HKSAR v. Singh Talwinder

DCCC 777/2023

[2024] HKDC 1241

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 777 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charges

1.The defendant pleads guilty to Charges 1 to 4.  Charges 1 to 3 are passing or tendering a counterfeit currency note; Charge 4 is having custody or control of counterfeit currency notes. 

Facts

Charge 1

2.On 13 July 2022, around 8 am, the defendant went to a guesthouse in Yau Ma Tei.   He requested a room but there was no vacancy.  He then asked the innkeeper to exchange a HK$500 note.  The innkeeper gave him five $100 notes in exchange.  Later, it was discovered the $500 note was a counterfeit. 

Charge 2

3.That day, around 3.25 pm, the defendant appeared at another guesthouse in Yau Ma Tei. This time he was with a woman.  The defendant asked for a room. He paid the rent of $160 with a HK$500 note.  The innkeeper gave him $340 as change.  The defendant and the woman then left the scene on the pretence of going out to buy some food.  They did not return.  Later, it was discovered the $500 note was a counterfeit. 

Charge 3

4.Two days later, around 10.35 am, the defendant and a woman went to another guesthouse in Yau Ma Tei.  He asked for a room and paid the rent with a HK$500 note.  The innkeeper gave him $200 as change.  The defendant and the woman left immediately, saying they wanted to buy something first.  They did not return.  Later it was discovered the $500 note was a counterfeit. 

Charge 4

5.That morning, about 15 minutes later, the defendant was intercepted by a police officer at Temple Street in Yau Ma Tei.  He was found to have 15 counterfeit HK$500 notes with him.  All the banknotes have the same serial number as the ones the defendant had used in Charges 1 to 3. 

Admission

6.The defendant admitted to the police that the banknotes were counterfeit.  He said he got them from a friend.  He also admitted he had committed Charges 1 to 3. 

Record

7.The defendant is of Indian origin but he was born in Hong Kong.  Between 2006 and 2023, he had 12 previous convictions; none of them is related to counterfeit offences or dishonesty. 

Mitigation

8.Defence counsel says the defendant is now aged 37.  He was married and has two sons.  He had worked as a part-time driver. 

9.Counsel says someone owed the defendant money and gave him the counterfeit notes in question. 

10.Counsel says the counterfeit notes were of inferior quality and they lacked security measures.  

11.Counsel refers to the following cases: HKSAR v Wong Hoi Yat [2006] 3 HKLRD 151, R v Chow Tin Wah [1991] 1 HKLR 68, HKSAR v Hu Wanxia [2009] 4 HKLRD 449, HKSAR v Muhammad Munsha CACC  412/1999, and HKSAR v Kiran Gurung CACC 393/1997. 

12.It is not necessary to refer to the details of each case.  Suffice to say, while there were no tariffs set down the Court of Appeal said more than once that for counterfeit notes of substantial face value, the starting point would be unlikely less than 6 years’ imprisonment.  However, shorter terms were meted out for offences relating to a small quantity of counterfeit notes. 

13.In the last case cited by counsel, ie, HKSAR v Kiran Gurung, the defendant was originally convicted after trial of trafficking in dangerous drugs and having custody or control of twenty-five HK$1,000 notes.  On the counterfeit charge, he was given 18 months’ imprisonment. 

14.On appeal, the trafficking conviction was squashed. The counterfeit conviction was also amended to one relating to 10 counterfeit notes only.  The Court of Appeal did not say what the proper sentence for the new counterfeit conviction was but ordered the defendant to be released immediately.  By that time, the defendant had been in custody for about 14 months, which effectively represented an imposed term of 21 months’ imprisonment (given that a prisoner of good behaviour would only have to serve about two-thirds of the imposed sentence). 

15.Counsel says for all the four charges in the present case, a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment would be right. 

16.The defendant says in his mitigation letter that he is remorseful and begs for a lenient sentence. 

Sentence

17.There are no tariffs for Charges 1 to 3 and Charge 4.  Nonetheless, counterfeit offences are always regarded as serious crimes.  If the notes were of substantial face value, the punishment would be a lengthy sentence. 

18.In the present case, the defendant only had fifteen $500 counterfeit notes with him when he was arrested.  He had no similar convictions.  The starting point for Charge 4 would be 21 months’ imprisonment.  After a one-third discount for plea, the sentence after plea will be 14 months’ imprisonment. 

19.Prior to his arrest, the defendant had tendered a $500 counterfeit note on three separate occasions within a span of two days.  The starting point for Charges 1 to 3 should be 15 months’ imprisonment each.  After a one-third discount for plea, the sentence after plea will be 10 months’ imprisonment for each of Charges 1 to 3. 

20.Although all the 18 counterfeit notes were from the same batch, having custody of the notes and passing any one of them are two different offences. Each tendering act was a separate and distinct offence in itself.  The prison terms for Charges 1 to 4 cannot be wholly concurrent.  I order 3 months’ imprisonment of each term in Charges 1 to 3 to run consecutively to each other and also consecutively to the 14 months’ imprisonment in Charge 4.  The overall sentence for the defendant’s four counts is therefore 23 months’ imprisonment.