HKSAR v. Wong Chun-fai

DCCC 502/2021

[2021] HKDC 1103

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 502 OF 2021

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to 24 offences of fraud. The offences are highly similar and consist largely of cases where the defendant approaches people in the street telling them a story that his belongings were locked in his workplace or other location, that he was unable to access his belongings and needed money to book a hotel room and that he would repay the money the next day. Sometimes the defendant would ask for additional funds or another version was that the defendant had a partner who had absconded with his money. There were variations on the story.

2.Some of the victims would give the defendant money on more than one occasion.  The defendant would give his phone number and present his ID card to the victims to win their trust.  The victims - there were 24 in total that we know about and have been charged - would give the defendant sums ranging from $200 to $12,500.  None of those sums were ever recovered or repaid.  Totally, $65,800 was defrauded from the 24 victims between 15 July 2020 and 9 December 2020.

3.The defendant was arrested on 26 December 2020 when he was recognised by a victim.  The defendant admitted the offences to the police and in court.  He was in the position that he owed money, some seventy to eighty thousand dollars to friends and financial institutions.  He said to the police that he had spent the money on daily expenses and some gambling.

4.The defendant’s background is that he is a man of clear record and he is single.  He had been an electrician.  It would appear that sometime in the mid of 2020 he had a financial crisis and was in a position where he had to borrow money, up to some $80,000.  He then committed the street fraud offences to get money, I am told, to just cover his living expenses.

5.The defendant, in terms of mitigation, has a good character prior to these offences.  He has co-operated in the investigation and has pleaded guilty.  There are letters of recommendation from people who have known him, members of his family.  It seems to this defendant the offences were out of character.  He had lived a law-abiding life up until he decided to pursue a strange way of earning money, by deceiving perfect strangers in the street to give him what were relatively small sums of money, but over time and over a large number of offences, the amount built up into tens of thousands of dollars.

6.For the offence of fraud,  I deal now with the sentencing considerations, there is of course no guideline sentence because offences of fraud vary widely in how they are executed and the amounts of money that are obtained.  The amount of money must of course, the total amount of money, $65,800, must be some guide to the point at which a starting point for sentence on each charge and as a totality must be assessed.

7.The aggravating factors in respect of this offence; so these are street offences involving deception, the offences were committed over a lengthy period of time, were repetitive offences and brought into the offences a large number of individuals.  However, the other factor I must consider is that the overall money obtained was relatively small, each offence being a relatively minor offence but the overall effect of all the offences taken together can be seen as serious, and I will take that into account in determining the overall total sentence after I have passed what I consider to be appropriate sentences on each of the individual offences.

8.I shall now pass individual sentences on the 24 separate offences before I deal with the question of totality.  These sentences I will impose will be after deduction for plea of guilty.  So these sentences will already have been deducted by one-third when I impose them.

9.On Charge 1, a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment. Charge 2, a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 3, a sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 4, a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment. Charge 5, a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 6, a sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 7, 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 8, 8 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 9, 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 10, 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 11, 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 12, 10 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 13, 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 14, 2 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 15, 2 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 16, 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 17, 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 18, 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 19, 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 20, 8 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 21, 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 22, 6 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 23, 2 months’ imprisonment.  Charge 24, 8 months’ imprisonment.

10.I have decided that the overall starting point for this group of offences will be one of 39 months’ imprisonment.  After deduction for a plea of guilty, that would lead to an overall sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment.  I shall effect that sentence as follows.  I order that that the first eight, Charges 1 to 8, the sentences to be served concurrently to one another; Charges 9-16, the sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to 1 to 8; and Charges 16 to 24, the sentences to be served concurrently to one another but consecutively to all other charges, that is namely consecutively to 1 to 16.  That leads to a total overall sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment

11.There just seems to have been a little bit of confusion on which charges run together.  It is 1 to 8, then 9 to 16 (that will be inclusive) and it should be 17 to 24.  That makes sense, so just to clarify that because I am not sure it was clear to anyone.