parking spaces in Shatin;

(b) D met up with PW2 at Kwong Wing Lane on 16 September 2024 and represented to PW2 that a parking space at Wong Nai Tau Village was available for letting. He falsely represented to PW2 that he was an agent to deceive her;

(c) D later realized that the parking space was government land when fixed penalty tickets for illegal parking were received. He falsely represented to PW2 that the parking space belonged to the village. As he had already received the rent from PW2, he decided to continue to deceive her;

(d) D was not authorized to let the parking space in Wong Nai Tau Village;

(e) D used D’s Number to communicate with PW2;

(f) D used the rental payments he received from PW2 to repay his debts;

Charge 3

(a) D was not authorized to let the parking space in Tai Lam Liu Village;

(b) D used D’s Facebook Account to contact PW3. He stated to PW3 that he had a parking space in the vicinity of Kwong Yuen for letting;

(c) When D met up with PW3 on 15 September 2024, D did not tell PW3 whether the parking space in Tai Lam Liu Village was government land or private land. PW3 might not be aware that Tai Lam Liu Village was government land;

(d) D used the rental payments he received from PW3 to repay his debts;

Charge 4

(a) D and PW4 met up with on 19 October 2024 near Lamppost VE4675 in Tai Nam Liu Village. D knew that the parking space belonged to government land but he stated to PW4 that the parking space belonged to private land and that PW4 could park his car thereat upon paying rents. He was not authorized by the village head of Tai Nam Liu Village to let the parking space;

(b) D used the rental payments he received from PW4 to repay his debts. He deceived monies from others to repay his debts.

Charge 5

(a) D called PW5 as D saw PW5’s mobile phone number on PW5’s car. He stated to PW5 that the parking space occupied by PW5 at Kwong Wing Lane belonged to villagers and monies were needed to park PW5’s car therein. He stated so and deceived PW5 because he was in need of money;

(b) D used the rental payments he received from PW5 to repay his debts;

Charge 6

(a) D called PW6 as D saw PW6’s mobile phone number on PW6’s car. He stated to PW6 that PW6 could park his car upon payment of rental;

(b) D was not the owner of the parking space at Tai Nam Liu Village and was not authorized to let the parking space to PW6;

(c) D used the rental payments he received from PW6 to repay his debts;

Charge 7

(a) D met up with PW7 to inspect the parking spaces at Tai Nam Liu Village and Siu Lik Yuen Village;

(b) D deceived PW7 by representing to him that the parking spaces at both Tai Nam Liu Village and Siu Lik Yuen Village were private land so as to collect rents. He was not authorized to let the parking space at Tai Nam Liu Village;

(c) D used the rental payments he received from PW7 to repay his debts;

Charge 8

(a) D responded to PW8’s post on Facebook asking to rent a parking space in Charming Garden and stated to her that a parking space at Charming Garden was available;

(b) D met up with PW8 on 11 November 2024 and stated to PW8 that the parking space at No. 413, Charming Garden belonged to him. He was not acquainted with the owner of the parking space and was not authorized to let the same;

(c) D used the rental payments he received from PW8 to repay his debts. He deceived monies from others to repay his debts;

Charge 9

(a) D responded to PW9’s post on Facebook with D’s Facebook Account in mid-November 2024. When they met up, D represented to PW9 that the parking space at No 88, Garden Rivera was available for letting;

(b) D was not the owner of the parking space and was not authorized to let the same. He deceived others with this method as he was indebted;

(c) D used the rental payments he received from PW9 to repay his debts;

Charge 10

(a) D met up with PW11 on 19 November 2024. He pretended to be the owner of the parking space at No. 107, Garden Rivera and was not authorized to let the same;

(b) D used D’s Facebook Account to create a post about the letting of parking spaces at Garden Rivera;

(c) D used the rental payments he received from PW11 to repay his debts;

Charge 11

(a) D met up with PW13 on 25 November 2024 and stated to PW13 that the parking space at No. B10, Sky City was available for letting. He was not the owner of the parking space and was not authorized to let the same;

(b) D created a post on Facebook on 24 November 2024 asking others to rent parking spaces. He communicated with PW13 with D’s Number;

(c) D used the rental payments he received from PW13 to repay his debts.

Other Investigations

30.  Transaction and messaging records with D were provided by PW1 to PW9, PW11 and PW13 to substantiate their allegations, which corroborated records from D’s Tap & Go Account and D’s PAO Account.

31.  In subsequent identification parades, PW1 to PW3, PW5 to PW9, PW11 and PW13 positively identified D as the culprit they met in the incidents.

32.  Enquiry with the Lands Department revealed that the relevant parking spaces in Wong Nai Tau Village, Kwong Wing Lane, Siu Lek Yuen Village and Tai Lam Liu Village were government land.

CRIMINAL RECORD AND BACKGROUND OF THE DEFENDANT

33.  D had been sentenced by court on 3 occasions involving a total of 11 criminal charges. All of them are related to dishonesty.  His last conviction involving 8 charges in 2021 are similar to the present charge ie fraud.  He was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.

34.  D is now aged 27 and single. Prior to his arrest, D resided with his parents. D received education in Hong Kong up to Form 2 level.D worked as a casual worker, earing around HK$12,000 – 15,000 per month.

35.  It was submitted that D started gambling since he was 20 years old as he wished to earn more money to improve the lives of his family. However, D could not control himself and became heavily indebted for a loan of around $500,000. D was declared bankrupt in 2020. However, the loan sharks and debt collectors did not stop to harass D and his family. Under these circumstances, D foolishly resorted to make quick money with a view to pay off his debts.

MITIGATION

36.  In mitigation, it was submitted D was cooperative with the police during investigation. D had made full admission upon interrogation. D had demonstrated genuine remorse. Mitigation letters of D and his mother were submitted.

37.  It was submitted by Mr Kwan that the culpability of D is comparable to those who committed fraud online repeatedly, having regard to the modus operandi in the present case.  Mr Kwan referred the court to the following cases:

(a) In HKSAR v Lam See Chung Stephen [2021] HKDC 236, the defendant pleaded guilty to, inter alia, 5 charges of fraud. In Charge 3, the defendant defrauded the victims in 16 incidents by falsely representing to them online that he would deliver vehicles to them after payment by these victims. The amount involved was $140,400. There are a total 16 victims involved and the duration of the offence is 6½ months[1]. The Court adopted a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment and enhanced the same by 3 months as the defendant was a persistent offender and further 3 as the offence was committed whilst he was on bail/jumped bail[2].

(b) In 香港特別行政區 訴 王亦夫[2022] HKDC 712, the defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of 14 (out of 18) counts of fraud as a result of plea bargain[3]. All 18 counts were concert / show ticket fraud. In Charge 12, 12 victims and a sum of HK$140,190 were involved[4]. The court adopted 19.5 months imprisonment for Charge 12[5];

(c) In 香港特別行政區 訴 何家俊[2019] HKDC 1341, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of fraud[6]. This case was a concert / show ticket fraud. 26 victims were involved and the deceived amount was HK$329,815 in total[7]. The court adopted a starting point of 39 months’ imprisonment. The sentence was reduced to 26 months’ imprisonment on guilty plea[8].

38.  The Defence submitted that the present case is not the most serious of its kind. D did not use the entirety of the deceived sums on himself / to repay his debt, part of the sums was used to (i) pay for parking fees (for a short period of time); or (ii) pay for the fixed penalty tickets received by the victims as a result of illegal parking. D had demonstrated genuine remorse, the defence asked the court to exercise leniency towards D.

SENTENCE

39.  The maximum penalty for the offence of fraud is 14 years’ imprisonment. There is no sentencing tariff for this offence. The sentence depends on the facts of each case.

40.  I have carefully considered the nature of the offences that D were facing, the facts of the case admitted, the background of D and the mitigation submitted by the defence.

41.  In all the 11 charges that D pleaded guilty to, D falsely represented to the 11 different victims that parking spaces (s) in village areas, housing estates of various districts etc were available for rent or for letting.

42.  The defence submitted that the act committed by D is comparable to those who committed fraud online repeatedly[9]. The defence had referred to this court three District Court cases for reference.

43.  In HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai CACC 100/2014, it is concerned with online fraud. The defendant had falsely represented that he had admission tickets for Ocean Park for sale. Some 36 victims were deceived over a period of slightly more than a month, with a total loss to them of $63,180. The Court of Appeal approved a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment before considering an enhancement under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. In para 43-45:

“43. … First, the fraud was practised on the general public at large, any public member would have the risk of falling into his prey and the number of victims could be very high. Second, the applicant’s offence has serious negative effects on the growing trend of online trading activities, rendering the public wary of the same and affecting the interests of people acting in good faith in these activities. Third, cyber frauds are easy to imitate and easy to put into practice. The absence of deterrence may open floodgates to numerous similar offences. Fourth, since online trading does not involve face-to-face transactions, offenders may disguise their identities by various means and it makes detection of these crimes very difficult. Fifth, the loss of the victims is in general very difficult to recover.

44. The court will impose heavier sentences on some immoral, abhorrent and despicable offences targeting at the public, like street deception and phone deception, in order to deter such offences and protect the innocent public from harm. The amount of money involved in this type of offences is not necessarily large. Even if the defendant has no criminal record, a starting point as high as 3 to 4 years will be adopted. (See cases like HKSAR v Liang Ya Qiong & others [2009] 1 HKLRD 334, HKSAR v WuMudi [2008] 5 HKLRD 179, HKSAR v Hung Yung Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 167, HKSAR v Cen Huakuo [2015] 2 HKLRD 945, etc.).”

44.  In HKSAR v KONG Chi Kiu (江智喬) CAAR 5/2022, para 46, “This was an internet fraud, which by its very nature has unlimited reach, is relatively easy to perpetrate but difficult to detect and from which it is often impossible to recover losses. As such, there must be a significant element of deterrence for those contemplating committing such offences.”

45.  In this case, it is noted in the agreed facts, D had met up with the victims and signed the contract. Nevertheless, in KONG Chi Kiu, para 46, “…We were not impressed by the respondent’s argument that since she had met some of the victims in person, it could not be said to be an internet fraud in its strict sense.”

46.  Though as submitted by defence that the act D committed in this case is similar to online fraud, I am aware that in respect of charges 1-3, 8-11 (7 charges), the victims were lured via online social media platform Facebook posted by D or by D responding to victims’ messages on the platform. As for charges 4-7 (4 charges), the victims were either referred by their friends to D or received phone messages/calls from D using the phone numbers victims left on windscreen of car. 

47.  I have considered the modus operandi of the fraud in this case, it was well planned. There were 11 known victims identified. The total deceit amount in this case was $136,400. A table of breakdown of the summary of the amount deceived is in Appendix 1.

48.  This was not a single incidence of fraud. There were multiple victims who were defrauded over period of around 4-5 months. Each charge of the case concerned a separate transaction with a new victim, taking place on a different date. The gravity of the present case is the D committed the same nature of offence using a similar modus operandi repeatedly. Though in defence mitigation, D had paid for parking tickets fee for some of the victims totaling $5,640, all the victims of the charges involved were never paid back. I am also aware that D has one similar previous conviction i.e. fraud (involving 8 charges) not long before committing the present case (involving 11 charges).  

49.  I have also considered that D committed the present offence alone.  I accepted defence mitigation that D used his own account to commit the offence showing that D’s plan was not sophisticated, as that would give trace to police investigation.

50.  For all the 11 charges, the sentence is as follows:

Charge	Starting point (Months)	After plea (Months)
1	12	8
2	9	6
3	6	4
4	15	10
5	12	8
6	6	4
7	9	6
8	7.5	5
9	6	4
10	6	4
11	3	2

51.  Given the duration of the fraud, the number of victims, the amount involved and the planning necessary for its execution, I have also considered the overall culpability of D. Having considered all the circumstances and the totality principle,I ordered that the sentence of charges 2 and 4 to run consecutively and others concurrently, the sentence is therefore 16 months’ imprisonment, which is equivalent toadopting a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment for all the charges and after a discount of one-third for the guilty plea.

52.  There is no other mitigating factor which justifies a further reduction of sentence.

CONCLUSION

53.  The sentence is 16 months’ imprisonment. 

Appendix 1

Summary of deceived amount