COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to 12 counts of using copy of false instrument, three counts of using false instruments, two counts of fraud, one count of possessing ID card relating to another, one count of handling stolen goods, one count of possessing false instrument with intent, one count of making counterfeit of currency note with intent. He is committed to this court for sentence.
In November 2020, the defendant used one Hong Kong ID card in the name of Mak Tik-hong, with the defendant’s own photo depicted on it and a copy of the false ID card to open two bank accounts respectively, Count 1 with Public Bank and Count 2 with China Construction Bank, CCB.
He then applied to the CCB for two loans in the amount of HK$50,000 and HK$130,000 respectively in December 2020. In the course of making his applications, salary slips and bank statements of Mr Mak were submitted (Count 3 and Count 4) to the bank.
The CCB approved the two loans and released their funds to the defendant. The defendant also applied to the CCB for two credit cards using a copy of the same false Hong Kong ID card (Count 5 and Count 6). His two applications were approved by the bank. With the false credit cards, the defendant spent a total of over HK$147,000 in January 2021.
In December 2020, the defendant using the same trick, opened another bank account with the Bank of China (Hong Kong). This time, it was a Mr Yiu Wai-yin’s Hong Kong ID card with the defendant’s photo depicted (Count 7).
The defendant then applied for two credit cards from the Bank of China (Hong Kong), one in December 2020 and one in January 2021 (Count 8 and Count 9). He spent over HK$86,000 between February and May 2021.
In January 2021, the defendant using the same trick attempted to open a bank account with the CCB again. This time it was Madam Lam Ming-kiu’s Hong Kong ID card with the defendant’s photo depicted (Count 10).
In February 2021, the defendant using the same trick attempted to open a bank account with the CCB, this time it was Mr Wong Wai-ming’s Hong Kong ID card with the defendant’s photo depicted (Count 11). These two applications were rejected by the CCB.
On 5 February 2021, the defendant used again, PW2, Yiu Wai-yin’s Hong Kong ID card with his own photo depicted on it, together with a false China Mobile monthly statement to open the bank account with Airstar Bank (Count 12).
On 8 February 2021, the defendant used Mr Mak’s Hong Kong ID card with his own photograph depicted to open another Airstar Bank account (Count 13). The defendant then applied for HK$800,000 personal loans but his two applications were rejected.
On 18 February 2021, the defendant used in this case, PW4, Wong Wai-ming’s Hong Kong ID card with his own photo depicted on it to apply for a credit card with Citibank. His application was successful, he managed to spend over $87,000 in March 2021 (Count 14).
On 19 February 2021, the defendant used another person, a Mr Li Wing-kin’s Hong Kong ID card with again his own photo depicted on it to open a bank account with the CCB (Count 15). His application was rejected by the bank.
In April 2021, the defendant issued three fake cheques in the sum of HK$560,000, HK$380,000 and HK$500,000 respectively, attempted to deposit them into his Public Bank and CCB bank accounts (Counts 16 and 17). These cheques were rejected by the banks.
On 27 May 2021, police officers searched the defendant’s residence and arrested him. Inside his residence, police officers found:
(1) 13 Hong Kong ID cards relating to another (Count 18);
(2) stolen properties such as bank cards, home return permits, passports, driving licence (Count 19);
(3) false instruments such as forged bank cheques, forged home return permits, etc;
(4) counterfeit bank notes HK$2,420 in total, printers, computers and equipment.
The defendant is now 50, educated up to Form 2 level. He has 21 criminal records with over 70 offences/charges. He has numerous similar records for using forged or false credit cards, false instruments, possession of ID cards relating to another, possession of forged ID cards, handling stolen goods, making and/or custody and control of counterfeit materials and implements. Notwithstanding opportunities have been given in the past, it seems that those opportunities were not treasured and were unable to deter the defendant.
Looking again from his criminal records, it seems clear that the defendant is a professional fraudster where he first started to commit offences involving deception back in 1999.
In the course of the mitigation hearing, court files were called for in relation to his past convictions back to the year 2005.
Substantial part of the defendant’s adult life had been spent on cheating the bank using false ID cards and documents.
Although much has been said by Mr Chau, counsel for the defendant, on behalf of the defendant about the defendant’s medical condition, medical report dated 17 October 2024 indicated that the defendant was well and did not suffer from any significant illnesses.
Although Mr Chau has said everything possible for the defendant, he has rightly conceded that as a result of the defendant’s fraudulent conducts, losses were incurred by the CCB in the sum of HK$327,000, the Bank of China in the sum of HK$86,000, and the Citibank in the sum of HK$87,000.
Charges 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 related to the use of false instrument or copy of false instrument by the defendant for opening bank accounts, making application for credit cards and personal loans and depositing false cheques into his bank account. His applications for the latter two that is, namely, the application for credit cards and personal loans, and the deposit of the false cheques as stipulated in these charges were rejected by the banks. On these charges, the applications were unsuccessful.
Given the defendant’s past criminal records, 36 months would be adopted as the notional starting point for each of these counts. A full one-third discount would be given and as such, the defendant would receive 24 months’ imprisonment each.
Charges 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14 related to the practice of fraud and the use of copies of false instruments which resulted in losses to the banks in question. 48 months would be adopted as the notional starting point for each count. A full one-third discount would be given. As such, the defendant would receive 32 months each.
In view of the number of false instruments or copy of false instruments being involved and the defendant’s past appalling similar criminal records, the overall culpability of the defendant in these particular fraudulent schemes warrants a notional starting point of 6 years and warrants therefore an imprisonment term of 48 months’ imprisonment after a plea.
As such, it is ordered that the defendant will serve 32 months for Count 3, 1 month each from Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 will be served consecutively to Count 3 which render a total sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment.
Insofar as Counts 18, 19, 20 are concerned, a notional starting point of 24 months each would be given. Given the defendant’s plea, the sentence is therefore reduced to one of 16 months’ imprisonment for each count.
As for Count 21, making counterfeit notes with intent, four $500 banknotes, four $100 banknotes, and one $20 banknote were found.
In HKSAR v Wong Hoi Yat and Others, CACC 268/2005, the Court of Appeal stated that where a large quantity of counterfeit notes were involved but the scale of manufacturing operation was not too large, the usual starting point was 5 to 6 years’ imprisonment.
In the present case, the quantity of counterfeit notes was not large but involved three different denominations. The quality of the notes were not bad, in fact, in my view, they were good, after examination in court. This, however, is not the first time that the defendant committed the same offence.
In light of the above, a 4 year notional starting point will be adopted. After plea, the defendant will serve 32 months’ imprisonment for that offence, for Count 21.
All the items found in the defendant’s residence were no doubt documents/instruments used by the defendant for his immediate/future use in committing further fraudulent conducts/offences. As such, it is ordered that 2 months each for Counts 18, 19, 20 will be served consecutively to the sentence imposed on Count 21 which rendered a total sentence of 38 months’ imprisonment. This 38 months’ imprisonment will be served consecutively to the 48 months imposed on Count 1 to Count 17.
In conclusion, for the offences the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to a total of 86 months’ imprisonment.
