R. v. CHUNG PO WAH

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 573
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Ching, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. The applicant was convicted of one charge of furnishing false information contrary to section 19(1)(b) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. The particulars of the offence given were that:

"FONG Sze-kwong and CHUNG Po-wah, between the 22nd day of March, 1991 and the 9th day of April, 1991, in Hong Kong, dishonestly with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, in furnishing information to Nihon Credit Service (Asia) Company Limited for a hire-purchase loan in the sum of $226,428 produced a document required for an accounting purpose, namely, a Hire Purchase Proposal Form, which to his knowledge was misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular in that :-

(a) it falsely purported to show that a LAW Ping-kwan was to be the prospective hirer of the vehicle described therein,

(b) it falsely described the residential address and telephone number of the said LAW Ping-kwan,

(c) it falsely described the company name, company address and business telephone number of the said LAW Ping-kwan."

Fong Sze-kwong was the 1st defendant in the Court below. The application now applies for leave to appeal against his conviction.

2. In the Court below, Law Ping-kwan gave evidence. He was not in fact the proposed hire-purchaser, his residential address and telephone number, his company name, address and the business telephone number of his employer as given in the form in question were all false. This evidence was accepted by the Judge below.

3. The Judge below then proceeded to examine the rest of the evidence in relation to the charge to see if the applicant was connected to this document containing false information. He had admitted a statement made by the applicant under caution and it was this statement which he found proved the connection. In the statement the applicant gave a very detailed account of what had occurred. He had been approached by Fong Sze-kwong who paid him $3,000 for the purposes of obtaining a photocopy of an identity card to be used to obtain a motor vehicle on hire purchase. Fong Sze-kwong explained to him that he would only pay one instalment and would have the use of the car and this could only constitute what was described as a civil case. Fong Sze-kwong gave the applicant the necessary documents. The applicant then approached someone called Ah Fei who then introduced him to a man called Law Ping-kwan. For the sum of $2,000 Law Ping-kwan produced a photocopy of his identity card which he signed at the applicant's request and signed the documents including the form in question. The address of Law Ping-kwan given on the form was the previous address of the applicant whose only explanation was that Fong Sze-kwong had visited him at that address before. He claimed to have no knowledge of the accuracy or otherwise of the other information provided in the form. He went with Fong Sze-kwong to take delivery of the car. He had borrowed that car and others from Fong Sze-kwong who, according to him, had a number of cars.

4. The contents of the cautioned statement constituted ample evidence upon which the conviction could be founded and the applicant has put nothing before us to entitle us to interfere. The application for leave is therefore dismissed.