HKSAR v. Omarov Rinat

DCCC 568/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 568 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant stands convicted after trial of one charge of using a false instrument, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance[1].

2.Full particulars of the offence are set out in my verdict handed down this afternoon.  In summary on 18 April this year the defendant presented a false certificate of deposit in the sum of US$24.5 million to a bank manager of Hang Seng Bank and requested that the money be transferred to bank accounts in Greece and Kazakhstan.   The bank manager suspected the certificate was false and called the police. 

3. For the reasons given in my verdict I was satisfied that the defendant knew or believed the certificate was false and that he intended to induce the bank manager to accept the certificate as genuine and by reason of so accepting the certificate as genuine intended the bank manager to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

4.In passing sentence, I have taken into account everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Omar including that the defendant has a clear record.  Mr Omar submits that the defendant was not the mastermind and that the use of the certificate was amateurish with no likelihood of success. 

5.Although the defendant may not be the mastermind he came to Hong Kong to commit a crime which is a serious aggravating feature of sentence.  Whilst the likelihood of success was low this was not a case of simply presenting the certificate.  In seeking to persuade the bank manager that there was such an account and that the certificate was genuine, a power of attorney was also presented together with a copy of the passport of the ‘depositor’. 

6.I have also considered the decision in HKSAR v Mazhar Taha Ahmed Elmansouri[2]where the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment for using a false bank draft in the sum of US$10 million.  The Court of Appeal also reviewed a number of similar cases where sentence ranged from 2½ years to 4½ years imprisonment.  However the court stressed that “the citation of individual cases for the purpose of comparing sentences is of limited assistance since the particular sentence in anyone case must depend on the individual facts of the case”[3].

7.Taking into account the amount of the certificate; the likelihood of success was low; the bank suffered no loss and that you came to Hong Kong from Kazakhstan to commit a crime, I am satisfied the appropriate sentence after trial is 3 years’ imprisonment.

8.You are convicted and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.