HKSAR v. Maria Maninder Singh

DCCC 1059/2023

[2025] HKDC 1223

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1059 OF 2023

----------------

----------------

--------------------------------------

REASONS FOR VERDICT

--------------------------------------

1.The Defendant (“D”) pleaded not guilty to one count of Passing or tendering a counterfeit currency note, contrary to section 99(1)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

2.The particulars of the offence allege that D, on 27 February 2023, on a taxi bearing registration mark WM 8988 (“the Taxi”), outside the entrance/exit of the car park, K11 Art Mall, No. 18 Hanoi Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, passed or tendered as genuine one piece of $500 Hong Kong currency banknote, which was, and which he knew or believed to be, a counterfeit of a currency note.

The Prosecution case

3.On 27 February 2023, D boarded the Taxi of PW1 (a night shift taxi driver) with a female friend in Wanchai at around 0037 hours. They requested to go to Tsim Sha Tsui. At around 0051 hours when the Taxi reached the destination on Hanoi Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, D gave PW1 a HK$500 banknote (P1) and a HK$10 banknote to pay for the taxi fare which was HK$107.80 and requested $400 change from PW1.

4.PW1 found P1 to be suspicious as its texture was of inferior quality and bore no security features normally found on genuine banknotes so he reported the matter to the police.

5.P1 was later confirmed to be a counterfeit banknote. D was arrested. During a house search, items D wore on the date of offence were seized.

6.Under caution, in an oral admission and two records of interviews, D stated, inter alia:

(1) He had taken the Taxi from Wanchai to Tsim Sha Tsui on the date of offence with his female friend;

(2) He had paid for the taxi fare using P1;

(3) He had previously purchased P1 from a male stranger for the price of HK$100 at Canal Road, Wanchai;

(4) He no longer possessed the contact details of that male stranger;

(5) He was aware that P1 was a counterfeit banknote;

(6) The female friend on the Taxi with him did not know P1 was a counterfeit banknote;

(7) He pleaded for a chance and expressed the wish to compensate PW1 for his financial loss.

7.P1 was of inferior quality and lacked the security measures found on genuine banknotes.

8.At the material time, when D passed as genuine (to PW1) the counterfeit banknote, i.e., P1, D knew or believed P1 to be a counterfeit.

Admitted Facts and other facts not disputed by the defence

9.The following facts were admitted pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221 (P3):

(1) A HK$500 banknote (P1) was submitted to forensic examination and the police counterfeit currency expert confirmed the same to be a counterfeit banknote.

(2) D was arrested at his place of residence. During house search thereat, the apparel worn by D on the date of the offence, i.e., 27 February 2023, were found and seized, including (i) a black colour jacket (P4), (ii) an orange upper garment (P5); and (iii) a pair of blue jeans (P6).

10.The defence confirmed that the following parts of the prosecution case were also not disputed:

(1) On the date of the offence, PW1 was working night shift. He picked up a male passenger later identified to be D and his female friend in Wanchai at around 0037 hours that day. They requested to go to Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon.

(2) PW1 provided P1 to the police.

(3) P1 is a counterfeit banknote as defined by section 97 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

11.A photograph album (P7) and the dashcam footage of the Taxi for the journey taken by D and his female companion (P8) were agreed to be produced by the parties. For P8, dialogue between PW1 and D during the subject taxi journey was transcribed and translated – the agreed transcript and translation is produced as P19.  

Issues

12.The issues in the case are: (1) whether the prosecution can prove D was the one who passed P1 to PW1 and, if so, (2) whether the prosecution can prove D knew or believed P1 to be a counterfeit banknote.

Voluntariness of the Oral Admission and Records of Interviews

13.The defence disputed the voluntariness of the oral admission made by D and the two records of interviews and the case proceeded by way of alternative procedure. It is the defence stance[1]  that the oral admission was not made by D, and alternatively, that it was made involuntarily. As to the records of interviews, it is the defence case that when these interviews were conducted, D was only provided with Punti/English interpreters but D was not fluent in either Punti or English (and no Punjabi interpreter was provided); the Punti/English interpreters in fact made no interpretation to English. D also made allegations against (1) PC 11766 (PW4, being the arresting officer who gave evidence as to the oral admission (recorded in his notebook, PP10) and the taking of the first record of interview (“1^st ROI”, PP13)) and (2) DPC 20123 (PW5, being the officer who took the second record of interview (“2^nd ROI”, PP17)), alleging they had used threats and inducement etc to procure D’s declarations and signatures on the two ROIs. There was also an allegation that the arresting team had made inducements on the car ride back to the police station. D agreed he had signed and written the declarations on the ROIs but denied the contents had been provided by him or that he had read / had known about the contents (which, according to the defence, had all been made up and written by the police officers).

14.In gist, PW4’s evidence is that on 9 March 2023 at around 6pm, he and other officers of the arresting team (DPC 12812 (PW8), PC 15171 (PW9), DPC 5844 (PW10) and DSGT 2965 (PW11)) went to a subdivided unit in a guesthouse in Chungking Mansions to locate D. D was arrested and cautioned by PW4 in Punti, and D made the following oral admission in Punti under caution: “Ah Sir, I was too poor and did not have much money. Just now I was in a hurry when taking a taxi. I used a $500 counterfeit banknote. I know this is wrong. I would like to return money to taxi driver. The whole thing was done by me alone. Please give me a chance.” PW4 then immediately recorded the admission down (in Chinese, as D had made the admission in Punti) in his notebook (PP10, p64 at “1815” hours) to reinforce his own memory. D was then taken back to the police station where a post-record was taken in the form of a record of interview (i.e., the 1^st ROI, PP13) by PW4 with the assistance of an Punti/English interpreter, Madam Lui (PW5)[2]. (PW4 explained that he had asked D which language he elected to use and D had chosen English, and that was why an interpreter in that language was arranged. PW4 was also able to communicate with D with no issue in Punti.) In the whole process, there were no threats or inducements made.

15.As to the 2^nd ROI, according to PW6, he had learned from the arresting team that D knew Punti and could write in English (but he could not do so in his mother-tongue) and PW6 himself was able to carry on a normal conversation with D in Punti with no issue; PW6 also confirmed D’s election to use English for the 2^nd ROI. PW6 thus arranged for a Punti/English interpreter (i.e., PW7) to serve D with the Pol 153 (PP16) and to take the 2^nd ROI (PP17) with him. During the process of taking the 2^nd ROI, D gave the answers contained therein. There was no inducement or threats made.

16.After I ruled a case to answer on the special issue, D chose not to give evidence himself, but called his brother (DW1) to testify. In gist, DW1’s evidence was that D had come to Hong Kong when he was around 10 years old; at the time, D had taken an entrance examination to get into Primary 4 at Lei Cheng Uk Primary School (D’s age was such that he should have been placed in Primary 5, but he was put in Primary 4 instead due to his lower English language level); D had only attended school in Hong Kong for 3-4 years before dropping out; as an adult, D’s fluency level in Punti was 60% (as compared to a local’s) and his fluency level in English was 40%. D can understand and speak Punjabi (his mother-tongue) completely fluently, but cannot read or write in that language; D does not know Hindi at all.

17.Regarding the special issue, I bear in mind the prosecution bears the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D made the admissions and that they were made voluntarily. The defence called D’s brother (DW1) to testify, and I must consider his evidence on the special issue. D has no obligation to give evidence, and I shall not draw any adverse inference against him for electing not to testify on the special issue; nonetheless, that means there is nothing from the defence to challenge, dispute, weaken or contradict the prosecution evidence / case on what occurred during the arrest (when the oral admission was allegedly made under caution) and the taking of the two ROIs – DW1 was not present at the arrest or the interviews, and only gave evidence as to the general language ability of D. In any event, I bear in mind that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that D made the admissions and that they were voluntarily made.

18.The defence criticisms of the prosecution witnesses are in essence that PW4 lied about D making the oral admission at the scene of the arrest, and PW4-PW7 lied about D giving the answers recorded in the two ROIs (and instead, PW4 and PW6 had made up the Chinese contents of PP13 and PP16 (including the alleged answers given by D recorded therein), and PW5 and PW7 had not interpreted anything for D. The defence further says that prosecution witnesses (including PW4, 6, 8-11) had made threats and inducements, and also that D should have been provided with an interpreter of his mother-tongue (i.e., Punjabi). 

19.I do not accept the defence submissions. I find all the prosecution witnesses on the special issue to be credible and reliable witnesses, and I accept their evidence:

(1) PW8-11’s evidence was very short, and in essence, the defence merely put its case to them without asking further questions during cross-examination. All of these prosecution witnesses denied that any improper exchange / inducement had taken place on the car ride back to the police station. I accept their evidence.

(2) PW2 was the station sergeant at the time when D was taken back to Tsim Sha Tsui Police station after his arrest, and PW3 was the officer who had briefed PW4 on the case the morning before the arrest. Their evidence centered around having had conversations with D fluently in Punti. Their evidence was short and they did not waver under cross-examination. I also accept their evidence.

(3) PW4’s evidence was clear and straightforward. His evidence was logical and reasonable. When defence counsel put to him that it would be more proper and fairer to a defendant to arrange for an interpreter of his/her mother-tongue when taking a record of interview, PW4 answered that he would make a choice based on the person’s language abilities and his/her needs and requests; in this case, D had told him that he spoke Punti and could read in English (and PW4 observed that D could communicate with PW4 with no issue in Punti); at the police station, there were posters with more than 30 languages (including Punjabi and Urdu) posted on the wall, and when PW4 had asked D which language of those was appropriate, D had said “English”; that is why PW4 had chosen to engage a Punti/English interpreter for the 1^st ROI. I am of the view that that is a reasonable and proper way to deal with the matter. The main criticism by the defence against PW4 was that PW4 had not recorded down that he had had any exchange with D about election of language, and thus the defence asserts PW4 must have lied about this (i.e., that PW4 had never asked D which language he wanted to use). PW4 explained that making such a record is not part of the usual procedure, and thus he did not do so. PW4’s evidence did not waver under cross-examination; his answers to questions posed by the defence were logical and reasonable. PW5’s evidence was also clear and straightforward, and her evidence as to the taking of the 1^st ROI was consistent with PW4’s evidence in all material and pertinent aspects (and any minor discrepancy or one of them having forgotten / being unable to recollect certain details of what had happened did not affect the credibility and reliability of their evidence on material issues). I am of the view that both PW4 and PW5 were honest and reliable witnesses, and I accept their evidence.

(4) PW6’s evidence was also clear, concise and to-the-point. He did not waver under cross-examination. PW7’s evidence regarding how the 2^nd ROI was conducted and recorded was consistent in material aspects with PW6’s evidence. I find them both to be credible and reliable.

20.I find PW2-11 to be credible and reliable witnesses, and accept their evidence as to the special issue, giving their evidence full weight.

21.As to DW1’s evidence on the special issue, I make the following observations:

(1) I bear in mind that he is of clear record and give myself the relevant direction in respect of credibility.

(2) DW1 was not present when the admissions were made / when the ROIs were conducted. As such, his evidence pertained only to D’s language abilities and not as to what had occurred during the arrest (when the oral admission was allegedly made) and the two interviews.

(3) Although DW1 is D’s brother, his evidence showed that he did not have a good understanding or knowledge of D’s English and Punti fluency / level (especially in 2023 when the offence occurred). DW1 had only worked with D in around 2014, for at most several years (when D drove English-speaking clients to/from the airport/hotel for DW1’s company). Importantly, according to DW1, D was very quiet in general and DW1 rarely heard him speak; when they did speak, 99% of their conversation would be in Punjabi – and the rest of their exchanges would be in Punti (with DW1 doing most of the talking). Given that both of them were very fluent in spoken Punjabi, and their exchanges / conversations (especially in languages other than Punjabi) were very rare, it is clear that DW1 would not have had many occasions to assess D’s English or Punti abilities. I am of the view that DW1’s assessment of D’s English and Punti abilities cannot be given much weight.

(4) It should be noted that, nonetheless, DW1 admitted that D could handle basic communication in English (at “40%” according to his assessment), and he believed that D’s Punti fluency was even higher (at “60%” according to his assessment).

(5) All in all, I find DW1 to be an honest witness, but I am of the view that his evidence is not very reliable or helpful to the court.

22.As to the defence submissions on the special issue, I note the following:

(1) The defence insisted that D should have been provided with an interpreter of his mother-tongue when the ROIs were taken. However, it is clear that one can be fluent in more than one language, and not everyone is the most fluent in his/her so-called mother-tongue or first language. Obviously, one can be born in one country, picking up only the basics of that language at a very early age (this being the person’s mother-tongue), and then move to another country as a young child, and subsequently becoming much more fluent in that second language than the mother-tongue. On the same note, the defence seems to be saying that all South Asian persons should be provided with an interpreter according to his/her nationality or country of descent – however, it goes without saying that many South Asian persons are born and raised in Hong Kong, attending school in Hong Kong their whole lives and are extremely fluent in English and Chinese. Would it not be presumptuous for one to assume that all persons in Hong Kong of a certain skin tone (reference to which defence counsel made multiple times) would not be fluent in Punti or English, or would be more fluent (or only fluent) in a language related to their descent? Defence counsel implying that someone with an accent indicates lack of fluency in that language is also presumptuous and inaccurate.

(2) In this case, DW1’s evidence indicates that D can speak and understand spoken Punjabi fluently. However, he cannot read or write in that language. All the evidence (including DW1’s evidence) support D being sufficiently fluent in Punti as well as in English[3]. Moreover, the agreed footage of the dashcam of the Taxi (i.e. P8) supports the prosecution witnesses’ evidence that D can understand and speak Punti fluently – he was able to carry on short conversations / exchanges with PW1. The fact that D has been in Hong Kong for over 25 years (since around 10 years of age) and educated for at least 3-4 years in the local system also supports that he should know at least basic Punti and English.

(3) D wrote out and made the declarations in both ROIs that he had read the contents of the statements, that they were true and he had made them of his own free will, and that the records were accurate and the answers were provided by him (see PP13 and PP17), and signed the same. The evidence shows that this reflected the truth of the matter.

(4) The defence criticises the interpreters for not having explained the contents of the declarations to D (in addition to reading out and/or asking D to read the English version of the declarations). I find that criticism to be unfair as the said declarations are worded in very simple, basic and clear terms – I do not see (1) why the interpreters should be expected to explain the declarations (given they are only acting in the role of providing translation from one language to another) and (2) how they could even do so in simpler language than is stated on the face of the declarations / by the wording of the declarations themselves.

(5) Defence counsel handed up the case of HKSAR v Toe Eli CACC 120/2020 not to rely on it but to distinguish it from the present case, in gist, arguing that the applicant there had elected English and the court could assess his English ability from the video recorded interview, whereas in the present case, there was no election by D as to language and there is no evidence to help the court assess D’s Punti or English abilities. Nonetheless, defence counsel in his submissions agreed that if D really had been given the choice and if he had made an election to use English, that should be sufficient – defence counsel confirmed that he was not submitting that a defendant should always be provided with an interpreter of his mother-tongue (or first language). On the issue of language election, I have already made a finding that the officers did ask D what language he chose to use for the ROIs and he elected to use English. They thus subsequently (and appropriately) provided Punti/English interpreters to D at the interviews.

(6) D’s conduct at the interviews (including providing answers in English, writing out the declarations, signing the same etc) clearly showed that he was sufficiently fluent / proficient in the language. It is clear that D’s English abilities enabled him to understand the English contents of the ROIs including the declarations written out by him and the English answers recorded in the statements (which were in simple and straightforward language).

(7) As to the oral admission, defence counsel submitted that it was inappropriate for PW4 to have recorded it in his notebook without asking D to confirm and sign the same. On this point, I note that the evidence shows D spontaneously and voluntarily gave the admission (in Punti) upon being cautioned at the scene of arrest. I do not see how it would be improper for PW4 to record that down in his notebook (for the purpose of reinforcing his own memory, as he stated); PW4 did not ask D to sign the record because D does not know how to read Chinese – I am of the view that PW4 dealt with the matter properly and reasonably.

(8) As to the defence allegations[4]  of other improper conduct by prosecution witnesses (i.e., that they had all lied, that they had concocted the admissions, and that they had used threats and inducements to procure the admissions, and had in general handled the case improperly), I do not accept this to be so or that this might have been the case. The defence Grounds of Objections is not supported by evidence, and is illogical and contradictory in many respects. One example is the following: it is contended that PW6 made up everything and wrote everything in the 2^nd ROI without D having provided any answers to the questions posed in that interview (see para 5.4 of the Grounds of Objection); but if that were the case, why would PW6 need to tell D the story that PW6 had concocted before writing out the contents of the ROI (see para 5.2 of the Grounds of Objections), in essence teaching D what he should say / what the story should be (when D did not need to participate at all or give answers at all in the interview)? It must be borne in mind that D elected not to give evidence on the special issue – as stated before, this is his right (and no adverse inference would be drawn because of his election), but this also means there is no evidence to support what is alleged in the Grounds of Objection or to contradict the evidence of PW2-11.

23.I find on the evidence that D can understand and speak Punti fluently, and that he can read and write English to the proficiency necessary for the two ROIs to be conducted and taken. I find on the evidence that D voluntarily and spontaneously made the oral admission (accurately recorded in PW4’s notebook) in Punti, and that he was asked which language to use and had elected to use English for the two ROIs. I find on the evidence that D’s Punti and English fluency / proficiency levels were such as to enable him to sufficiently understand and communicate in those languages for the purpose of giving the oral admission in Punti and to undergo the two interviews with Punti/English interpreters (giving the answers and declarations he did in English).

24.I find that (1) D made the oral statement under caution in Punti; that (2) D provided the answers to the questions in the two ROIs in English; and (3) he did all this voluntarily (with no threats / inducements made by any prosecution witness).

25.On the special issue, I am certain that (1) in respect of the oral admission, D clearly understood the contents of the caution, made the oral admission (which was subsequently recorded in PP10) voluntarily; and (2) in respect of the 1^st ROI (PP13) and the 2^nd ROI (PP17), D clearly understood the contents of the cautions, gave the answers and declarations therein voluntarily. I find PP10, PP13 and PP17 to be accurate records. I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the voluntariness of the said admissions, and I furthermore do not see any reason for the court to exercise its discretion to exclude / rule out the same. I ruled that the oral admission as well as PP9-14 and PP16-18 were admissible as evidence; the aforesaid provisional exhibits were thus formally marked P9 to P14 and P16 to P18.

Defence case

26.At the close of the prosecution case (on the general issue), the defence had no midway submissions. After I ruled a case to answer, D elected not to give evidence and did not call other witnesses.

27.The defence in essence submitted that (1) no weight should be given to the alleged admissions of D and (2) PW1 should not be believed. In terms of (1), the defence repeats what was submitted on the special issue and further says that the version purportedly given by D in the admissions was inherently improbable[5].

Analysis of the evidence

28.The prosecution has the burden to prove the requisite elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt; D has no burden of proof. D has no obligation to testify or call any evidence, and I shall not draw any adverse inference against him for electing not to do so on the general issue; nonetheless, it means there is no evidence from the defence to undermine, contradict or explain the evidence put forward by the prosecution. Furthermore, if I am to draw an inference, the inference must be drawn from facts proved and that the inference must be the only irresistible inference to be drawn from the proved facts. In any event, the prosecution bears the burden to prove D committed the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

29.The contents of the oral admission (accurately recorded in P10) and the two ROIs (PP13 and PP17) are completely inculpatory (and they are not mixed statements). In any event, I have considered the whole of the contents of the statements in order to determine where the truth lies. I have already dealt with the defence submissions regarding the issue with translation etc above – I do not accept the arguments of the defence. I also do not accept the defence argument that the version given in the statements is inherently improbable or defies logic. D gave a straightforward and simple account that he had purchased the HK$500 counterfeit note from a person in Wanchai for HK$100, and later had used it to pay PW1 for the taxi ride. The defence submission that D might have made the admissions to protect his girlfriend is mere conjecture with no evidence at all to support this possibility. I am sure that the admissions are true, and I give them full weight.

30.The prosecution relies on the evidence of PW1, the driver of the Taxi. I have considered the criticisms of the defence against PW1. The main contention of the defence is that PW1’s evidence in his 1^st statement (dated 27 February 2023) and 2^nd statement (dated 5 June 2025) contain discrepancies. However, I am of the view that there is nothing material that turns on these alleged discrepancies and moreover that they are not actually inconsistent (but merely that more details were provided in the 2^nd statement, as explained by PW1). I accept PW1’s explanation for these so-called discrepancies. For example, the 1^st statement did not mention that the original destination of the passengers (i.e., D and his companion according to the prosecution case) was Chungking Mansion and not K11; it also did not mention the route the Taxi took from near Chungking Mansion to K11. However, it is not in dispute that the final destination was K11, and that D and his companion got off at that location. Importantly, the footage P8 (and the related transcript P19) supports PW1’s evidence that D indeed had asked to be driven to Chungking Mansion originally and had subsequently changed his mind and told D to drop him off on Mody Road (at K11). I am of the view the undisputed footage supports PW1’s evidence in material aspects. As to the defence argument that PW1 did not deny during cross-examination that the counterfeit note could have come from another passenger, this evidence was already clarified in re-examination (PW1 clarifying that what he meant was: he did not know how D had obtained the note, but he was sure it was D who had handed him the note to pay for his taxi ride to K11).  The defence also criticises PW1 for not having provided the portion of the dashcam footage showing him examining the counterfeit note in his taxi after dropping D off at K11; however, it is clear that the camera points outside the car and not inside the cabin and there would be no conversation during that part of the footage which could assist. I have considered all the arguments put forth by the defence against PW1 in the closing submissions (both written and oral) and I do not accept the defence contentions. All in all, PW1’s evidence was clear and straightforward and he did not waver under cross-examination. I find him to be a credible and reliable witness and give his evidence full weight.

31.There is very strong evidence against D in this case. On the evidence which has been accepted by the court, I am sure that on the date of the offence, D rode in PW1’s Taxi and passed P1 to him for payment, knowing that P1 was a counterfeit banknote.

32.I find the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and D is found guilty of the offence as charged.