HKSAR v. Muhammad Bilal

DCCC 450/2025

[2025] HKDC 2082

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 450 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant pleads guilty to 4 charges of “passing or tendering counterfeit currency notes”, contrary to section 99(1)(a)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Charge 1

2.At around 11:00 pm on 8 May 2024¸the defendant boarded a taxi driven by a Mr Wong.  Upon arrival at the destination, the defendant presented a counterfeit HK$500 banknote for payment of HK$43.9.  Mr Wong gave a total of HK$456 in cash to defendant as change.

Charge 2

3.At around 9:48 pm on 26 May 2024, the defendant boarded a taxi so happened also driven by Mr Wong, the victim of Charge 1.  Upon arrival at the destination, the defendant presented a counterfeit HK$1,000 banknote for payment of taxi fare.  Mr Wong suspected that the said banknote was forged and tried to call the police.  In response, the defendant tried to seize the said banknote back but was unsuccessful.  He then alighted from the taxi and fled.

Charge 3

4.At around 11:30 pm on 26 May 2024, the defendant boarded a taxi driven by a Mr Wu.  Upon arrival at the destination, the defendant presented a counterfeit HK$1,000 banknote for payment of HK$60 for taxi fare and HK$20 for tips.  Mr Wu gave a total of HK$920 in cash to the defendant as change.

Charge 4

5.At around 12:22 am on 1 June 2024, the defendant boarded a taxi driven by a Mr Chong.  Upon arrival at the destination, the defendant presented a counterfeit HK$1,000 banknote for payment of HK$66 for taxi fare.  Mr Chong gave a total of HK$934 in cash to defendant as change.

ARREST AND ADMISSION

6.On 12 July 2024, the police arrest the defendant.  Under caution, the defendant remained silent.  Later on, he admitted the offences under cautioned video-recorded interviews.

BACKGROUND OF DEFENDANT AND MITIGATION

7.The defendant is now 37 years of age.  He was born in Pakistan and came to Hong Kong in 1998.  He received education in Hong Kong up to Form 1.  He is now married.  At the time of arrest, he resided with his wife and 2 sons and 1 daughters (aged 7, 4 and 1).  His mother passed away in January 2025 in Pakistan.  He feels remorse for what he did and wants to compensate the taxi driver.  He also wrote a mitigating letter begging for a lenient sentence.

CRIMINAL RECORD

8.The defendant has 3 previous conviction records, involving a total of 10 charges, in which 6 of them are dishonesty related.

SENTENCING CONSIDATION

9.In HKSAR v Wong Hoi Yat and Others[1], the Court of Appeal identified relevant factors in sentencing for offence involving making counterfeit notes and possession of counterfeit notes.  Those factors include the scale of the manufacturing operations, the value, quantity and degree of sophistication of the counterfeit notes, the nature and efficacy of the paraphernalia involved, the length of time for which the offence has been carried on and the roles and the background of the defendants concerned, the course and reasons for committing the offences and other relevant factors.

10.Ms Alva, counsel for the defendant, submits that there is no sentencing guideline for this kind of offence.  She refers to me 2 cases decided in the District Court, namely HKSAR v Lee Wang Kam[2] and HKSAR v Maristela Rhea Nerissa Curbi & ors[3], and submits that the judges adopted a starting point of 18 months’ or 2 years’ imprisonment for this kind of offence.

11.Maristela is a case involving 2 defendants, who were facing 3 charges.  In a gist, the 2 defendants in that case tendering a counterfeit HK$500 banknote on 3 occasions in 3 shops on the same day within a few hours.  In fact, that case was subsequently heard by the Hon Macrae VP of the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence[4]. In refusing to grant any leave, the Hon Marcrae VP said:

“26. In relation to the application of both applicants for leave to appeal against sentence, these offences are not unlike tendering forged credit cards, at least in terms of their effect, except of course that innocent victims have no recourse against anyone, certainly not a bank, for the losses they suffer. Obviously, the two applicants were part of, or at the very least were knowingly made use of by, something bigger that was responsible for producing counterfeit banknotes; just as those who tender forged credit cards play their part in furthering the aims of a larger syndicate. It must be remembered that those who use forged credit cards and banknotes are essential to the forger’s operation. I believe an appellate court would find these to be very serious offences, for which, with respect, the sentences passed after trial were somewhat lenient. The maximum sentence on indictment for this offence is 14 years’ imprisonment, which reflects how seriously this offence is viewed by the legislature. I do not think either applicant could have complained if they had received a higher overall starting point.” (my emphasis)

12.Unlike in the Maristela case involving 2 defendants committing the offences jointly, the defendant in the present case was acting alone.

13.In the present case, the defendant used the same modus operandi to commit 4 offences, namely, tendered a big demonization banknote to settle just a small amount of taxi fare.

14.Quality of the banknotes are poor and, in normal circumstance, it would be very difficult to pass these notes as genuine.  However, despite the inferior quality of the counterfeit banknotes in the present case, the defendant was successful in cheating all the relevant taxi drivers, except Mr Wong on 26 May 2024.  Obviously, taxi drivers were not always having sufficient time to inspect the authenticity of the banknote presented by passengers.  Besides, they need to do so under a poor lighting condition, particularly during night time. Therefore, when the defendant presented the counterfeit banknotes to the victims of the charges, none of the taxi drivers (except Mr Wong on 26 May 2024)  was able to realize the banknote was a counterfeit before they return the change to the defendant.

15.Taking all the circumstance into account, I adopted a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment for each charge.

16.The defendant is not a fresh offender.  He committed a number of offences before and 6 of them were dishonesty related.  Still, I decide not to increase the starting point.

17.The most important mitigating factor is the guilty plea of the defendant and he should be entitled to a full one-third discount.

18.Ms Alva urges me to consider giving further discount because of the defendant’s “prompt confession”, “expression of deep remorse”, “immediate apologies to the taxi drivers” and “willingness to compensate”.

19.The defendant kept silent at the time of arrest.  Although he admitted the offences under cautioned video-interviews, he was in fact being shown screen capture of the taxi’ camcorder or CCTV capturing his appearance during the interviews.  His situation is different from a voluntary surrender to the authorities by a person whose participation in the offence might not otherwise have come to light.

20.In SJ v Lee Chun Ho Jeff[5], the Court of Appeal said:

“37. The Court of Appeal have repeatedly emphasized that the one-third discount “is usually to be regarded as the high watermark of the discount given to a defendant pleading guilty in good time.” The respondent’s co-operation with the police referred to by the judge was his admission of the offence to the police, both at the scene of the crime and at the police station. Such a “co-operation” is just part and parcel of the respondent’s admission of his guilt, albeit at the first available opportunity. This mitigating factor should be subsumed within the one-third discount.” (my emphasis)

21.In my view, the defendant’s confession, remorse attitude, apology, compensation and his guilty plea deserve a full one-third discount but no more.

22.I adopt 2 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for each charge.  The sentence of each charge is therefore 16 months’ imprisonment upon his guilty plea.

23.Obviously, the defendant in the present case repeatedly targeting at taxi drivers.  In particular, on 26 May 2024, he continued to commit offence at Mr Wu (Charge 3)  soon after his unsuccessful cheating at Mr Wong (Charge 2).

24.The defendant committed 4 offences on divers dates against 3 different taxi drivers.  Having considered the totality principle, I decide that an overall sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment after plea is appropriate.

SENTENCE AND ORDER

25.I will make a compensation order as follows:

(1)  In relation to Charge 1, a compensation order of HK$500 to Mr Wong;

(2)  In relation to Charge 2, a compensation order of HK$78.4 to Mr Wong;

(3)  In relation to Charge 3, a compensation order of HK$1,000 to Mr Wu;

(4)  In relation to Charge 4, a compensation order of HK$1,000 to Mr Chong; and

(5)  All the compensation are to be paid today.

26.Sentence for each of charge 1 to 4 is 16 months’ imprisonment.  2 months of each of Charge 2, 3 and 4 will be run consecutively to Charge 1.  The total sentence is therefore 22 months’ imprisonment.