Case Document

100%Judiciary

DCCC 215/2019

[2019] HKDC 1327

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 215 OF 2019

____________

	HKSAR
	v
	MORANO DAVID JR GUEVARRA

_________

Before:

HH Judge Dufton

Date:

2 October 2019

Present:

Mr Frederic Whitehouse, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr John Hemmings instructed by M.C.A. Lai Solicitors LLP, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the defendant

Offence:

Using false instruments (使用虛假文書)

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant, a citizen of the Philippines and visitor to Hong Kong, stands convicted after trial of one charge of using false instruments, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance[1].

2.Full particulars of the offence are set out in my verdict handed down today. In summary on 29 October 2018 the defendant, together with three other persons went to HSBC Main Building, No. 1 Queen’s Road Central.

3.The defendant presented to Ms So, an assistant manager with HSBC, documents including the false instruments in the sum of USD$500 billion and requested the bank to make a certificate to the effect that he had some savings in the bank.

4.Ms So ascertained that the account stated on the instruments to belong to the defendant did not exist and called the police.

5.For the reasons given in my verdict I was satisfied that the defendant knew or believed the instruments to be false and that he intended Ms So to accept them as genuine and by reason of so accepting to do some act to her own or any other person’s prejudice.

6.In passing sentence, I have taken into account everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Hemmings, including that the defendant has two young children in the Philippines.

7.Mr Hemmings submits that there was never any prospect of the defendant obtaining any money because the bank would never have issued a certificate.

8.Whilst there may have been little likelihood of success there was clearly a degree of planning and preparation in the commission of the offence. The defendant not only came to Hong Kong to commit a crime which is a serious aggravating feature of sentence, he was also in possession of false supporting documents which he gave to Ms So, including documents purportedly issued by the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Federal Reserve certifying that the sum of USD$500 billion belonged to the defendant[2].

Sentence

9.I have considered the decision in HKSAR v Mazhar Taha Ahmed Elmansouri[3]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”[4].

10.Taking into account the amount of the false instruments USD$500 billion; there was little likelihood of success; the bank suffered no loss; the defendant came to Hong Kong from the Philippines to commit a crime and that the defendant has a clear record in Hong Kong, I am satisfied the appropriate sentence after trial is 3 years’ imprisonment.

11.The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.