HKSAR v. Sun Po Tak

DCCC 332/2021

[2021] HKDC 843

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 332 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to 20 charges of forgery (Charges 1 to 20). He has also pleaded guilty to one charge of using a forged identity card (Charge 21), two charges of possession of a forged identity card (Charges 22 and 23), and lastly, one charge of possessing equipment for making false instruments (Charge 24). He has admitted the Summary of Facts.

The Facts

2.In brief, the facts referred to the defendant using forged identity cards that he made himself to register with the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD)  to book facilities, namely high-demand facilities such as turf soccer pitches and hard-surface soccer pitches.  He did this to organise a football league where each participating team in the league paid a fee for the season, expecting games to be scheduled.  He arranged the league game schedule and had to arrange for venues booked through the LCSD online booking platform. 

3.Essentially, the defendant forged many identity cards in order to book venues to earn an income.  Not only did he earn an income from organising a league where teams paid a fee for the season but where he was successful in booking pitches he did not need, he would scalp them for a profit.  For example, a normal booking costs $144 and he would sell his booking for $700.

4.The defendant was the chairman of CJ Football Association organising the CJ League, an amateur seven-a-side football league. He was also the chairman of Chun Tat Football Club.  Each team in the league paid a league fee which was for at least 19 games over the season.  Each team paid either $2,800 for games played on hard-surface soccer pitches or $10,400 for games played on turf soccer pitches. 

5.All these pitches were managed by the LCSD. Members of the public can book pitches and other sports facilities through the online booking platform known as the Leisure Link e-Services.  Under that platform, a member of the public may register as a Leisure Link Patron (LLP)  either through the internet, by post or by fax, in order to speed up the process of booking facilities. 

6.To register as an LLP online required each applicant’s personal particulars, including name, e-mail address, Hong Kong identity card number and a requirement to upload a soft copy of that applicant’s ID card for verification.  Each applicant was required to declare that the information was true and accurate.  LCSD staff would only check that personal particulars inputted by each applicant tallied with their corresponding ID card soft copy.  After registration, LLP account holders could book pitches by logging into their LLP accounts. 

7.Turf soccer pitches are in very high demand, so from June 2018 LCSD created a balloting scheme to allocate turf pitches to applicants through computer balloting.  Under the scheme, each LLP account holder was limited to enrol one ballot per day only.  If successful, that account holder would receive notification via e-mail and had to pay.  They were required to show up in person with their identity card to present to LCSD venue staff to check when signing in for that booked soccer pitch. 

8.The defendant’s offences came to light when between July 2014 and January 2019 a total of 334 suspicious LLP accounts had been registered using an identical e-mail address, the defendant’s e-mail.  330 of those 334 LLP accounts were registered after the balloting scheme in June 2018 was set up.  Of the 334 LLP accounts, 74 were registered using the defendant’s mobile phone number.  31 of the 334 LLP accounts were registered using the defendant’s home address. 

9.Although LCSD staff manually checked the personal particulars inputted by LLP applicants tallied with those shown on the uploaded ID card soft copies, there was no check to verify if each applicant with the same or similar personal particulars such as name, date of birth, e-mail address or mobile phone number but with a different Hong Kong ID card number was already an existing LLP account holder.  It was an inefficient and ineffective system to say the least. 

10.Of those 334 LLP accounts, the LCSD were able to retrieve 131 soft copies of ID cards uploaded and found that those ID cards belonged to 50 people but bore 131 different ID card numbers.  Subsequent investigation revealed that only 8 of the 131 soft copies of ID cards uploaded during registration for an LLP account were genuine.  The remaining 123 soft copies of ID cards uploaded during registration were forged. 

11.It was the defendant who uploaded those 123 forged and edited Hong Kong ID card images.  He had originally obtained genuine Hong Kong ID card images from people such as his relatives, team members, referees and so forth in order to register LLP accounts.  After using genuine card images to register, he then manipulated those images to create more Hong Kong ID card images to apply for more LLP accounts.  He used Photoshop to fabricate Hong Kong ID card numbers before submitting those forged images online as soft copies. 

12.As part of the registration process, he had to provide personal particulars, especially an e-mail address.  He had to receive notification of successful balloting by e-mail so he used his own address.  He was able to register many LLP accounts so long as each application was a different Hong Kong ID card number.  The more LLP accounts he created, the more successful he was at getting pitches for the league’s soccer games. 

13.LCSD did not detect this simplistic fraudulent scheme of the defendant.  Yet it would not have been difficult since the identical e-mail address and particulars were used often. 

14.The 20 forgery charges referred to date between 10 November 2018 and 13 January 2019.  He used those forged and altered Hong Kong ID card images to set up many LLP accounts.  Those 20 forgery charges referred to 20 separate dates when he uploaded between 1 and 19 false Hong Kong ID card images.  The charges are identical as are the particulars but refer to diverse dates and different forged and altered Hong Kong ID card images submitted on those dates. 

15.The defendant was arrested on 26 February 2019 when the police set up an ambush at Morse Park pitches.  Two of the suspicious LLP accounts had been used to book two football pitches for CJ League games for two consecutive sessions that evening.  The defendant was arrested when he signed in for the first of those pitches using a forged ID card in the name of Tam Ho-ming which bore his photograph (Charge 21). 

16.The defendant was arrested after presenting that ID card before the game and under caution, he immediately admitted forging that ID card to book that football pitch in order to earn money.  His vehicle was parked next to Morse Park and was searched by the police.  They found a forged ID card in the name of Wong Kar-Long, which also bore the defendant’s photograph (Charge 22).  That name and card was used to book the second pitch for the CJ League that night. 

17.After his arrest, the police searched his home and seized 120 forged ID cards, all bearing the defendant’s photograph (Charge 23).  They also seized equipment such as a laptop computer, a card printer, USB drive, white blank cards, white blank cards embedded with chips designed or adapted for making forged Hong Kong ID cards (Charge 24). 

18.The defendant admitted under caution forging the ID card used the evening of his arrest to sign in for the two football pitches.  He admitted that he had forged the 120 Hong Kong ID cards found in his home.  He explained to the police how he used the equipment found to make those cards.

19.When shown the registration records of the 334 suspicious LLP accounts, the defendant confirmed that some of the particulars were genuine whilst some were false but he could not recall the exact details. He had created and registered for that many LLP accounts in order to secure football pitches. 

20.If an LLP account holder with genuine registered particulars was successful in securing a pitch in a ballot, then the defendant would ask that particular individual to sign in with the LCSD.  If the holder was an individual created by false particulars and a forged ID card and successful in securing a pitch in a ballot, then the defendant would have to manufacture a forged ID card with those particulars with his own portrait in order to sign in with the LCSD. 

21.He also told the police that if he had been successful in booking turf soccer pitches that were surplus to requirement for the CJ League, then he would scalp them on the Facebook page of the CJ League for $700 when the normal booking cost was $144, thereby making a profit. 

Mitigation

22.The defendant is married with two young children under 10.  He is a university graduate and was working as an accounts clerk but after the birth of their first child, he gave up his employment to look after the child so his wife could pursue and concentrate on her career.  The defendant is a 40-year-old man with a clear record. 

23.What he did do was try and provide some extra financial contribution to the family.  In order to do this, he started to organise football tournaments and a league to earn some money.  In order for it to be successful, he had to find a way to obtain a steady flow of hard-to-come-by turf football pitches.  He very foolishly embarked on this fraudulent scheme to create many fake LLP accounts on top of the genuine accounts he set up to accomplish it.  I have been told he earned approximately $15,000 to $20,000 dollars per month from this scheme. 

24.Since his arrest, he has been working part-time as a labourer and warehouse man between the hours of 9:30 am and lunchtime whilst his two children were at school to earn about $7,000 a month. 

25.His wife is supportive and describes him as a responsible husband, a loving father, and a filial son to his own parents.  I have received letters from his wife and family friends.  I have taken into account their contents.  

26.Mr Cheung has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant in mitigation.  He correctly submits that the best mitigation is his plea at the earliest opportunity and his expression of remorse.  He now appreciates the seriousness of his actions and the offences.  He fully co-operated with the police at all times.  The defendant has been under great stress waiting for this day of reckoning since his arrest on 26 February 2019, nearly two and a half years ago. 

Reasons for Sentence

27.There are no guidelines for sentencing forgery charges.  It would depend on the specific facts of each case.  I note these forgeries are not to obtain large sums of money like forging documents for a bank mortgage or for driving an unlicensed vehicle on the road or to deceive an immigration officer.  Those types of forgeries are often seen in these courts and more serious, in my view, than the facts here. 

28.Although there are many forgery charges, the scheme was cumbersome, not sophisticated and not the most serious of its kind, nor was it especially profitable.  The defendant did it to earn some money setting up a legitimate football league.  What it means is that it is likely that others wanting to book pitches may have missed out because of the scheme.

29.Also relevant is the fact that these 20 charges were all committed in a two-month window, not a long time.  I have not had sight of actual forged ID cards or the soft copies uploaded onto the LCSD booking site but I am sure the cards would be crude and not of great quality.  I have seen photographs of exhibits seized.  The printer seized is an ordinary, run-of-the-mill printer, not a sophisticated one. 

30.It is the norm to consider a 12-month sentence for possession of a forged ID card and a 15-month sentence after plea if it is used for the purposes of hiding one’s true identity from the police or immigration or to work illegally in Hong Kong.  Those sentencing guidelines took into account those most common scenarios. 

31.I will take into account why the defendant here made them, why he possessed so many and why he used it to secure the booking as per the regulations of the LCSD.  I will take into account that despite the large number found at home, they were all for the same purpose.  I have taken into account the defendant’s plea at the earliest opportunity, his mitigation, his family background, his reasons for committing these offences and his previous clear record at the age of 40 years old.  I take into account the facts of the case, the simplicity of the whole fraudulent scheme and the amount of benefit obtained. 

32.Charges 1 to 20 were committed all within a window of about two months.  I find it appropriate to take a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment for each charge.

33.For Charge 21, upon a guilty plea for using a forged identity card, I impose a 12-month term of imprisonment.

34.For Charge 22, upon a guilty plea for possessing a forged identity card, I impose a 10-month term of imprisonment.

35.For Charge 23, upon a guilty plea for possessing a large number of forged identity cards at home, I impose a 15-month term of imprisonment.

36.For the last charge, Charge 24, possessing equipment to make those identity cards, I take a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment. 

37.The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for his early indication of his pleas.  Therefore after that discount is applied to the starting points of Charges 1 to 20 and 24, the defendant is sentenced as follows:

Charges 1 to 20, for each charge the defendant is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 21, 12 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 22, 10 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 23, 15 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 24, 16 months’ imprisonment.

38.I do need to take into account and consider the totality principle.  I am of the view that although the majority of the charges were spread over a period of two months, all charges were intrinsically linked to the same modus operandi and fraudulent scheme. 

39.I order that all charges be served concurrently.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 16 months’ imprisonment.