HKSAR v. Tse Loi Fuk
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 956/2021 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 12 May 2022.
1. The defendant was charged with one count of fraud under s.16A of the Theft Ordinance, involving a loan of $83,200 by using forged documents.
Cites 6 cases
|
DCCC 956/2021 [2022] HKDC 445 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 956 OF 2021 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ Charge 1.The defendant was charged with one count of fraud under s.16A of the Theft Ordinance, involving a loan of $83,200 by using forged documents. Plea 2.The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts. Summary of facts 3.On 9 September 2005, a staff member of Inchroy Credit Corporation approved the loan application of HK$83,200 to the defendant after checking the relevant documents including the followings:-
4.A cheque of $79,950 (after deducting handling fees) in the name of the defendant was issued. 5.Later, the bank confirmed that the said account number did not exist. 6.The company search could not find any company named KTL. 7.On 26 January 2007, upon arrest, the defendant admitted since he was in short of money, a friend, called Frankie, told him to apply for loan by using forged documents. He then made the application to the said credit corporation. He was rewarded of HK$10,000. 8.The defendant had absconded since June 2008. On 30 August 2021, he surrendered to the police and was re-arrested. 9.He managed to repay $8,914 to the said corporation. The defendant’s background 10.He (aged 40) was born in China. He came to Hong Kong in 1995. He was single living with his mother in public housing. Before his surrender to the police, he worked as a salesperson in a spectacles company. 11.He had 9 previous convictions, mostly related to dishonesty with one similar. The last one was dated in 2006. Reasons for sentence 12.I have considered the following points:-
13.I have further considered the following authorities submitted by the defence:-
14.In Man, the loan obtained from the finance company was $78,000. The Court of Appeal considered that it was a carefully planned operation with the appellant being a key participant. The appellant had 28 criminal records with 12 related to dishonesty. The starting point should be 3 ½ years. 15.In Lao, the loan was $156,000 with some repayment made. Forged documents were used in the application. The appellant had 4 previous records with 3 related to dishonesty. The starting point of 3 years was adopted. 16.In Lo, for a defendant who had absconded and later pleaded guilty, the discount should be in the range of 20-25% instead of the normal one-third. 17.In Lam, a further discount of 4 months was allowed for voluntary surrender to the police. Starting point 18.I have considered the facts of the case, the mitigation and the background of the defendant. 19.The facts were quite similar to that of the case Lao as cited by the defence. Also, there was no evidence as being a syndicate. The present loan amount was well below the case of Lao. 20.I adopted a starting point of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. Discount 21.Following Lo, I allowed a discount of 25%. After deduction, the term for imprisonment was 24 months. 22.For the defendant’s voluntary surrender to the police, I allowed further discount of 3 months. 23.For the defendant’s repayment of $8,914, I further allowed a discount of 1 month. Sentence 24.After all the discounts made, I now sentenced the defendant to 20 months’ imprisonment.
|