HKSAR v. Hadebe Evelyne

DCCC 683/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 683 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges, namely Using false instruments and Possessing false instruments, contrary to sections 73 and 75(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200 respectively.

2.In the afternoon on 6 June 2016, the defendant went to the Standard Chartered Bank at Ground Floor, No 10 Granville Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong.  She produced a passport of Kingdom of Lesotho and an ABSA Visa card both in the name of Mafere M Maria to the bank teller and requested to make an overdraft withdrawal of the sum of $21,000 from her purported credit card account.

3.Bank staff made inquiry with the Visa card centre and was told that the Visa card was forged.  The case was reported to the police.  Upon police arrival, another 2 forged Visa cards, 1 ABSA and 1 FNB Visa card, both in the name of Mafere M Maria, were seized from the defendant’s handbag.

4.The Government Chemist later revealed that the passport, as well as the 3 Visa cards were all forged.  In particular, the inner back cover of the questioned passport had been substituted, and the inner back cover of the said passport was the bio-data page bearing the portrait and personal particulars of the holder.

5.In the subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated that she arrived in Hong Kong on 4 June 2016 and she had 2 passports, but she lost the one which she had used to enter Hong Kong via the Hong Kong International Airport.

6.The Immigration Department confirmed that there was no arrival record from the said Lesotho passport.

7.Later, on 30 June 2016, the defendant produced another copy of a passport of Republic of South Africa bearing her name, Hadebe Evelyne, and stated that it was her genuine identity. The Immigration Department later confirmed that the defendant had used this passport to enter Hong Kong on 4 June 2016. 

8.On the day of offence, the defendant used the forged passport and the forged Visa card, which she knew or believed to be false, with the intention of inducing the staff of the Standard Chartered Bank to accept them as genuine, and by reason of so accepting them, to do some act to her own or the bank’s prejudice.

9.The defendant also had in her custody 2 other forged Visa cards which she knew or believed to be false, with the intention that she or another would use them to induce somebody to accept them as genuine, and by reason of so accepting them, to do or not to do some act to her own or any other person’s prejudice.

10.The defendant is aged 44, a national of South Africa.  She has no criminal record in Hong Kong.  Mr Marray submits that the defendant has 3 children aged from 19 to 26.  However, the second son, aged 22, suffers from mental disability which requires constant care.  The defendant is a garment trader in South Africa, and when she came to Hong Kong, a male approached her to use the forged passport and false credit card to get money, from which she would be obtaining $5,000 as reward.  As the defendant had debt in South Africa and she needed money for children’s maintenance and school fees, she committed the present offences. 

11.Mr Marray further submits that the defendant pleaded guilty and committed offences out of such difficult family circumstances.  There was no international dimension and the credit cards were of very low quality that would be easily detected.  Now that the defendant has learnt a hard lesson, she wishes to make some publication and go back to South Africa to tell others not to commit any crimes of credit card or drug trafficking.

12.Using false instruments and possessing false instruments are both serious offences.  In relation to the using of forged credit cards, in the Court of Appeal case HKSAR v Tu I Lang CACC 464/2006, it is stated that where the facts of the offence point to a small, unsophisticated operation involving only a few forged cards, uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the offender to a larger operation, then a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate.

13.In the present case, the defendant used the forged credit card intending to obtain overdraft withdrawal of $21,000 from the bank, together with the possession of 2 other forged credit cards, both not in her name, the facts were serious.

14.Considering all the background circumstances and mitigation, I adopt 3 years as a starting point, reducing it to 2 years’ imprisonment upon guilty plea for the 1st charge.

15.For the 2nd charge of possession of 2 forged credit cards, I adopt 2 years’ imprisonment as a starting point, reducing it to 16 months’ imprisonment upon guilty plea.

16.Finally, applying the totality principle, I consider it appropriate to make both sentences to be run concurrently.

17.Therefore, the sentence is as follows:

1st Charge: 2 years’ imprisonment;

2nd Charge: 16 months’ imprisonment, both charges to be run concurrently.

18.Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for both charges.