HKSAR v. Wong Chiu Wah

DCCC 610 & 850A/2004 (Consolidated)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 610 & 850A OF 2004

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charges

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to the following charges:

(1) 2^nd Charge - Conspiracy to have custody or control of counterfeit notes with intent, contrary to sections 100(1), 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200;

(2) 3^rd Charge - Conspiracy to forge documents, contrary to sections 71, 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200;

(3) 6^th Charge – Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause, contrary to section 9L(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221.

Facts for 2^nd and 3^rd Charges

2.On 30 July 2003, the police raided a flat in Sham Shui Po.  The Defendant was in the living room whereas other people were in a bedroom or other parts of the flat.

3.Counterfeit banknotes and forged documents were found as follows:

(1) On the dining table in the living room - 69 counterfeit $500 banknotes with the same serial number, and 1 forged HKID card;

(2) On top of TV set in the living room – forged documents in the form of 1 water bill, 1 acknowledgement of application for HKID card, 1 notice of benefit transfer, and 1 water and sewage bill;

(3) In the wardrobe in the bedroom - 2 counterfeit $1,000 banknotes with the same serial number, 50 blank government salary statements, 146 blank HSBC bank statements, 3 acknowledgements of application for HKID card, 2 water and sewage bills, and 3 MPF statements;

(4) On the shelf and computer desk in the bedroom – 1 piece of blank government salary statement, 199 pieces of blank water bills, 65 pieces of blank Inland Revenue Department Assessment and Demand for Tax, 3 bills issued by Town Gas, 1 MPF statement, and 1 notice of benefit transfer;

(5) On the desk in the bedroom – 1 acknowledgement of application for HKID card, 4 bills issued by CLP Hong Kong Limited, 1 HKID card, 1 Food and Environment Hygiene Department warrant card, 3 water and sewage bills, 3 notices of benefit transfer.

4.A computer in working order, a colour printer, an inkjet printer, a notebook containing notes as to how to make copies of documents, a scanner and a tenancy agreement were also found in the flat. 

5.Search of the Defendant’s home in Choi Hung Estate yielded 14 counterfeit $500 banknotes with the same serial number as the ones in the Sham Shui Po flat, and some letters to persons unrelated to the Defendant. 

6.Investigation revealed that the landlord of the flat had leased the flat to a person bearing a HKID card in the name of TSUI Kin-fung 2 months ago.  TSUI Kin-fung informed the police that his HKID card had been stolen in early 2003 and he had never rented the flat. 

7.In the subsequent interviews by the police, the Defendant said he had come to know of a person Ah Wai, who led him to the flat.  Ah Wai instructed him to steal letters from letterboxes.  So he stole letters from buildings in Cheung Sha Wan and Sham Shui Po.  Ah Wai gave him $500 as a reward.  Ah Wai told him the stolen letters were for forging documents to apply for loans and credit facilities from banks and financial institutions.  He had seen Ah Wai used the computer in the bedroom to make forged documents.  He had seen the counterfeit $500 banknotes and believed that Ah Wai had made them.  He took 14 of them back home.  The letters found in his home were stolen in Choi Hung.  There were 2 other people, who were present during the raid, working for Ah Wai.  Those 3 had the keys to the flat. 

8.The prosecution case is that the Defendant had conspired with others to have in their custody or control of counterfeit banknotes (2^nd Charge) and to make false documents (3^rd Charge).  

9.The prosecution accepts that the counterfeit banknotes were not of high quality. 

Facts for 6^th Charge

10.The Defendant failed to attend the District Court for plea on 25 June 2004. 

11.On 23 August 2016, he was arrested and cautioned. 

12.In the subsequent interview, he admitted under caution that he failed to attend court as he did not wish to be imprisoned. 

Personal background and mitigation

13.The Defendant is 39 years old, of Form 1 education level.  He had 4 criminal conviction records as follows:

(1) Robbery, sentenced to PO in 1993;

(2) Being a member of a triad society, sentenced to PO in 1993;

(3) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, sentenced to 100 hours’ CSO;

(4) Possession of a false instrument with intent, sentenced to 6 months.

14.The last conviction was due to his attempt to fool the police with a false acknowledgement of application for a HKID card in a random identity check outside MTR station.  That led to his arrest and connected him to this decade-old District Court case. 

15.There are a lot of mitigating letters from family members, friends, employers, and fellow church-goers, some commending his past deeds whereas others testifying to his will to reform. 

Sentencing considerations

16.His co-conspirators were sentenced in 2005 for the same offences based on the same facts.  The Court of Appeal had confirmed that a total sentence of 3 years 4 months after a one-third discount on a guilty plea was appropriate. 

17.As seen from the research made by the prosecution and the defence respectively, it has been argued at times that a person failing to surrender to lawful custody should receive the usual discount for a timely plea for his original charges as he is answerable for a separate charge for his absconding.  The Court of Appeal has consistently rejected such argument on the basis that the guilty plea tendered when brought back after absconding was necessarily a late plea (HKSAR v Poon Chum Kong CACC 228/1999; HKSAR v Lo Shiu Wah CACC 399/1999; HKSAR v Ko Chun Hung CACC 71/2007; HKSAR v Lam King Yin CACC 328/2012; HKSAR v Lo Kam Fai [2016] 2 HKLRD 308). 

Sentencing this Defendant

18.I take 3 years and 5 years as the starting point for the 2^nd and the 3^rd Charges respectively.  I give a one-quarter discount for the late pleas.  The sentences are 27 months and 45 months respectively. 

19.I take 9 months as the starting point for the 6^th Charge.  I give a one-third discount for the timely plea.  The sentence is 6 months. 

20.On totality basis, I make the following adjustment:

(1) 3^rd Charge - 45 months;

(2) 2^nd Charge - 27 months, all concurrent with other charges;

(3) 6^th Charge - 3 months consecutive to other charges.

21.The total sentence is 48 months.