HKSAR v. Choi Yat Wa

DCCC 1130/2024

[2025] HKDC 845

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1130 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Plea

1.Upon the defendant’s guilty plea and admission of facts, the defendant (“D”)  is convicted on Charge 1 and Charge 2.

Admitted facts

2.At 1715 hours on 1 February 2024, DPC9199 (“PW1”)  intercepted D outside Room A12, 7/F, Efficiency House, 35 Tai Yau Street, San Po Kong, Kowloon (the “Flat”)  after observing that D came out of the Flat earlier.  PW1 and D then entered the Flat.

3.Between 1737 hours and 1800 hours on the same day, DPC12591 (“PW2”)  conducted a search of the Flat with a search warrant.  PW2 found and seized, inter alia, the following items inside the Flat:

	Exhibit	Seized Location
1	One white envelope containing 11 counterfeit HK$500 banknotes: Total No. Serial Number Purported Issuer Counterfeit HK$500 banknote 11 10 notes: RK672666 1 note: RP490014 HSBC (total nominal value: HK$5,500)	Inside the dropped ceiling (next to an opened panel without tile coverage)
2	One bag containing, inter alia: (i) 12 counterfeit banknotes (11 HK$500 banknotes and 1 HK$100 banknote): Total No. Serial Number Purported Issuer Counterfeit HK$500 banknote 11 8 notes: GL654518 2 notes: RK6727666 1 note: RP490014 HSBC Counterfeit HK$100 banknote 1 D074909 Bank of China (total nominal value HK$5,600) (ii)  1 key of the Flat (iii)  1 plastic board with cutting mark	On a foldable table
3	1 black paper shredder with papers inside	On the floor
4	One black bag containing: (i)  3 ink cartridges (red/ yellow/ pink colors) (ii)   1 nail polish (iii)  3 glitter pens and 8 pens (iv)   2 scissors (v)  1 paper cutter, 1 cuticle nipper, 1 metal ruler and 2 plastic rulers (vi)   1 paint brush	On a desk
5	One piece of paper with printed watermark of a banknote	Desk
6	One black printer (Brand: Cannon) (Model number: TE8370)	On a cabinet
7	One transparent pen container containing: 7 pens and a cutter	Inside a cabinet
8	One pen, a plastic box containing 10 glitter pens, 2 painting sprays, 2 bottles of paint	Inside a cabinet
9	One gray printer (Brand: Brother)	Near mattress
10	(i)  4 sandpapers (ii)  2 packs of A4-sized paper (iii)  1 black cutting board and one blue document board	Inside a long cabinet

4.At 1803 hours on the same day, DPC19171 (“PW3”)  arrested and cautioned D for “counterfeiting notes” and “custody of counterfeit notes”.  Under caution, D stated “the forged banknotes were made by me to be used by myself（啲假銀紙係我整嚟自己用嘅）” and “forged banknotes inside the bag was made by me to be used by myself（袋入面啲假銀紙係我整嚟自己用嘅）”. PW3 post-recorded the arrest and caution of D in his police notebook between 1807 hours and 1850 hours on the same day.

5.Between 2358 hours on 1 February 2024 and 0108 hours on 2 February 2024, PW3 conducted a video recorded interview (“VRI”)  with D.  Under caution, D admitted, inter alia:

(a)  D made counterfeit banknotes (both Exhibit 1 and 2)  in around late January 2024. D intended to use the counterfeit banknotes but they were not yet used;

(b)  D admitted he used/intended to use the following Exhibits to make counterfeit banknotes:

Exhibit no.	Description		Usage admitted by D under VRI
2(iii)	1 plastic board with cutting mark		D used it to cut counterfeit banknotes
3	1 black paper shredder with papers inside	D purchased and used it to shred failed counterfeit products
4(i)	3 ink cartridges (red/ yellow/ pink colors)	Printer ink to be used to print counterfeit banknotes
4(ii)	1 nail polish	It was intended to be used (but never used)  on counterfeit banknotes
4(iii)	3 glitter pens and 8 pens	The pens were used on counterfeit banknotes to increase their authenticity
4(iv)& (v)	2 scissors, 1 paper cutter, 1 cuticle nipper, 1 metal ruler and 2 plastic rulers	They were used to cut counterfeit banknotes
4(vi)	1 paint brush	It was used on white paper to test its colour
6	One black printer (Brand: Cannon)  (Model number: TE8370)	It was used to print counterfeit notes
8	One pen, a plastic box containing 10 glitter pens, 2 painting sprays, 2 bottles of paint	They were purchased to make counterfeit notes
10 (ii)	2 packs of A4-sized paper	They were used to print counterfeit notes
10 (iii)	1 black cutting board and one blue document board	They were used to fix and cut counterfeit banknotes

6.Station Sergeant Miao Kuei-chieh Andrew (“PW4”)  confirmed Exhibit 1-2 were 23 pieces of counterfeit banknotes.

7.3 fingerprints found on counterfeit banknotes in Exhibit 1 matched with the fingerprint of D.

Mitigation

8.D is now 36 years of age, single, local born and received education up to secondary form 5.  Since 2015 until 2024, he has 6 sets and a total of 13 previous convictions, most of them are dishonest offence.  Last conviction was in 2024 in which he was convicted of “money laundering” and received 20 months’ imprisonment.  I was told that D committed the offence while on bail and D is a recidivist.

9.In mitigation, Ms Zahir stressed that D pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and expressed genuine remorse.  D made the counterfeit notes for his own use.  The total nominal value of 23 counterfeit notes is about HK$11,100. The counterfeit notes are of low quality and not yet for dissemination. D has devised a plan for his rehabilitation.

Sentencing consideration

10.There are no sentencing tariffs or guidelines for offences related to counterfeit notes.  I have considered 3 cases (HKSAR v Li Ho Yin CACC 128/2013, HKSAR v Hu Wanxia [2009] 4 HKLRD 449 and HKSAR v Wong Hoi Yat & others [2006] 3 HKLRD 150)  and other cases submitted by Ms Zahir[1]. Those cases related to possession or custody of counterfeit notes.  I take the view that making counterfeit notes is more serious than possession of counterfeit notes.  A starting point in the range of 3 to 4 years' imprisonment is appropriate for “making” while 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment is appropriate for “possession or custody” of counterfeit notes.

11.In HKSAR v Leung Wai Han CACC 102/2002及HKSAR v Maristela Rhea Nerissa Curbi and another [2022] HKCA 422.  The Court of Appeal pointed out that:

“There are no tariff sentencing guidelines for the offence of custody or control of counterfeit bank notes with intent to pass or tender them as genuine. In sentencing the Applicant, the Judge, quite properly, took into account the intention of the legislature as indicated in the maximum penalty for this offence provided for in the Crimes Ordinance, which is 14 years' imprisonment. It is true that the purported face value of all the forged bank notes was relatively low, but the Judge appreciated this and we agree with his comment in his sentencing remarks, where he said:

…I accept immediately that the face value of the notes in both these charges is not great, but as against that is the fact the use of these notes is an ongoing evil.”

12.Applying the above legal principles into the present case, although the nominal value is not great, the severity of the facts of this case is that D was able to make more counterfeit notes, in addition to possession of 23 pieces of counterfeit notes in the value of HK$11,100, which is ready for use in the market.  After inspection of the counterfeit notes, including touching the paper, the quality seems to be of good quality and likely to mislead the public.  This tends to disturb the financial system and the confidence on the use of currency.

13.In short, the strongest mitigating factor remains the D’s early guilty plea.  I adopt 48 months as the starting point for Charge 1, after one-third discount upon his guilty plea, the sentence for Charge 1 is 32 months' imprisonment.  I adopt 24 months as the starting point for Charge 2, after one-third discount upon his guilty plea, the sentence for Charge 2 is 16 months' imprisonment.  The facts of two charges are to a certain extent overlapping, hence after consideration of totality principle and to avoid total sentence being excessive, I do not intend to enhance the sentence for recidivist and commission of offence while on bail, I order that 4 months of Charge 2 be made consecutive to Charge 1 (in other words, 12 months of two charges are made concurrent)  and result in a total sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment.  The sentence D is serving as per his last conviction in 2024 has finished and I do not see strong grounds to make further reduction by way of an order of concurrent sentence.