HKSAR v. Chung Man Chung

DCCC 57/2025

[2025] HKDC 915

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 57 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.Mr Chung faces a Charge Sheet consisting of one charge (Charge 1)  of Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210; and 18 charges (Charges 2 to 19)  of Attempted fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

2.Mr Chung pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 2 to 8, 10, 12 to 14, 16 to 19 (a total of 16 charges)  and pleaded not guilty to Charges 9, 11, and 15.

3.Prosecution asked that Charges 9, 11 and 15 be left on court file not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal.  I so ordered.

4.Particulars of Charge 1 (Fraud)  are that Mr Chung, on 28 April 2023, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to Lee Sin Man, the staff member of Somersault Cloud Travel Limited (“the said company”), that:-

(i)  He was the holder of a Hong Kong Identity Card and driving license in the name of Au Chun Hin; and

(ii)  One address proof in the name of the said Au Chun Hin purported to have been issued by China Mobile Hong Kong dated 11 April 2023 was genuine, and with intent to defraud, induced the said Lee Sin Man to commit an act, namely to enter into an agreement to lease a vehicle bearing registration mark YD3413, which resulted in benefit to Mr Chung or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said company.

5.Particulars of Charges 2 to 5 (all Attempted frauds)  are that Mr Chung, on A, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to the staff member of B (“the said bank”)  that:-

(i)  He was the holder of a Hong Kong Identity Card in the name of C; and

(ii)  The information contained in the application form for a bank account at the said bank was accurate and genuine,

and with intent to defraud, attempted to induce the staff member of the said bank to commit an act, namely, to process and approve the application for a bank account at the said bank, which resulted in benefit to Mr Chung or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said bank.

6.For Charge 2, A is 12 April 2023; B is Fusion Bank Limited; C is Chan Kwok Yin.

7.For Charge 3, A is 26 April 2023; B is Fusion Bank Limited; C is Au Chun Hin.

8.For Charge 4, A is 10 March 2023; B is Mox Bank Limited; C is Fung Yau Leung.

9.For Charge 5, A is 9 April 2023; B is Mox Bank Limited; C is Fung Yau Leung.

10.Particulars of Charges 6 to 8, and 10 (all Attempted frauds)  are that Mr Chung, on E, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to the staff member of F (“the said institution”)  that:-

(i)  He was the holder of a Hong Kong Identity Card in the name of G; and

(ii)  The information contained in the application form and the documents submitted in support of an application for a loan were accurate and genuine,

and with intent to defraud, attempted to induce the staff member of the said institution to commit an act, namely, to process and approve the application for a loan in the sum of H Hong Kong currency by Mr Chung, which resulted in benefit to Mr Chung or [in] prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said institution.

11.For Charge 6, E is 3 July 2023; F is Cashing Pro Limited; G is Au Chun Hin; H is $60,000.

12.For Charge 7, E is 3 March 2023; F is K Cash Limited; G is Lau King Man, Clement; H is $10,000.

13.For Charge 8, E is 10 March 2023; F is K Cash Limited; G is Fung Yau Leung; H is $200,000.

14.For Charge 10, E is 2 March 2023; F is PrimeCredit Limited; G is Lau King Man, Clement; H is $100,000.

15.Particulars of Charge 12 (Attempted fraud)  are that Mr Chung, on 12 March 2023, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to the staff member of PrimeCredit Limited (“the said institution”)  that the documents, namely:-

(i)  One utility bill purported to have been issued by CLP Power Hong Kong Limited dated 21 January 2023;

(ii)  One bank statement purported to have been issued by Fubon Bank (Hong Kong)  Limited dated 20 February 2023; [and]

(iii)  3 salary notification slips purported to have been issued by Wendong Trading Limited,

were genuine, and with intent to defraud, attempted to induce the staff member of the said institution to process and approve the application for a loan in the sum of $5,000 Hong Kong currency by Mr Chung, which resulted in benefit to Mr Chung or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said institution.

16.Particulars of Charges 13 and 14 (both Attempted frauds)  are that Mr Chung, on J, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to the staff member of K (“the said bank”)  that he was the holder of a Hong Kong Identity Card in the name of L, and with intent to defraud, attempted to induce the staff member of the said bank to commit an act, namely to process and approve the application for a bank account at the said bank, which resulted in benefit to Mr Chung or [in] prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said bank.

17.For Charge 13, J is 11 March 2023; K is Mox Bank Limited; L is Fung Yau Leung.

18.For Charge 14, J is 22 April 2023; K is Mox Bank Limited; L is Tse Yin Man.

19.Particulars of Charge 16 are that Mr Chung, on 28 May 2023, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to Lee Shuk Yee, staff member of Seng Fook Jewellery & Goldsmith Co Limited (“the said company”), that he was the genuine holder of one Hang Seng Bank Platinum MasterCard numbered 5520-3720-0928-0515 in the name of Chan Yuet Yung (“the said credit card”)  and was authorized and entitled to use the said credit card to make payment for goods worth a value of $8,300 Hong Kong Currency (“the said goods”), and with intent to defraud, attempted to induce the said Lee Shuk Yee to commit an act, namely to process a transaction for the purchase of the said goods, which resulted in benefit to Mr Chung or [in] prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said company.

20.Particulars of Charges 17 and 18 (both Attempted frauds)  are that Mr Chung, on M, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to the staff member of N (“the said institution”)  that:-

(i)  He was the holder of a Hong Kong Identity Card in the name of O; and

(ii)  The information contained in the application form and the documents submitted in support of an application for a loan were accurate and genuine,

and with intent to defraud, attempted to induce the staff member of the said institution to commit an act, namely, to process and approve the application for a loan in the sum of P Hong Kong currency by Mr Chung, which resulted in benefit to Mr Chung or [in] prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said institution.

21.For Charge 17, M is 2 March 2023; N is Welend Limited; O is Lau King Man, Clement; P is $50,000.

22.For Charge 18, M is 15 March 2023; N is Welend Limited; O is Fung Yau Leung; P is $151,474.

23.Particulars of Charge 19 (Attempted fraud)  are that Mr Chung, on 13 June 2023, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to the staff member of HKT Flexi Limited (“the said institution”)  that:-

(i)  He was the holder of a Hong Kong Identity Card in the name of Tse Yin Man; and

(ii)  The information contained in the application form for a loan was accurate and genuine,

and with intent to defraud, attempted to induce the staff member of the said institution to commit an act, namely, to process and approve the application for a loan in the sum of $38,000 Hong Kong currency by Mr Chung, which resulted in benefit to Mr Chung or [in] prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said institution.

FACTS ADMITTED BY MR CHUNG

Charges 2-8, 10, 12-14, and 17-19: 14 charges of Attempted fraud

24.Mr Chung submitted 14 online applications for loans or opening bank accounts to a total of 7 banks or financial institutions.  The 14 applications were made using either (i)  HKID cards belonging to or purported to belong to a total of 5 victims, (ii)  forged documents, or (iii)  a combination of both.

25.The dates of application, institutions involved, types of application, and the documents submitted for each application subject of Charges 2-8, 10, 12-14, and 17-19 are as follows, with “D” meaning Mr Chung:-

Charge	Date (2023)	Institution	Type of Application	Mode of Application
2	12 April	Fusion Bank Limited	Bank account	D presented a forged HKID card purporting to belong to CHAN Kwok-yin (“Victim 1”)  for facial verification.
3	26 April	Fusion Bank Limited	Bank account	D submitted a forged HKID card purporting to belong to AU Chun-hin (“Victim 2”)  and showed his own face for facial verification.
4	10 March	Mox Bank Limited	Bank account	D presented an authentic HKID card belonging to FUNG Yau-leung (“Victim 3”)  and a portrait purporting to depict Victim 3 for facial verification.
5	9 April	Mox Bank Limited	Bank account	D presented a forged HKID card purporting to belong to Victim 3 and showed his own face for facial verification.
6	3 July	Cashing Pro Limited	Loan of HK$60,000	D presented an authentic HKID card belonging to Victim 2, but used “swapface” applications to generate a self-portrait which resembles Victim 2’s appearance, which D produced for online facial verification.  D also submitted a forged bank statement and forged salary notification slips purporting to belong to Victim 2.
7	3 March	K Cash Limited	Loan of HK$10,000	D presented a forged HKID card purporting to belong to LAU King-man Clement (“Victim 4”)  and showed his own face for facial verification. D also submitted a forged bank statement and forged salary notification slips purporting to belong to Victim 4.
8	10 March	K Cash Limited	Loan of HK$200,000	D presented an authentic HKID card belonging to Victim 3, and a photo of a person named “TSEA Wai Hung” holding Victim 3’s HKID card for online facial verification. D also submitted a forged utility bill and forged salary notification slips purporting to belong to Victim 3.
10	2 March	PrimeCredit Limited	Loan of HK$100,000	D submitted a forged HKID card purporting to belong to Victim 4, and a forged business card, salary notification slips, and utility bill purporting to belong to Victim 4 for the application (facial verification was not required for this application).
12	12 March	PrimeCredit Limited	Loan of HK$5,000	D submitted the following forged documents purporting to belong to Victim 4: 1 utility bill purported to have been issued by CLP Power Hong Kong Limited dated 21 January 2023; 1 bank statement purported to have been issued by Fubon Bank (Hong Kong)  Limited dated 20 February 2023; and 3 salary notification slips purported to have been issued by Wendong Trading Limited . (No HKID card was submitted and facial verification was not required for this application).
13	11 March	Mox Bank Limited	Bank account	D presented an authentic HKID card belonging to Victim 3, and an AI-generated portrait which resembles Victim 3’s appearance for online facial verification.
14	22 April	Mox Bank Limited	Bank account	D presented an authentic HKID card belonging to TSE Yin-man (“Victim 5”)  and a portrait purporting to depict Victim 5 for online facial verification.
17	2 March	Welend Limited	Loan of HK$50,000	D submitted a forged HKID card purporting to belong to Victim 4, and a forged utility bill and forged salary notification slips purporting to belong to Victim 4 for the application (facial verification was not required for this application).
18	15 March	Welend Limited	Loan of HK$151,474	D presented an authentic HKID card belonging to Victim 3, but used “swapface” applications to generate a self-portrait which resembles Victim 3’s appearance, which D produced for online facial verification. D also submitted a forged utility bill and forged salary notification slips purporting to belong to Victim 3.
19	13 June	HKT Flexi Limited	Loan of HK$38,000	D presented (1)  a forged HKID card purporting to belong to Victim 5 and (2)  an authentic HKID card belonging to Victim 5, and showed his own face for facial verification.

26.The above 14 applications were all unsuccessful following vetting procedures carried out by the institutions involved, which were performed either (i)  entirely manually, or (ii)  by way of automated computer system initially and subsequently verified manually.  Victims 1-5 never submitted the applications subject of Charges 2-8, 10, 12-14, and 17-19.

Charge 1: Fraud

27.On 28 April 2023, Mr Chung, pretending to be Victim 2, approached Lee Sin Man (“Ms Lee”), director of a car rental company Somersault Cloud Travel Limited (“Somersault”), on WhatsApp expressing interest to rent a Tesla vehicle with licence plate YD3413 (“the Tesla”).  Mr Chung sent to Ms Lee, via WhatsApp, images of an authentic HKID card and driver’s licence belonging to Victim 2, and a forged address proof (purported to have been issued by China Mobile Hong Kong on 11 April 2023)  purported to belong to Victim 2.

28.Ms Lee agreed to lease the Tesla to Mr Chung, and met the latter in person on 1 May 2023 to hand over the Tesla.  During the meeting, Mr Chung presented to Ms Lee Victim 2’s HKID card and driving licence for inspection. Believing Mr Chung to be Victim 2, Ms Lee handed over the Tesla to Mr Chung. Mr Chung paid Ms Lee HK$10,000, being the agreed monthly rental.  On 2 May 2023, Mr Chung signed a car rental agreement with Somersault in the name of Victim 2.

29.In June 2023, Somersault was notified that penalties were incurred as a result of Mr Chung’s use of the Tesla.  Ms Lee requested Mr Chung to pay the penalties, but Mr Chung only paid partial payments.  The outstanding penalties totaling HK$12,000 were eventually settled by Somersault.  On 12 June 2023, Ms Lee requested Mr Chung to return the Tesla as the latter had defaulted in making rental payments.  Mr Chung returned the Tesla to Ms Lee on the same day via a third party.

Charge 16: Attempted fraud

30.On 28 May 2023, at about 1-2 pm, Mr Chung visited a jewellery store “Seng Fook Jewellery & Goldsmith Co Limited” in Yau Tong (“the Store”)  and approached Lee Shuk Yee, a staff member of the Store, stating that he was interested in purchasing a gold pendent priced at HK$8,300.  Mr Chung asked her if the Store would accept electronic credit card payment, to which the answer was yes.

31.Mr Chung then attempted twice to pay for the pendent with a virtual Hang Seng [Bank] Platinum MasterCard numbered 5520-3720-0928-0515 in the name of Victim 6 to no avail.  Mr Chung left the Store.

ARREST AND CAUTION

32.On 24 August 2023, Mr Chung was arrested at his residence.  Under caution, Mr Chung admitted since 2022, he and one “Tsea Wai Hung” have been using fake ID cards and “swapface” mobile app to defraud online banks and financial institutions for opening accounts and for loans.

33.House search unearthed the following items which were seized:-

(a)  10 mobile phones (6 next to Mr Chung’s bed and 4 inside his wardrobe);

(b)  One Microsoft Surface Pro tablet;

(c)  One printer; and

(d)  12 forged HKID cards (including one forged HKID card with Victim 2’s details).

34.In the course of three cautioned VRIs, Mr Chung made statements in the following topics.

35.In relation to the applications subject of Charges 2-8, 10, 12, and 17-19, Mr Chung stated that:-

(a)  He made all the applications subject of those charges;

(b)  Since mid-2022, he has edited authentic HKID cards belonging to other persons with “swapface” app and applied online for accounts and loans;

(c)  He obtained the victims’ authentic HKID cards from a friend whose name he has forgotten; he threw them away after submitting the applications;

(d)  He did not know the owners of the HKID cards;

(e)  He would either (1)  replace the portraits on the authentic HKID cards with his own portrait, or (2)  use “swapface” app to change his own portrait into a portrait matching victims’ appearance as shown on his/her authentic HKID cards, then use the altered HKID cards or self-portrait to make the applications; he used mobile app and notebook computer to carry out the editing of HKID cards;

(f)  He would use this method to apply for bank accounts at banks and for loans at financial institutions;

(g)  The applications were made via mobile phone and most of them were failed applications; and

(h)  He rented Room A3, 29/F, The Vantage, Ma Tau Wai between early/mid-2022 and mid-2023; he started making the applications while living there.

36.In relation to the applications subject of Charges 13 and 14, Mr Chung stated that:-

(a)  He made the applications subject of Charges 13 and 14 using authentic HKID cards belonging to either Victim 3 or Victim 5;

(b)  The selfie used for facial verification in the application subject of Charge 13 was generated using AI by a mainlander whom he knew on Telegram; and

(c)  The selfie used for facial verification in the application subject of Charge 14 was a synthetic photo which he generated online on “D.ID.com” by uploading the victim’s HKID card portrait.

37.In relation to the items seized from his residence upon arrest, Mr Chung stated that:-

(a)  Mobile phones: he owned all the 6 phones found next to his bed; that they were used for either loan applications or opening bank accounts; one phone found from the wardrobe belonged to him;

(b)  Microsoft Surface Pro tablet: he used the software “swapface” on the tablet to edit the portraits/images of the authentic HKID cards;

(c)  Printer: he used the printer to print the forged HKID cards for study; and

(d)  12 forged HKID cards: he forged the HKID cards and printed them out; he did not know the owners of the HKID cards; he forged 4 of the HKID cards by replacing his portrait on them; he received the images of authentic HKID cards from “@Benny” or “Tsea Wai Hung” via WhatsApp and used Photoshop to edit them.

38.In relation to the incident subject of Charge 1, Mr Chung stated that:-

(a)  He used Victim 2’s HKID card details to rent the Tesla;

(b)  He asked someone to return the Tesla to Ms Lee; and

(c)  The HKID card and driving licence of Victim 2 used for renting the Tesla were genuine.

39.In relation to the incident subject of Charge 16, Mr Chung stated that:-

(a)  He got acquainted with an unknown mainlander (“UM”)  who told him that he (UM)  wanted to setup a bogus website to lure victims into providing their personal information; UM sought his help in sending phishing SMS messages;

(b)  He later found someone on WhatsApp to help him use a modem pool to send out phishing SMS messages (including the SMS message received by Victim 6)  and he paid that person HK$1,000 per day as reward;

(c)  The phishing SMS message contained a bogus website purportedly operated by “CSL”;

(d)  He has linked Victim 6’s credit card information (from UM)  to “Samsung Pay” mobile wallet of one of his mobile phones and he later made use of the credit card out of greed; and

(e)  He went to the jewellery store alone and attempted to purchase something but was unsuccessful.

FORENSIC EXAMINATION

40.Forensic examination was conducted on 3 mobile phones belonging to Mr Chung and the Microsoft Surface Pro Tablet, with the following results:-

(a)  One of the mobile phones contained:

(i)  A video of the forged HKID card purported to belong to Victim 2 (submitted for the application subject of Charge 3);

(ii)  The self-portrait generated by “swapface” app which resembles Victim 2 (presented for the application subject of Charge 6); and

(iii)  An edited video of a male purported to be Victim 5.

(b)  The Microsoft Surface Pro Tablet contained:

(i)  Conversation records (apparently from Telegram)  with a user named “Raymond893”, in which Mr Chung appears to have received from “Raymond893” a forged portrait of Victim 3 (presented for the application subject of Charge 4)  and an edited video of an unknown male (a photo of whom was presented for the application subject of Charge 13); and

(ii)  An edited video of a male purported to be Victim 5.

CRIMINAL RECORD

41.Mr Chung has 35 previous convictions, 26 of which are either similar or offences of dishonesty.

ANTECEDENTS

42.Mr Chung is aged 36 (34 at the time of the offences), educated to F3 level, had previously worked as a telecom salesman (10 years ago)  and worked as a construction worker for half year after last discharge from prison on 10 January 2022.  He was unemployed at the time of arrest.

43.Mr Chung is divorced and was living with his family.

MITIGATION

44.Ms Emily Cheung of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Chung.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

45.Before arrest, Mr Chung was living with his retired mother (60)  and his girlfriend.  His retired father (aged 70 and divorced)  has been living in the Mainland for a long time.

46.Mr Chung has a baby daughter by her girlfriend and they are both living with his mother.  Before becoming unemployed in 2022, Mr Chung once worked as a tattoo artist for 4 to 5 years, earning an income as high as around $30,000 to $40,000 per month.  Since his last release from prison, he has worked as a construction worker and received odd jobs as a freelance tattoo artist.  Mr Chung has two other children (aged 10 odd years and 10 years respectively)  under his previous relationships.  Mr Chung did not take it seriously then as a father.

47.Mr Chung has 26 previous convictions relating to offences of dishonesty.

48.Mr Chung pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, which saved the court’s precious resources.  This strongest mitigating factor warrants a full 1/3 discount.

49.Mr Chung also showed his remorse by admitting his guilt upon arrest and by making full and frank disclosure during the VRIs.

50.Mr Chung’s daughter was born on 23 August 2023, one day before his arrest.  As of now, the daughter is being taken care of by both Mr Chung’s girlfriend and his mother.  During remand, although the girlfriend regularly brought their daughter to visit Mr Chung, no intimate interaction could be made between father and child.

51.Mr Chung asks for leniency so that he would be able to attend to his elderly mother as soon as possible.

52.Mr Chung has again become a father and is planning to marry his girlfriend.  He will also shoulder the responsibility of becoming the breadwinner of the family once he is released.  Therefore, the conviction of the present offences serves as an alarming wake-up call for Mr Chung.  Although Mr Chung committed offences of a similar nature years ago, he fully understands the serious consequences of the present offences now and is very ashamed of himself.  Mr Chung also understands that the offences he has committed would prohibit him from taking care of her daughter in her infancy.  This is a hard-learned lesson for him.

53.Therefore, it was submitted that Mr Chung’s chances of re-offending are extremely low.  There are fundamental changes to his family structure as compared to that before the dates of the offences.  Previously, a young man with no family burden, Mr Chung is now aware of the profound impact a parent has on his child and is thus determined to become a responsible and law-abiding individual.

54.While being remanded, Mr Chung has taken up jobs of sticking surfaces on file to earn extra income.  Mr Chung is planning ahead for his future family expenditure by saving up the income.

55.The present offences do not have tariff guidelines as the facts of each case are materially different.  The court has to take into account the distinctive personal background and special circumstances of each case for sentencing purposes.

Mitigation on Charges 2-8, 10, 12-14, and 17-19: a total of 14 Attempted frauds

56.In relation to sentencing on Charges 2-8, 10, 12-14, 17-19, Ms Cheung referred to Secretary for Justice v Tsang Wai Ling [2020] 4 HKLRD 208. In that case, the respondent pleaded guilty to three counts of conspiracy to steal and one count of theft.  She used a stolen identity card of the victim, impersonated the victim at branches of two banks and successfully defrauded the banks for a substantial amount of money.  The trial judge took into consideration HK$3.935 million of monetary loss suffered by the banks as the basis of sentencing, and imposed a total sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment. The Secretary for Justice applied for a review of sentence.  The Court of Appeal allowed the application and substituted a sentence of 34 months’ imprisonment in total.

57.The Court of Appeal opined at para 36:-

“Offences of planned frauds or thefts targeting banks must be punished severely, otherwise the sentence will not serve a deterrent effect. We are of the view that for planned frauds or thefts targeting banks, even for those which do not involve substantial amounts and have no other aggravating factors, the starting point for sentence should not be less than 2 years’ imprisonment.”

58.The Court of Appeal noted the following aggravating factors at para 37:

(a)  The respondent impersonated the victim by using her lost ID card, forging her signature and defrauded two different banks for a number of times;

(b)  The respondent did not act out of momentary greed but in a well-planned and carefully organized manner;

(c)  The respondent committed the crimes in conjunction with other perpetrators, regardless of whether she was the mastermind or not;

(d)  The respondent committed multiple offences in a short period of time; and

(e)  The respondent stole more than HK$1 million from two banks.

59.Ms Cheung submitted that the present case should be distinguished from Tsang Wai Ling in the following ways:-

(a)  To start with, the frauds relating to banks and financial institutions are all attempted frauds. Mr Chung did not succeed in those frauds and hence no monetary loss was suffered by the banks and financial institutions; and

(b)  Mr Chung did not act in a very well-planned and carefully organized manner. Although Mr Chung made use of AI-generated features in an attempt to impersonate different victims to respectively open bank accounts and/or make loan applications, he committed these crimes unprofessionally, which were eventually detected by vetting procedures carried out by the institutions.

60.Ms Cheung invited the court to take into account the following factors:-

(a)  Mr Chung himself had not benefitted from any monetary gain from defrauding the banks and financial institutions;

(b)  The banks, financial institutions and victims did not suffer from any monetary loss;

(c)  Mr Chung’s modus operandi was far from being well-planned and professional so the frauds in question were all unsuccessful; and

(d)  There is no evidence before the court that criminal syndicates were involved.

Mitigation on Charge 16: Attempted fraud

61.In relation to sentencing on Charge 16, Ms Cheung referred to HKSAR v Li Chi Yat, CACC 189/2018, unreported, 14 May 2013.  In that case, the appellant was convicted of an offence of theft of a credit card (charge 1), an offence of obtaining property by deception (charge 2)  and two offences of attempting to obtain property by deception (charges 3 and 4).  He stole a credit card and attempted to purchase items but was unsuccessful. Subsequently, he successfully purchased items to the value of HK$7,917.  He was sentenced to 2 years 3 months’ imprisonment (3 years as starting point for charges 2 to 4).  He later successfully appealed against his sentence.

62.The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate starting point should be 2 years and it substituted the original sentence with a sentence of 19 months’ imprisonment (16 months’ imprisonment for charges 2 to 4 after guilty pleas).

63.The Court of Appeal opined at para 22:-

“In our judgment, this was a case of credit card fraud at the low end of the scale of criminality and this was clearly apparent by the fact that it involved the appellant acting alone in stealing opportunistically a single genuine credit card which he subsequently used or attempted to use on three occasions where the actual loss was a little under $8,000 and the potential loss, as represented by the credit card limit, was $20,000. There was no planning or elaborate operation, or any other aggravating factors that would elevate the criminality to a higher level of seriousness. We should point out, however, that credit card fraud offences require deterrent sentences in order to protect the integrity of the credit card system and to punish the offender for the loss and inconvenience to the credit card company and the cardholder, as the case may be.”

64.Ms Cheung has the following observations on the present case and Li Chi Yat:-

(a)  Mr Chung is charged with Attempted fraud and the appellant in Li Chi Yat were charged with theft and obtaining property by deception or attempting to do so;

(b)  Li Chi Yat involved a stolen credit card, whereas the present case involved stolen card information; and

(c)  The items involved in both cases were valued at around HK$8,000. In Li Chi Yat, the appellant successfully paid with the stolen credit card, but Mr Chung in the present case did not succeed in purchasing the item.

65.In light of aforesaid, Ms Cheung invites the court to consider that the starting point for Charge 16 should not be higher than 2 years’ imprisonment.

Mitigation on Charge 1: Fraud

66.In relation to sentencing on Charge 1, Ms Cheung referred to HKSAR v Tsui Tsz Ming, HCMA 334/2018, [2018] HKCFI 2274.  In that case, the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of fraud.  He used another’s identity card and other documents to rent a car.  He was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment.  He appealed against his sentence but the appeal was dismissed.

67.Similarly, Mr Chung in the present case impersonated a victim for the purpose of renting a Tesla vehicle from a car rental company.  Mr Chung presented the said victim’s HKID card, driving licence and forged address proof for renting the Tesla.

68.Although the car rental company suffered a loss of HK$12,000, it was submitted that Mr Chung did in fact pay the agreed monthly rental of HK$10,000 at the beginning of the rental period.  Mr Chung did ask a third party to help return the Tesla to the car rental company.

69.In the circumstances, Ms Cheung invites the court to adopt 12 months’ imprisonment or lower as the starting point for Charge 1.

70.Ms Cheung reminds the court of the totality principle and invites the court to consider making the majority of the sentences to run concurrently.

71.Mr Chung prays for leniency in the hope that he could reunite with his family soon as a loving father, husband and son.

72.Upon enquiry by the court, Ms Cheung submitted that Mr Chung set out to open bank accounts with a view to obtaining loans in due course; that the reason for setting out to open so many was he kept trying after earlier failures to do so.

SENTENCE

73.The maximum penalty for Fraud or Attempted fraud is imprisonment for 14 years.

74.For Charge 1 of Fraud, Mr Chung has used another person’s HKID card for purpose of impersonation.  This is an aggravating feature.  He has used forged document too.  The car rental company suffered not only the penalty charges of $12,000 but also the almost half-month rental of about $5,000.

75.For Charge 1, I will adopt a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment.

76.For Charge 16 of Attempted fraud, I take into account Mr Chung was instrumental in obtaining the credit card information (though passed to him by UM)  of Victim 6 by sending out phishing SMS message to the latter.  I will adopt a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment, having regard to Li Chi Yat (supra).

77.For Charges 2-8, 10, 12-14, and 17-19, ie 14 charges of Attempted fraud, the related offences spanned from 2 March to 3 July 2023, ie about 4 months. The 14 related applications were made using either (i)  HKID cards belonging to or purported to belong to a total of 5 victims, (ii)  forged documents, or (iii)  a combination of both.  These are aggravating features of the attempted frauds.

78.However, I note that none of the banks and financial institutions suffered any loss and this factor is favourable to Mr Chung when I come to determine the starting points for these 14 charges.

79.I have considered the authority of Tsang Wai Ling (supra).  I will adopt the starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment for each of the 14 charges.  In order not to overload the sentences for all 14 charges, I will consider a global starting point for all 14 charges.  Having regard to the modus operandi, the lack of sophistication and the absence of evidence that criminal syndicates were involved, I shall adopt a global starting point of 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

80.Charges 1 and 16 are separate and distinct from one another and from the rest of the conviction charges.  In principle, consecutive sentences are called for.  However, having regard to the totality principle, I will consider what global starting point that I can impose for all 16 charges that Mr Chung is herein convicted of.  Having regard to totality, and before considering any other aggravating factor, the global starting point for all 16 charges that I adjudge to be appropriate is 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

81.I now consider Mr Chung’s dreadful criminal records.  He has had no less than 26 previous convictions relating to offences of dishonesty, as acknowledged by Ms Cheung.  Mr Chung’s last conviction for Conspiracy to defraud was recorded in December 2021.

82.Ms Cheung’s submission that a wake-up call has broken the morning of Mr Chung’s usual daily life by his becoming a father sounds hollow because the latest child is Mr Chung’s third and they are all mothered by different persons one of whom was Mr Chung’s divorced wife.

83.Frankly, I do not believe Mr Chung will repent and stay away from the wrath of the law even after this occasion.  Nonetheless, in line with the authorities, I will still increase the starting point of sentence to act as an extra dose of deterrence against Mr Chung and an extra layer of protection of the public ie for a longer duration from his future exploits.

84.For Mr Chung’s status as a recidivist offender, I will add 6 months to the 5 years 3 months’ starting point to arrive at a final global notional starting point after trial of 5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

85.To reflect his recidivist status, I will add a notional period of 3 months to the individual starting point for each charge.

86.Mr Chung pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of substance that will reduce his sentences further.

(Mr Chung, please stand)

87.For Charge 1, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

88.For Charge 2, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

89.For Charge 3, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

90.For Charge 4, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

91.For Charge 5, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

92.For Charge 6, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

93.For Charge 7, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

94.For Charge 8, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

95.For Charge 10, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

96.For Charge 12, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

97.For Charge 13, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

98.For Charge 14, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

99.For Charge 16, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

100.For Charge 17, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

101.For Charge 18, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

102.For Charge 19, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

103.In order to arrive at the final aggregate sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment, I make the following orders.

104.I order that one month each of the sentences on Charges 3 to 8, 10, 12 to 14, and 2 months each of the sentences on Charges 17 to 19 are to run consecutively to each other among themselves, and to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 2, forming the aggregate sentence (Group A sentence)  for these 14 charges of 36 months’ imprisonment.

105.Next, I order that 6 months of the sentence on Charge 16, and 4 months of the sentence on Charge 1 are to run consecutively to one another between themselves, and to run consecutively to the Group A sentence.  The final aggregate sentence for Mr Chung is therefore 46 months’ imprisonment.