Read the full judgment text of CACC 136/2001 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 14 March 2002 before Stuart-Moore VP and Lugar-Mawson J.
Criminal law – sentencing – fraudulent use of counterfeit credit cards – using a false instrument contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 – obtaining property by deception contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 – credit card fraud involving less than $9,000 – no international dimension – no evidence of syndicated operation – appellant with six prior convictions for unrelated offences – whether overall starting point of three years' imprisonment manifestly excessive – sentencing guidelines for credit card offences – deterrence and integrity of credit card system – potential for future losses. The Court of Appeal held that the sentence of two years' imprisonment (from an overall starting point of three years) on concurrent terms was not manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had conducted a careful and accurate analysis, considered every point raised, and referred to two relevant authorities. The only previous guidelines case, R v Chan Sui-to [1996] HKCLR 128, established that the sum of money involved is only one factor and not even the most significant one. Comparable cases, including HKSAR v Hung Ping-wah and HKSAR v Watt Siu-hung, showed that starting points of three to four years for such offences were on the high side but not manifestly excessive. HKSAR v Ng Swee-thiam & Ors [2000] 1 HKLRD 772 confirmed that the potential for future losses is the most important consideration. Severe sentences are imposed in this jurisdiction as a deterrent to protect the integrity of the credit card system and the confidence the public is entitled to place in modern commercial life (HKSAR v Yau Wai-chun). Starting point: 3 years; concurrent terms of 2 years' imprisonment on each charge. Appeal dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether the sentence of two years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive for credit card fraud involving less than $9,000
Outcome: Appeal against sentence dismissed.
Cited by 36 cases · Cites 3 cases