Case Document

100%Judiciary

DCCC 544/2018

[2019] HKDC 650

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 544 OF 2018

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

	HKSAR
	v
	RAMBUYON Noel Enterina

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

Before:

HH Judge Stanley Chan

Date:

25 April 2019

Present:	Mr Sajan G. Sujanani, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
	Mr John Marray, instructed by Au-Yeung, Cheng, Ho & Tin, assigned by DLA, for the defendant

Offence:

Using false instruments (使用虛假文書)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded not guilty to one count of using false instruments. He was convicted after trial.

2.The facts of the prosecution case are straight forward. The defendant who is a Filipino national came to Hong Kong on 5 February 2018. On the following day, 6 February, at about 4:25 pm, the defendant went to Travelex Currency Exchange Store in Central and presented a bundle of 50 pieces of Thomas Cook Travellers Cheques, each at the face value of USD $1,000. The defendant was arrested at the scene. These Travelers Cheques are counterfeit.

Mitigation

3.The defendant, who was born in the Philippines, is aged 42. He was married with 4 kids. Since 2010, the defendant worked in Qatar as an air-conditioning technician, earning about USD $1,500 per month. Defence counsel submitted that one of the mitigating factors is that Travelex did not suffer loss or risk of loss. Apart from that, no further mitigating grounds nor sentencing authority were submitted. The defendant had a clear record in Hong Kong.

Sentence

4.The subject matter of the charge is 50 pieces of Travelers Cheques each at the face value of USD $1,000. Although it is virtually impossible to encash these cheques, the total value amounted to USD $50,000 which is approximately equivalent to HK$390,000. As said by the prosecution witnesses, the quality of these fake cheques is of poor quality and there is no first signature appeared on the cheques.

5.There is an international element in the present offence as the defendant came all the way from the Philippines and committed the offence on the following day. That said, I bear in mind that the defendant had a clear record in Hong Kong even though there is no substantial mitigating ground put forward on behalf of the defendant.

6.There is no sentencing guideline in this kind of offence which attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years.

7.In HKSAR v Anofi Hamid Tunde CACC 248/2000, the Court of Appeal held that a starting point of 3 years for the offence of using a false bank draft of $450,000 was appropriate.

8.In HKSAR v Ra Hyun Bin [2009] 5 HKLRD 315, that I previously mentioned, the Court of Appeal upheld the sentence of Appellant 1 to Appellant 3 ranging from 3½ years to 3 years’ imprisonment respectively. In that case, the 3 appellants went to the Head Office of HSBC in Hong Kong and uttered a copy of the Standby Letter of Credit which is a false instrument. That Standby Letter of Credit was in the sum of $5 billion Euros purportedly issued by HSBC with Appellant 1 as the beneficiary.

9.In the present case, the modus operandi was simple. The defendant just presented the bundle of Travelers Cheques and asked them to be exchanged.

10.Taking all factors into account, I will adopt a starting point of 2½ years. As the defendant was convicted after trial, there is no discount in sentence, hence I sentence the defendant to an imprisonment term of 2½ years.