HKSAR v. Huang Huei Ting

DCCC 502/2019

[2022] HKDC 1516

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 502 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

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

REASONS FOR VERDICT

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

CHARGES

1.The Defendant (“D”)  faces 10 charges.  Charges 1, 6, 10 and 13 are of making a false statement to an Immigration Officer in the due execution of duty, contrary to section 42(1)(a)  of Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.  Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15 and 18 are of using a copy of a false instrument, contrary to section 74 of Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. 

D’S RESPONSE TO PLEA-TAKING

2.When pleas are taken from her, she either shakes her head, or says she does not understand the charge.  I record pleas of not guilty to all 10 charges.

3.The defence say she is not fit to stand trial and there is medical evidence to that effect as required by section 75 of Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221.  I shall refer to it as the “Fitness Issue”.

4.The prosecution and the defence agree that I shall rule on the Fitness Issue after the prosecution case.  The defence make a no-case submission.  I rule a case to answer on all charges.  As a result, I have to rule on the Fitness Issue. 

FITNESS ISSUE

5.According to the two psychiatrists called to give evidence in court by the defence, D had been suffering and still suffered from auditory hallucination at the time of assessment recently.  She could not understand the proceedings.  The prosecution’s two psychiatrists were not called to give evidence in court.  Their reports indicated that they could not confirm whether D was suffering from auditory hallucination.  I find the defence psychiatrists’ evidence cogent.  The defence have proved on the balance of probabilities that D is unfit to stand trial.  According to section 75 of Criminal Procedure Ordinance, I shall record a finding that D is under disability. 

6.It is then for the prosecution to prove that D did the act charged against her beyond reasonable doubt. 

PROSECUTION CASE

7.Understandably given the situation of D, there are no admitted facts.  The prosecution call 14 witnesses.  Their evidence is not challenged at all.  I find all of them credible and reliable witnesses. 

8.The case involves people such as HUANG HUEI TING (“HHT”), CHEN YEN-CHIN (“CYC”), CHEN YI-MING (“CYM”), and LARGE CHARLES GRAMAE (“LCG”)  respectively. If an application is made by someone who stated, as for example, one’s name as “HHT”, I would refer to this person as {HHT} to denote that someone adopting a pen name {HHT} is making the application.   That person may or may not be the real HHT.  The same logic holds for {CYM}, {CYC}, and {LCG} respectively. 

9.Our present case relates to 2 sets of charges, ie, making a false statement (Charges 1, 6, 10, and 13)  and using a copy of a false instrument (Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 18). 

10.The former set of 4 charges is focused on D’s (Charges 1 and 10), or D’s and another person’s (Charges 6 and 13), 4 applications, each of which contained a representation to the immigration officer that the domestic helper would reside and work at the employer’s stated address.  Investigations revealed that the domestic helper did not work or reside there at all. 

11.The latter set of 6 charges (Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 18)  is focused on D’s merging the name page of another person’s passbook with the balance pages of her passbook to produce a false passbook whose copy was submitted in the 6 applications to the Immigration Department. 

12.In closing submissions, the prosecution and the defence share the view that as long as the act was done at D’s direction or with D’s consent, whether D did, or caused someone to, do the act, it is still within the ambit of each of the 10 charges. 

CHRONOLOGY OF CHARGES

13.This case relates to 8 applications.  It is easier to understand when the Charges and their relevant events are arranged in a chronological order as follows:

(1)  Charge 18 against D (date of application 14 March 2015 by {LCG});

(2)  Charge 4 against D (date of application 15 July 2015 by {CYM});

(3)  Charges 6 and 7 against D and CYC (date of application 15 January 2016 by {CYC});

(4)  Charge 10 against D (date of application 23 January 2017 by “D”);

(5)  Charge 15 against D and CYC (date of application 11 April 2017 by {CYC});

(6)  Charge 9 against D (date of application 18 April 2017 by {CYM});

(7)  Charge 1 against D (date of application 10 May 2017 by “D”); and

(8)  Charges 13 and 14 against D and CYC (date of application 14 June 2017 by {CYC})

Charge 18 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)

14.It is alleged that an application dated 14 March 2015[1] was received in March 2015 by Immigration Department for the visa of a domestic helper SUPRATI (“DH-12”)  to enable DH-12 to work and reside at {LCG}’s residential address at Lion Rise, Wong Tai Sin (“Address 7”).  The application with the following particulars, among others, was approved:

(a)  The application was made in the name of {LCG} as the employer of DH-12;

(b)  {LCG}’s contact phone number was 6402 8747; and

(c)  A copy of LCG’s copy of passbook showed a balance of $1,960,750 as at 19 January 2015[2].

15.Investigations revealed as follows:

(a)  According to the records of Land Registry, “Address 7” was owned by LCG and D; and

(b)  According to the records of the phone company[3], the subscriber of 6402 8747 was LCG from 15 December 2011 to 2 March 2016. LCG’s registered address was Consort Rise, Pok Fu Lam. His billing address was the same as D’s residential address at Island Place, North Point.

16.The prosecution’s case is that D had used or caused to use the name page of LCG’s passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s HSBC passbook Account No 122-6-050092 to produce a copy of a passbook, which is a copy of a false instrument, for an application in the name of {LCG}.   

Charge 4 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)

17.It is alleged that an application dated 15 July 2015[4] was received on or about 20 July 2015 by Immigration Department for the visa of domestic helper LATIF CHOIRUL ZAINI (“DH-4”)  to enable DH-4 to work and reside at {CYM}’s residential address at Kam Ning Mansion, Mid-levels (“Address 3”).  The application with the following particulars, among others, was approved:

(a)  The application was made in the name of {CYM} as the employer of DH-9;

(b)  {CYM}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169;

(c)  A copy of CYM’s Hong Kong identity card; and

(d)  A copy of CYM’s passbook showed a balance of $3,027,869 as at 8 May 2017.

18.Investigations revealed as follows:

(a)  “Address 3” was owned by D and a person called Yu Ying Hui;

(b)  According to the records of the phone company, the subscriber of 6340 0169 was SULISTIANI from 3 April 2010 to 8 October 2017. SULISTIANI’s registered and mailing address, an address in Island Place, North Point, was where D employed her to reside and work. According to the records of the Immigration Department, SULISTIANI was a foreign domestic helper permitted to reside and work at this address for D from 4 October 2014 to 4 October 2015 to 4 October 2017. D became the subscriber to this number with effect from 20 June 2018; and

(c)  According to the bank records, the true balance of CYM with ICBC from 1 January 2015 to 1 January 2018 never showed a balance more than $5,162[5] whereas the true balance of D with HSBC Account No 122-1-040700 was the same as the balance pages copied to Immigration Department. The copy of a composite passbook submitted in support of the application was a merger of the name page of CYM’s passbook and the balance pages of D’s passbook for this account.

19.The prosecution’s case is that D had used or caused to use the name page of CYM’s passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s HSBC passbook Account No 122-1-040700 to produce a copy of a composite passbook, which is a copy of a false instrument, for an application in the name of {CYM}.   

Charge 6 against D and CYC (Making a false statement)
Charge 7 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)

20.It is alleged that an application dated 15 January 2016[6] was received on or about 28 January 2016 by Immigration Department for the visa of a domestic helper SARMAN (“DH-5”)  to enable DH-5 to work and reside at{CYC}’s address at Merton, Kennedy Town (“Address 4”).  The application with the following particulars, among others, was approved:

(a)  The application was made in the name of {CYC}as the employer of DH-5;

(b)  There was no contact phone number;

(c)  A copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card;

(d)  A copy of Water Bill of CYC for Address 4; and

(e)  A copy of CYC’s passbook showed a balance of $6,236,672 as at 3 December 2015[7].

21.Investigations revealed as follows:

(a)  On 4 December 2017 immigration officers visited Address 1 and found PW1 GARCIA residing there;

(b)  PW1 gives evidence that D had personally signed 2 terms of 2-year tenancy agreements with him for 2015 to 2019. He had never heard of DH-5. DH-5 had never worked or resided there; and

(c)  According to the bank records, the true balance of CYC with HSBC from 1 September 2014 to 8 January 2018 never showed a balance more than $191,279[8] (this being the highest balance ever, on 1 September 2014). Such amount was insufficient to employ one domestic helper according to the policy as stated in the Guidebook published by Immigration Department. According to the bank records, the true balance of D with HSBC Account No 122-6-050092 was the same as the balance pages copied to Immigration Department. The copy of a composite passbook submitted in support of the application was a merger of the name page of CYC’s passbook and the balance pages of D’s passbook for this account.

22.The prosecution’s case of Making a false statement is that it was D and CYC who made the application. It contained a statement that DH-5 was to work and reside at Address 4.  It was a false statement because, when D and CYC made the application, D and CYC had already leased Address 4 to PW1 until 2017. 

23.The prosecution’s case of Using a copy of a false instrument is that D and CYC had used or caused to use the name page of CYC’s passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s HSBC passbook Account No. 122-1-040700 to produce a copy of a composite passbook, which is a copy of a false instrument, for an application in the name of {CYC}.   

Charge 10 against D (Making a false statement)

24.It is alleged that an application dated 23 January 2017[9] was received in or about late January 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa of a domestic helper IDA SURYANI (“DH-5”)  to enable DH-7 to come to Hong Kong to work and reside at {HHT}’s address at Bonham Crest, Mid-levels (“Address 1”). The application with the following particulars, among others, was approved:

(a)  The application was made in the name of {HHT}as the employer of DH-7;

(b)  {HHT}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169;

(c)  A copy of D’s Hong Kong identity card;

(d)  A copy of Water Bill of D for Address 1; and

(e)  A copy of D’s passbook showed a balance of $3,175,693 as at 12 December 2016.

25.Investigations revealed as follows:

(a)  Address 1 was solely owned by D;

(b)  On 4 December 2017 immigration officers visited Address 1 and found PW13 MCKINNON residing there;

(c)  PW13 gives evidence that D had personally signed a tenancy agreement dated 31 August 2016 with him for 2 years until 2018. He had never heard of DH-7. DH-7 had never worked or resided there; and

(d)  As regards the phone number 6340 0169, according to PW13, at around the time of signing the tenancy agreement dated 31 August 2016 of Address 1, D had personally given this number to him as D’s contact phone number.

26.The prosecution’s case is that D had made or caused this application to be made.  It contained a statement that DH-7 was to work and reside at Address 1.  It was a false statement because, when D made the application, D had already leased Address 1 to PW13 until 2018.  

Charge 15 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)

27.It is alleged that an application dated 11 April 2017[10] was received in or about April 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa of a domestic helper SRI SUPARTINI (“DH-10”)  to work and reside at {CYC}’s residential address at Coronation Terrace, Mid-levels.  The application with the following particulars, among others, was approved:

(a)  The application was made in the name of {CYC} as the employer of DH-10; and

(b)  {CYC}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169.

28.Investigations revealed as follows:

(a)  As regards the phone number 6340 0169, I refer to PW13 MCKINNON’s evidence that D had given it to him at around 31 August 2016. The details about this number has been set out hereinbefore; and

(b)  According to the bank records, the true balance of CYC with HSBC from 1 September 2014 to 8 January 2018 never showed a balance more than $191,279[11] (this being the highest balance ever, on 1 September 2014). Such amount was insufficient to employ one domestic helper according to the policy as stated in the Guidebook published by Immigration Department. According to the bank records, the true balance of D with HSBC Account No 122-1-040700 was the same as the balance pages copied to Immigration Department. The copy of a composite passbook submitted in support of the application was a merger of the name page of CYC’s passbook and the balance pages of D’s passbook for this account.

29.The prosecution’s case is that D had

30.used or caused to use the name page of CYC’s passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s HSBC passbook Account No 122-1-040700 to produce a copy of a composite passbook, which is a copy of a false instrument, for an application in the name of {CYC}.   

Charge 9 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)

31.It is alleged that an application dated 18 April 2017[12] was received in about late April 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa of a domestic helper FEBRINA FRANSISCA (“DH-6”)  to enable DH-6 to work and reside at {CYM}’s address at Belcher Hill, Kennedy Town (“Address 5”).  The application with the following particulars, among others, was approved:

(a)  The application was made in the name of {CYM} as the employer of DH-6;

(b)  {CYM}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169; and

(c)  CYM’s ISBC passbook showed a balance of $2,156,527 as at 10 March 2017.

32.Investigations revealed as follows:

(a)  “Address 5” was owned by Perfect Charter Limited, whose sole director was D;

(b)  As regards the phone number 6340 0169, I refer to PW13 MCKINNON’s evidence that D had given it to him at around 31 August 2016. The details about this number has been set out hereinbefore; and

(c)  According to the bank records, the true balance of CYM with ICBC from 1 January 2015 to 1 January 2018 never showed a balance more than $5,162[13]. Such amount was insufficient to employ one domestic helper according to the policy as stated in the Guidebook published by Immigration Department. According to the bank records, the true balance of D with HSBC Account No 122-1-040700 was the same as the balance pages copied to Immigration Department. The copy of a composite passbook submitted in support of the application was a merger of the name page of CYM’s passbook and the balance pages of D’s passbook.

33.The prosecution’s case is that D had used or caused to use the name page of CYM’s passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s HSBC passbook Account No 122-1-040700 to produce a copy of a composite passbook, which is a copy of a false instrument, for an application in the name of {CYM}.   

Charge 1 against D (Making a false statement)

34.It is alleged that an application dated 10 May 2017[14] was received in or about May 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa of a domestic helper Soimun (“DH-1”)  to enable DH-1 to work and reside at HHT’s address at Bonham Crest, Mid-levels (“Address 1”).  The application with the following particulars, among others, was approved:

(a)  The application was made in the name of {HHT} as the employer of DH-1;

(b)  {HHT}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169;

(c)  A copy of D’s Hong Kong identity card;

(d)  A copy of Water Bill of D for Address 1; and

(e)  A copy of HHT’s passbook showed a balance of $2,532,687 as at 8 May 2017.

35.Investigations revealed as follows:

(a)  Address 1 was owned by D;

(b)  On 4 December 2017 immigration officers visited Address 1 and found PW13 MCKINNON residing there;

(c)  PW13 gives evidence that D had personally signed a tenancy agreement dated 31 August 2016 with him for 2 years until 2018. He had never heard of DH-1. DH-1 had never worked or resided there; and

(d)  As regards the phone number 6340 0169, I refer to PW13 MCKINNON’s evidence that D had given it to him at around 31 August 2016. The details about this number has been set out hereinbefore.

36.The prosecution’s case is that D had made or caused this application to be made.  It contained a statement that DH-1 was to work and reside at Address 1.  It was a false statement because, when D and made the application, D had already leased Address 1 to PW13 until 2017. 

Charge 13 against D and CYC (Making a false statement)
Charge 14 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)

37.It is alleged that an application dated 14 June 2017[15] was received in or about June 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa of a domestic helper FITRIANI (“DH-9”)  to come to Hong Kong to work and reside at {CYC}’s residential address at The Merton (“Address 4”).  The application with the following particulars, among others, was approved:

(a)  The application was made in the name of {CYC}as the employer of DH-9;

(b)  {CYC}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169;

(c)  A copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card;

(d)  A copy of Water Bill of CYC for Address 4; and

(e)  A copy of CYC’s passbook showing a balance of $2,532,687 as at 8 May 2017.

38.Investigations revealed as follows:

(a)  On 4 December 2017 immigration officers visited Address 4 and found PW1 GARCIA residing there;

(b)  PW1 gives evidence that D had personally signed 2 terms of 2-year tenancy agreements with him for 2015 to 2019. He had never heard of DH-9. DH-9 had never worked or resided there; and

(c)  According to the bank records, the true balance of CYC with HSBC from 1 September 2014 to January 2015 to 8 January 2018 never showed a balance more than $191,279[16] (this being the highest balance ever, on 1 September 2014). Such amount was insufficient to employ one domestic helper according to the policy as stated in the Guidebook published by Immigration Department. According to the bank records, the true balance of D with HSBC Account No 122-6-050092 was the same as the balance pages copied to Immigration Department. The copy of a composite passbook submitted in support of the application was a merger of the name page of CYC’s passbook and the balance pages of D’s passbook for this account.

39.The prosecution’s case of Making a false statement is that it was D and CYC who made the application. It contained a statement that DH-9 was to work and reside at Address 4.  It was a false statement because, when D and CYC made the application, D and CYC had already leased Address 4 to PW1 until 2019. 

40.The prosecution’s case of Using a copy of a false instrument is that D and CYC had used or caused to use the name page of CYC’s passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s HSBC passbook Account No 122-6-050092 to produce a copy of a composite passbook, which is a copy of a false instrument, for an application in the name of {CYC}.      

SOME GENERAL FACTS

41.According to the records of Immigration Department, CYM left Hong Kong on 25 April 2013, and he never returned to Hong Kong as at 18 November 2022. 

42.At all material times, according to the policy announced in the Guidebook[17] published by Immigration Department freely available to the public, an employer shall be eligible to employ one foreign domestic helper if the employer has either an income of $15,000 per month or assets such as deposit at the bank in the sum of $350,000 within 6 months of the application.  More than one domestic helper may be employed by the employer, as long as the financial means is sufficient. 

43.According to the records of the Companies Registry, D had been the sole director of a limited company, Perfect Charter Limited up to 25 August 2021.  Since 2010, it held a property, Address 5[18]. It was never mortgaged and was sold for $14,680,000 in 2021.  Besides, according to the records of the Companies Registry, on 5 November 2018 D became the sole owner of Address 4[19] by way of assignment from her joint ownership with CYC.  The purchase price was $12,000,000.  In January 2019, it was mortgaged to secure all monies.  Further, according to PW13 MCKINNON, on about 31 August 2016 she herself signed a tenancy agreement with him. 

44.The defence case has no witness or evidence to put forward. 

MY FINDINGS

Prosecution witnesses’ evidence accepted

45.The defence do not challenge the prosecution witnesses’ evidence.  I find them all credible and reliable. 

D’s relationship with CYM, CYC, and LCG

46.{HHT} claimed to Immigration Department that CYM was her husband and CYC was their daughter when {HHT} applied for visa to Hong Kong from Taiwan on 20 April 1993. Among the documents submitted, there was her marriage certificate with CYM dated in 1986[20]. {HHT} also claimed that LCG was {HHT}’s  ‘godfather” when {HHT} applied for certified copies of LCG’s death certificate on 7 June 2018[21].

47.The contents are hearsay as the identity of the claimant and the matter claimed could not be proved to be true.  However, no person except D could possibly have had any knowledge of such matters and would have had any purpose in claiming such matters.  Under such circumstances, I accept the claimed relationships to be true, ie, CYM is D’s husband, CYC is their daughter, and LCG is her godfather. 

Who kept whose passbooks

48.According to the records of the Companies Registry, D had been the sole director of a limited company, Perfect Charter Limited up to 25 August 2021.  Since 2010, it held a property, Address 5[22]. It was never mortgaged and was sold for $14,680,000 in 2021.  Besides, according to the records of the Companies Registry, on 5 November 2018 D became the sole owner of Address 4[23] by way of assignment from her joint ownership with CYC.  The purchase price was $12,000,000.  In January 2019, it was mortgaged to secure all monies.  Further, according to PW13 MCKINNON, on about 31 August 2016 she herself signed a tenancy agreement with him. These facts indicate that D was amply capable of managing her valuable financial affairs all by herself.  There is no evidence or suggestion that D would not or could not keep her 2 passbooks by herself at all material times.  I reject the defence submission that her 2 passbooks had to be kept by others, such as her husband CYM, her daughter CYC, or her godfather LCG.  I am satisfied that her 2 passbooks were kept by herself at all material times. 

49.Similarly, there is no evidence or suggestion that CYM, CYC, and LCG would not or could not keep his/her own passbook by himself/herself at all material times.  I am satisfied that each one’s passbook was kept by each self at all material times. 

D’s contact phone number

50.Although it was subscribed in her domestic helper’s name, she had given it to PW13 MCKINNON as her contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016.  From that date onwards, she had adopted it as her contact phone number.  She became its subscriber in 2018. 

Who signed the application or who falsified a copy of a passbook

51.The defence submit that there was no proof of who signed or made the application.  I agree but this point is immaterial since our present case, as clear from the Prosecution’s Opening, canvasses the scenario where D did not do the act by herself but caused another person to do the act.  In this connection, the identity of the person who physically signed or made the application or physically produced the copy of a false passbook is immaterial, as long as the act was done as directed or consented to by D. 

MY FINDINGS APPLICABLE TO EACH CHARGE

Charge 18 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)

52.In the application dated 14 March 2015, the domestic helper was to work and reside at {LCG}’s address, which transpired to be a property owned by D and LCG.    

53.There was a contact phone number, which transpired to be subscribed to by LCG. 

54.There was a copy of a false passbook produced by merging the name page of LCG’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook Account No 122-6-050092.

55.As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept by herself at all material times.  D’s passbook could not have merged with LCG’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {LCG}’s application.  Whether it was D herself who did, or caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook for {LCG}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 18. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

Charge 4 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)

56.In the application dated 14 July 2015, according to the contract, the domestic helper was to work and reside at {CYM}’s address, which transpired to be a property owned by D and a person called Yu Ying Hui. 

57.{CYM} provided a copy of a false passbook produced by merging the name page of CYM’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook Account No 122-1-040700. CYM’s bank records showed a stagnant balance of $5,160 - $5,162 since 1 January 2011 up to 1 January 2018.  The $2 increase was from bank interest.  There was no activity in this account for 7 years. 

58.{CYM} also provided a copy of CYM’s Hong Kong identity card. 

59.According to movement records of Immigration Department, CYM was out of Hong Kong since 29 April 2013 until 18 November 2022, the last date of the records. 

60.As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept by herself at all material times.  D’s passbook could not have merged with CYM’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s application.  Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYM}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 4. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

Charge 6 against D and CYC (Making a false statement)

Charge 7 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)

61.In the application dated 15 January 2016, {CYC} provided a copy of a false passbook produced by merging the name page of CYC’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook Account No 122-6-050092. 

62.There was a copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card.  There was a copy of CYC’s Water Bill for the address. 

63.When the application was made, D and CYC had already leased the property to PW1 GARCIA for 2015 to 2017.  It was impossible for the domestic helper to work and reside at the address.  It was a false statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside at the address. 

64.As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept by herself at all material times.  D’s passbook could not have merged with CYC’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application.  Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 7.  I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

65.Whether D herself did, or caused someone to, make {CYC}’s  application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 6.  It was a false statement by D that the domestic helper would work and reside at the address.  I find D’s act of making a false statement proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

Charge 10 against D (Making a false statement)

66.In the application dated 23 January 2017, {HHT} provided 6340 0169 as the contact phone number.  There was a copy of D’s Hong Kong identity card. There was a copy of Water Bill as address proof.  The property was solely owned by D.  There was a copy of D’s passbook. 

67.PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him 6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement for the property for 2 years until 2018.  He had never heard of DH-7.  DH-7 had never worked or resided there.

68.When the application was made, D had already leased the property to PW13 MCKINNON for 2016 to 2018.  It was impossible for the domestic helper to work and reside at the address.  It was a false statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside at the address. 

69.As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept by herself at all material times.  D’s passbook could not have been provided unless D had directed or consented to it for {HHT}’s application.  Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or consented to it for {HHT}’s application.  Whether D herself did, or caused someone to, make {HHT}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 10.  It was a false statement by D that the domestic helper would work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a false statement proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

Charge 15 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)

70.In the application dated 11 April 2017, {CYC} provided 6340 0169 as the contact phone number.  There was a copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card. 

71.There was also a copy of CYC’s passbook produced by merging the name page of CYC’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook Account No 122-1-040700. 

72.As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept by herself at all material times.  D’s passbook could not have merged with CYC’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application.  Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided to Immigration Department unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application.  Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 15. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

Charge 9 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)

73.In the application dated 18 April 2017, according to the contract signed by {CYM} and the domestic helper, the domestic helper was to work and reside at {CYM}’s address, which transpired to be a property solely owned by D. 

74.{CYM} provided 6340 0169 as the contact phone number. 

75.{CYM} also provided a copy of a false passbook produced by merging the name page of CYM’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook Account No 122-1-040700. CYM’s bank records showed a stagnant balance of $5,160 - $5,162 since 1 January 2011 up to 1 January 2018.  The $2 increase was from bank interest.  There was no activity in this account for 7 years. 

76.According to movement records of Immigration Department, CYM was out of Hong Kong since 29 April 2013 until 18 November 2022, the last date of the records. 

77.PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him 6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement dated for 2 years until 2018. 

78.As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept by herself at all material times.  D’s passbook could not have merged with CYM’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s application.  Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s application.  Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYM}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 9.  I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

Charge 1 against D (Making a false statement)

79.In the application dated 10 May 2017, {HHT} provided 6340 0169 as the contact phone number.  There was a copy of D’s Hong Kong identity card.  There was a copy of Water Bill of D for the address, which transpired to be a property solely owned by D. 

80.PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him 6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement for 2016 to 2018.  He had never heard of DH-1.  DH-1 had never worked or resided there.

81.When the application was made, D had already leased the property to PW13 MCKINNON for 2016 to 2018.  It was impossible for the domestic helper to work and reside at the address.  It was a false statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside at the address. 

82.As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept by herself at all material times.  D’s passbook could not have been provided unless D had directed or consented to it for {HHT}’s application.  Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or consented to it for {HHT}’s application.  Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, make {HHT}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 1.  It was a false statement by D that the domestic helper would work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a false statement proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

Charge 13 against D and CYC (Making a false statement)
Charge 14 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)

83.In the application dated 14 June 2017, there was a copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card.  There was a copy of Water Bill of CYC for the address, which transpired to be a property owned by D and CYC. 

84. {CYC} provided 6340 0169 as the contact phone number.  PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him 6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement dated for 2 years until 2018.  He had never heard of DH-1. He had never heard of DH-1.  DH-1 had never worked or resided there.

85.{CYC} also provided a copy of a false passbook produced by merging the name page of CYC’s passbook and D’s passbook Account No 122-6-050092. 

86.When the application was made, D and CYC had already leased the property to PW1 for 2017 to 2019.  It was impossible for the domestic helper to work and reside at the address.  It was a false statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside at the address. 

87.As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept by herself at all material times.  D’s passbook could not have been provided unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application.  Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application.  Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 14.  I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

88.Similarly, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application.  Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, make {CYC}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 13.  It was a false statement by D that the domestic helper would work and reside at the address.  I find D’s act of making a false statement proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

CONCLUSION

89.In the aftermath of my finding, by virtue of section 74 of Criminal Procedure Ordinance, that D is under disability, the prosecution have proved D did the act charged against her on all 10 charges.  I shall make orders for D according to section 76 of Criminal Procedure Ordinance.