HKSAR v. YEUNG MEI MEI

DCCC 1203/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1203 OF 2010

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to fifteen charges of fraud, one charge of obtaining property by deception and one charge of theft contrary to sections 9, 16A and 17 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.  Full particulars of the offences are set out in the facts admitted by the defendant.  In summary between April and December 2008 the defendant persuaded various people who worked in hotels, boutiques and beauty shops and who she had befriended, to part with their money by making various false representations, including that she or her father owned watch shops as a result of which she could obtain them employment or they could obtain commission by buying watches.

Charges 1-4

3.  Whilst staying at the Four Seasons Hotel the defendant befriended FONG Kin-fai, an employee of the hotel.  Between July and August 2008 the defendant falsely represented to Fong her father owned the Elegant Watch and Jewellery Company Limited (“Elegant Watch”) and that she could obtain employment at the watch shop for him. 

4.  The defendant falsely represented to Fong that he needed to pay money to boost the sales of the shop.   Believing the offer of employment was genuine Fong gave the defendant $48,000 (charge 1).  Not only did the defendant falsely represent there was employment for Fong but further falsely represented that in order to secure the employment Fong needed to pay a security.  As a result Fong paid $80,000 into an account held in the name of the defendant’s mother (charge 2). 

5.  The defendant then falsely claimed the security had been held up by the audit department and that Fong had to pay a further $80,000.    When Fong was unable to pay the defendant told Fong to purchase a Rolex watch instead.  Fong asked his brother to purchase the watch which was left at the shop for the defendant to collect. The defendant was subsequently found to have pawned the watch (charge 3). 

6.  By now Fong became suspicious whether the offer of employment was genuine.  Fong demanded the defendant repay him immediately.  The defendant agreed but said $20,000 needed to be paid first before the money could be returned.  Believing this representation Fong gave the defendant $20,000 (charge 4).  Subsequently the defendant repaid $169,300 of the $228,000 defrauded from Fong and his brother.

Charge 5

7.  The defendant was a regular customer of Joyce boutique where she befriended LAU Ka-yi, a salesperson.  On the 30th April 2008 the defendant falsely represented to Lau she owned a boutique shop called Shan Ting Muk Fashion which, she said, had cash flow problems and therefore asked Lau to lend her money.  As a result over the next few days Lau gave to the defendant a total of $141,000 by way of cash or credit card advances.   Subsequently the defendant repaid $72,000. 

Charges 6 - 9

8.  The defendant was actually a regular customer of Shan Ting Muk Fashion, where she befriended a salesperson CHONG On-na.  In May 2008 the defendant asked Chong to book her a room in the Lan Kwai Fong hotel using Chong’s name and Chong’s credit card. Chong agreed and at the request of the defendant gave her credit cards to the defendant.  Chong did not however agree to the defendant using her credit cards.

9.  Between the 8-10th May the defendant used the credit cards of Chong to purchases a Cartier watch for $25,000 (charge 6); and to pay the hotel bills in the sums of $6,000 (charge 7), $17,000 (charge 8) and $3,820.80 (charge 9).  No repayment has been made by the defendant. 

Charges 10 & 11

10.  The defendant befriended CHAN Mei-sze, a sales person of a VCD stall.  On the 2nd October 2008 the defendant met CHAN at the Four Seasons Hotel where she falsely claimed her father was a close friend of Dickson Poon and in order that Dickson Watch could continue as an authorzed dealer for Rolex the defendant told Chan to buy some watches from Dickson Watch, from which Chan would be able to earn some commission.  Believing the defendant the same day Chan purchased with her credit cards four watches at a cost of $186,320 and the following day gave the defendant $45,000 to buy more watches.  Chan gave the watches to the defendant, who in return gave Chan $28,000 as alleged commission (charge 10).  Later the defendant said her father had disapproved of the arrangement and therefore $13,000 had to be given back to the defendant (charge 11).  Subsequently the defendant paid $79,000 to Chan as alleged commission. 

Charges 12 & 13

11.  The defendant befriended NG Sik-lam, a staff of a serviced apartment, where the defendant resided.  On the 3rd December 2008 the defendant again falsely claimed her father owned Elegant Watch and that she would like Ng to help boost the sales of the shop by buying watches for her, from which he could earn commission.  The defendant also promised she would repay Ng in full by the 7th December.  Ng eventually agreed and gave the defendant $40,000.  Later the same day Ng was given $6,000 as purported commission (charge 12).

12.  The defendant did not pay as promised and made various excuses, all of which were false, including that she was required to sell two more watches before making repayment.  As a result Ng agreed to help and gave the defendant $50,000 (charge 13).  Other than the $6,000 purported commission no monies have been repaid. 

Charges 14 & 15

13.  The defendant befriended Tracy WONG, the proprietor of a manicure shop, where she was a regular customer.  In December 2008 the defendant falsely claimed her boss had a business in selling watches and asked Wong if she would like to earn commission by buying watches through her from Elegant Watch.  Wong agreed and on the 11th December gave the defendant $115,000 to buy watches.  In return the defendant gave Wong $12,000 as purported commission (charge 14).

14.  Later the same day the defendant falsely claimed she needed $20,000 to meet her quota of selling watches.  Wong therefore gave the defendant a further $12,000 (charge 15).  Other than the $12,000 purported commission no monies have been repaid.

Charge 16

15.  The defendant frequented Crabtree and Evelyn where she befriended Emily YAM, a salesperson.  On the 17th November 2008 the defendant falsely claimed she owned a jewellery company and told Yam she could earn $4,000 commission for every purchase from the defendant of $20,000.  Believing she could earn commission Yam advanced a total sum of $160,000 to the defendant.  Later the same day the defendant falsely claimed her sales quota had not been met and requested Yam to purchase a watch from Dickson Watch.  Yam purchased a watch valued at $70,380.  Despite repeated demands the defendant has only repaid $46,000.

Charge 17

16.  The defendant befriended TSOI Hung-kam, the proprietor of a manicure shop, where she was a regular customer.  On the 22nd November 2008 the defendant deceived Tsoi in to allowing her to deposit a cheque in the sum of $400,000 into Tsoi’s account by claiming she did not have a bank account.  On showing Tsoi the deposit slip Tsoi gave the defendant her ATM card and pin number to enable the defendant to withdraw the money.  Unbeknown to Tsoi the cheque bounced.  The defendant used the ATM card to buy two watches valued at $104,120 from Elegant Watch.  Nothing has been repaid to Tsoi.

17.  In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Ms Cheng together with the letters submitted by the defendant and her family.

18.  Ms Cheng asks that I impose a concurrent sentence to the sentence the defendant is now serving.  On the 25th January this year in DCCC 1209/2009 the defendant was sentenced by Deputy Judge Lam to 18 months imprisonment for 24 offences of a similar nature, in that the defendant cheated people she had befriended out of their money but using different false representations.  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for sentence in that case together with all the reports placed before Deputy Judge Lam.  The defendant was said to have suffered from an impulse control disorder (see the psychiatric reports) but at the time of sentence was not in need of in-patient treatment.  I do not propose to set out the details of the defendant’s psychiatric illness, which is detailed in the reports and referred to in Deputy Judge Lam’s reasons for sentence

19.  Miss Cheng tells me the defendant has received treatment whilst serving sentence and is making good progress.  The defendant has also undertaken studying an accounting course run by the Chinese University, which shows a positive approach to sentence on the part of the defendant.  The defendant in her letter says she is truly sorry for cheating the victims.  The psychological report called for today’s hearing confirms the defendant takes majority responsibility for her offences and shows some remorse.

Sentence

20.  Over a period of 9 months the defendant cheated eight different victims of their money ranging from $51,820.80 to $228,000. The total amount deceived is $1,216,640.80.  Some victims have been repaid in part but a total of $824,340.80 remains outstanding and there is no prospect of the defendant repaying any of this.  Credit will be given to the defendant for repaying the sum of $392,300.

21.  I am satisfied the proper starting points after trial are 3 years imprisonment for charges 1-5, 10-11, 14-16 and 2 years imprisonment for charges 6-9, 12-13 and 17.  Each set of offences committed on eight different victims are separate and distinct for which consecutive sentences are appropriate.  Considering totality of sentence I am satisfied an overall starting point of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment is appropriate.

22.  Giving the defendant full credit for her pleas of guilty reduces the sentences to 2 years imprisonment concurrent on each of charges 1-5,   10-11 and 14-16 and to 1 year and 4 months imprisonment concurrent on each of charges 6-9, 12-13 and 17, with 4 months consecutive and            12 months concurrent to charges 1-5, 10-11 and 14-16, making a total sentence of 2 years and 4 months imprisonment.

23.  I disagree with Ms Cheng that the sentence should be ordered to be served concurrent to the sentence of 18 months imprisonment the defendant is now serving in DCCC 1209/2009.  The defendant cheated eight separate victims of $1,216,640.80 over a period of about 9 months between April and December 2008.  In DCCC 1209/2009 the defendant cheated three other victims of $728,865 between March and May 2008.  The present offences are clearly separate and distinct from the offences for which the defendant is now serving sentence.  Consecutive sentences are appropriate subject to totality of sentence to be served.

24.  Further in respect of DCCC 1209/2009 the defendant was arrested on the 9th May 2008 and placed thereafter on police bail.  The present offences except charges 5, 6 & 7 were committed whilst on police bail.  In fact charges 8 and 9 were committed the very next day.  Commission of offences on bail is an aggravating feature of sentence. 

25.  Taking into account a total of $1,945,505.80 was cheated from eleven different victims over a period of about 10 months and that fourteen of the offences were committed whilst on police bail, I am satisfied had all the offences been dealt with at the same time that the proper overall starting point would have been 4 years and 6 months.

26.  Deputy Judge Lam took a global starting point of 3 years imprisonment, which he reduced to 2 years by reason of the pleas of guilty and a further 6 months by reason of the defendant’s reduced culpability arising from her mental illness (see paragraphs 29, 30 & 39 of the reasons for sentence). 

27.  This leaves a sentence after trial of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment.  Full credit for the pleas of guilty means that the defendant has to serve a further 12 months imprisonment.  I am satisfied a further reduction of 2 months imprisonment is appropriate so as to give credit to the defendant for repayment of $392,300.  I am satisfied no further reduction is to be given in respect of the defendant’s psychiatric illness.    I am satisfied in giving a 6 month reduction Deputy Judge Lam has already been more than generous. 

28.  The total sentence for the present charges being one of 2 years and 4 months imprisonment means that with 10 months consecutive the balance of 1 year and 6 months is to be served concurrently.  The defendant has however only days left to serve on her existing sentence and therefore there is no sentence to which I can make the balance concurrent.  Accordingly to give effect to the intention of the court the defendant is sentenced to 10 months imprisonment concurrent on all charges but consecutive to the sentence she is now serving.