|
DCCC1089/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1089 OF 2010
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Chuah Wen Pin |
|
| ---------------------- |
| |
| Before: |
H H Judge A. Wong |
| Date: |
26 November 2010 at 3.22 pm |
| Present: |
Mr Alex Wong, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Lee Chi-wai, Norman, of Peter K H Wong & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
| Offence: |
(1) Using a false instrument (使用虛假文書)
(2) Possessing false instruments (管有虛假文書) |
--------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
--------------------------
1. The defendant was convicted upon his guilty pleas of one charge of using a false instrument, Charge 1, and one charge of possessing false instruments, Charge 2.
2. In sentencing, I take into consideration the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, personal background of the defendant, mitigation put forward on his behalf and have had regard to sentencing precedents.
3. According to the Summary of Facts which the defendant admitted, the defendant used a false MasterCard to attempt to make purchase at a Sa Sa Shop of about $2,200 worth of perfumes. When there were difficulties in processing payment with the credit card he produced, he asked for the return of the card and left the shop. He was intercepted by police officers. Upon search, two more false credit cards which were the subject matter of Charge 2 were found on him.
4. Under caution, the defendant admitted that all the three cards found on him were false and he had used one of them in a purchase but it was not successful.
5. The defendant is 23 years of age. He is a Malaysian and lives there with his parents and siblings. Before coming to Hong Kong, he worked as a waiter there.
6. In mitigation, learned counsel stressed that the defendant is a first-time offender.
7. I have considered the cases referred to me by learned defence counsel as well as other cases. In R v Chan Sui To [1996] 2 HKCLR 128, the Court of Appeal set out various factors which a sentencing court should consider in a case of this nature. In HKSAR v Ng Swee Thiam [2000] 1 HKLRD 772, the Court of Appeal commented that it was the potential for losses which was the most important consideration. It was held in HKSAR v Tu I Lang, CACC464/2007, that where the facts of the offence pointed to a small unsophisticated operation involving only one or a few false cards, uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the offender to a large operation, then a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate.
8. The other cases I have considered include HKSAR v Chan Kwai Fui CACC94/98 and HKSAR v Wong Chin Hang, CACC409/2008.
9. In the present case, there was no evidence that the offender was acting in concert with others. The false credit cards must have been specifically made for him, thus showing certain degree of pre-planning. There is no evidence to show that it was a sophisticated operation and that it was not a small one. What he had attempted to do was to make a minor purchase. But the potential of further loss cannot be ignored.
10. Immediate custodial sentences are called for in this case. Credit card offences are serious and must be deterred. I adopt a starting point of 3 years for each charge. The defendant pleaded guilty, he is entitled to a one-third discount.
11. Having considered the whole circumstances including mitigation, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to in this case. Accordingly, I sentence the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment for each charge.
12. Having regard to totality, I order the two sentences to run concurrently. The defendant is to serve a total sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment.
|