HKSAR v. Wong Sheung Hang
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 461/2023 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 16 April 2024.
1. There are altogether three defendants in the present case.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 4 cases
|
DCCC 461/2023 [2024] HKDC 648 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 461 OF 2023 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.There are altogether three defendants in the present case. 2.D1 and D2 are jointly charged for 12 offences of conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law and punishable under section 159C(6) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. 3.D3 faces Charge 13 alone. 4.In the present proceeding, it only concerns D1, he pleaded guilty to the 12 charges. 5.The following table shows the date of offences and various particulars:-
6.As to the Summary of Facts showed that the modus operandi of committing the 12 offences are very much the same.
Criminal record 7.Between 2011 to 2020, the Defendant has nine previous convictions:-
Background 8.The Defendant is now 29 years old, his mother and sisters are both living in Macau while the Defendant lives alone in Hong Kong. Prior to the pandemic, the Defendant used to work as technician in Macau, but he was out of job due to economic situation. 9.In February 2020 the Defendant was arrested for another offence, and he was in prison until 30 June 2020. He was arrested for the present offences in 2 August 2020. 10.That means he was rearrested soon after his release from prison as this present offenses were all committed between 25 July to 2 August 2022. Sentence 11.The maximum sentence for a charge of conspiracy to defraud punishable under section 159C(6) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200 is 14 years’ imprisonment. 12.The Defence in his four pages of the first mitigation submission, relied on four authorities:-
13.In the present case, the Defence in his mitigation did not mention the total sum of the asking price by the victims was about $600,000. It was no way close to the cases cited by the Defence. 14.It is clearly not a breach of trust case. It is an e-shopping fraud involved a total of 12 victims, covered a period of about one week, involving 3 persons. D1 did not act alone. 15.In a fraud case, the amount in each charge is a sentencing considering factor. In the present case it is from $5,200 to $178,800. 16.Our world has advanced in many directions, including technology. A lot of crimes have been committed by using the online shopping platform, such as in the present one. 17.D1 must have aware that when a cheque is deposited into a bank account, it takes time for the bank to clear the cheque. At the same time it appears in the bank account that there is such a face value of the cheque being deposited. 18.Apart from the cheque deposit, the culprits also used cash deposit of as little as $10 into the bank machine, but key in the amount of the asking price. In fact, there was no such amount of cash being deposited. 19.Apart from that, D1 and the others used the same trick to cheat victims in Charge 1 ($10,000) and Charge 11 ($25,000) that there were 2 mistaken transfers, the 2 victims believed they were true and transferred the money back to the Defendant’s account. 20.All the victims in the present case believed that they have actually received the money being agreed to be deposited. 21.The Defence said that D1 was not a professional cheater. I disagree.
22.Today, I am told only 3 stolen items were recovered, they were items from Charge 4, 10 and 12. They were 3 pairs of sneakers. 23.As said in the judgment of HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai CACC 100/2014 at paragraph 43:-
24.The Defence counsel in his second mitigation submission, asked for a starting point of less than 2 years and all sentences to run concurrently by relying on HKSAR v Wong Chun Pong DCCC 164/2017 and DCCC 591/2017. 25.The facts of these 2 cases were falsely misrepresenting to the victims to have concert tickets to sell and to cheat money from the genuine buyers. 26.In DCCC 164/2017:-
27.While on bail, the defendant committed further offences in DCCC 591/2017:-
28.The court ordered both cases, DCCC 164 and 591/2017 to run concurrently. 29.I have different view in this matter, that the Defendant cannot be expected to have the sentences be run concurrently as it cannot reflects the gravity of the offences. Further, they are committed on different dates, on different victims and with different items. 30.In view of the above factors, I considered that each charge has a different starting point as follows:-
31.Today, the Defence agreed that there was an aggravating factor as the Defendant committed the present offences right after his discharge from prison. As such, I enhance the starting point by 3 months for each charge. Enhancement rate 32.Section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455. 33.The Prosecution served the notice for the application to enhance the sentence under section 27(2) on 1 June 2023 on the grounds that:-
34.In support of this application, the Prosecution provided a statement from Inspector Ng which informed me that there is a rising trend of e-shopping fraud. I accepted that there is such a prevalence of these specified offences. As such, I enhance all sentences by 25%.
35.I also consider that a total of 42 months after 25% enhancement is sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the present case and the effectiveness of a deterrent sentence. Totality 36.I order:-
a total of 9.5 months to run consecutively to Charge 8 which is 36 months. 37.The defendant is ordered to serve a period of 42 months imprisonment.
|
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 461/2023