HKSAR v. Tam Ho Nang

HCCC 116/2018

[2021] HKCFI 524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 116 OF 2018

________________________

________________________

________________________

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

________________________

COURT: The 1st defendant was convicted by jury of one count of conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law.

In a 15 months’ period between 1 February 2014 and 30 April 2015, the defendant conspired with one Chen Zhimin through the creation of false purchase orders from six mainland companies, had managed to deceive Britestone, a subsidiary of a Korean electronic components company, into supplying goods to these companies. Goods were delivered to warehouses set up by the defendant and this Mr Chen.

31 transactions totalling US currency 8.575 million worth of electronic components were involved. After 21 transactions, the defendant defaulted in paying the remaining 10 transactions. As a result, Britestone has suffered a loss of US$3.579 million. That is about HK$27.7 million using the conversion rate of 7.75.

As to where this US$3.579 million had gone, the jury could only be sure of one thing, that the money did not go to the defendant’s electronic components business. In all likelihood, the money had gone to the Hong Kong Jockey Club.

The fraudulent scheme devised by the defendant, with the assistance/collaboration of Chen Zhimin, was a careful and elaborate one. Not only false purchase orders were created, false invoices, false letters of authorisation, false e‑mails and the setting‑up of warehouses, companies and bank accounts had been deployed. In essence, this fraudulent scheme involved both circulation of goods and money, thus allowing the defendant with a continuous supply of funds for his personal use, whatever that might be.

In the HKSAR v Hui Po Keung and Others, CACC 240/2011, in a period of slightly over six months, the mastermind, a Mr Leung, submitted 301 import loan applications to 14 banks with false invoices. As a result, the banks suffered a total loss of HK$21.47 million. A sentence of 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment was considered by the Court of Appeal to be entirely appropriate.

In this case, although the number of transactions was less, the period was significantly longer. The loss suffered by the victim was also greater. Whether the victim is a bank or a company, it makes little difference in my view. In view of the above, I am of the view that the appropriate starting point would be one of 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

There is no suggestion of any undue delay on the part of the prosecution. There is also no suggestion of any medical issue affecting the defendant. It was submitted that the present proceedings have brought enormous stress to the defendant. I can understand that but that applies almost to every case that reaches this court. Personal circumstances put forward in a case as serious as the present one pales into insignificance.

In conclusion, for the sole offence the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.