HKSAR v. Ng Kwun Ting

DCCC 1590/2025

[2026] HKDC 1902

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1590 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

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

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Charge 1

2.At around 8:55 am on 22 March 2024, the Defendant together with an unknown male boarded a taxi at Mong Kok driven by one Mr Chang.  Upon arrival at the destination (also in Mong Kok area), the Defendant handed a counterfeit HK$500 banknote and HK$7 in coins to Mr Chang for payment of the taxi fare of HK$27.  The unknown male then alighted the taxi and left.  Mr Chang gave HK$480 in cash to the Defendant as change.

3.When the Defendant alighted the taxi, Mr Chang then noticed that the said HK$500 banknote was printed with poor quality.  He immediately got out of the taxi and looked for the Defendant.  With the information provided by an unknown bystander, Mr Chang located the Defendant nearby.  Mr Chang and a traffic warden then subdued the Defendant.  The case was reported.  Before the arrival of the police, Defendant returned the change of HK$480 to Mr Chang.

4.The Defendant was arrested at the scene.  He was searched and only HK$8.8 was found in his possession.

5.The dash camera of the taxi clearly captured the appearance of the Defendant.

Charge 2

6.At around 4:53 pm on 13 June 2024, the Defendant boarded a taxi at Mong Kok driven by one Mr Lee.  Upon arrival at the destination (also in Mong Kok area), the Defendant presented a counterfeit HK$100 banknote for payment of the taxi fare of HK$27.  Mr Lee then gave HK$73 in cash to the Defendant as change.

7.After the Defendant had alighted the taxi, Mr Lee then noticed that the said HK$100 banknote was printed with poor quality, and it did not have security features.  The case was reported.  The dash camera of the taxi captured the appearance of the Defendant with a mask on.

Charge 3

8.At around 7:00 am on 30 June 2024, the Defendant boarded a taxi at Mong Kok driven by one Mr Ng.  Upon arrival at the destination at Shum Shui Po, the Defendant presented a counterfeit HK$500 banknote for payment of the taxi fare of HK$35.  Mr Ng gave HK$465 in cash to the Defendant as change.

9.After the Defendant had alighted the taxi, Mr Ng then noticed that the words on the said HK$500 banknote were not clearly printed, and its texture was different from genuine banknotes.  The case was reported.  The dash camera of the taxi captured the appearance of the Defendant.

Charge 4

10.At around 7:18 am on 30 June 2024, the Defendant boarded a taxi at Shum Shui Po driven by one Mr Cheung.  Upon arrival at the destination at Mong Kok, the Defendant handed a counterfeit HK$500 banknote and HK$7 in coins to Mr Cheung for payment of the taxi fare of HK$27.  Mr Cheung gave HK$480 in cash to the Defendant as change.

11.After the Defendant had alighted the taxi, Mr Cheung suspected that it was a counterfeit banknote and reported the case to the Police.  The dash camera of the taxi captured the appearance of the Defendant with a mask on.

RE-ARREST AND CAUTIONED INTERVIEW

12.The Defendant had been released on police bail pending the investigation result of Charge 1.  On 3 July 2024, the Police located the Defendant at Mong Kok area and arrested him for the offences under Charges 2, 3 and 4.  Under caution, the Defendant admitted that the three offences were committed by him.

13.In the subsequent video recorded interview conducted for Charges 2, 3 and 4, the Defendant said the following under caution:-

(1)  One day in early June 2024, his friend named Ah Keung gave 2 counterfeit notes of HK$500 and one HK$100 to him at an amusement game centre in Mong Kok because Ah Keung knew that he did not have money;

(2)  The quality of the banknotes were poor, and he could tell that they were counterfeit notes;

(3)  Ah Keung also told him that they were counterfeit banknotes;

(4)  He used the counterfeit banknotes to pay the taxi fares, knowing that they were counterfeit notes;

(5)  He confirmed that he was the passenger who was captured by the dash cameras of the subject taxis; and

(6)  He committed the offences out of greed.

14.Police conducted an examination on the said four banknotes and confirmed that they were counterfeit notes.  They displayed inferior printing quality and were printed by inkjet printing method which was different from the printing of a genuine banknote.  They were also found to be devoid of the security features such as intaglio printing, watermark and windowed metallic thread. Each Hong Kong genuine banknote has a unique serial number but the third and fourth counterfeit banknotes bear the same serial number.

BACKGROUND OF THE DEFENDANT

15.The Defendant is now 46 years of age.  He was born in Hong Kong in 1980.  He received education in Hong Kong up to Form 5.  According to his counsel, Ms Fung, the Defendant is married, and his wife is living in Chinese Mainland.  At the time of arrest, he resided with his mother and his 7-year-old daughter and 6-year-old son.  His 61-year-old mother has had to take care of the children during his remand in custody.

16.Ms Fung said that the Defendant worked as a mobile phone salesman earning about HK$20,000 to HK$23,000 a month.  He would contribute about HK$15,000 to his mother for the support of the family and the children.

17.At the time of the offences, the Defendant had 13 previous conviction records, involving a total of 15 offences, 5 of them are dishonesty related.  He also has a record of breach of community service order.

MITIGATION

18.Ms Fung said the Defendant at the time of the offences was experiencing significant financial hardship.  His friend handed him the subject four low-quality counterfeit banknotes.  Out of weak-mindedness and desperation to support his young children, the Defendant committed these offences.

19.Ms Fung submitted that the subject banknotes were of poor quality.  The first taxi driver Mr Chang readily noticed that the HK$500 banknote was counterfeit and reported to police.  The Defendant was not a professional fraudster or part of a counterfeiting syndicate.  The offending was at the lower end of the relevant spectrum.  Ms Fung further submitted that there is no suggestion that the Defendant manufactured the counterfeit banknotes, possessed counterfeiting equipment, recruited others or had ties to any organized syndicate.  No further counterfeit notes were found on the Defendant when he was arrested.  It does not involve large scale distribution or circulation of counterfeit currency. 

20.Ms Fung told this court that the Defendant was prepared to make full compensation to each of the victims, which reflects that he is genuinely remorseful.

21.The Defendant wrote a mitigation letter showing his regret and asking for a lenient sentence.  He admitted that he has made a big mistake in his life and has kept reflecting himself every day.  He promised that he would not re-offend in future.  His wife, mother and younger sister also mitigated on his behalf by writing letters to this court.  They all spoke highly of the Defendant and asked for leniency. 

22.Ms Fung invited this court to allow full one-third discount for the Defendant’s guilty plea, and apply the totality principle by ordering the sentences to run “largely concurrently” and impose the most lenient aggregate sentence on the Defendant, as the four offences were committed within a relatively limited period and arose from a common factual background.

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES AND APPROPRIATE STARTING POINTS

23.Ms Fung submitted that there is no tariff for this kind of offence.  She referred me to HKSAR v Maristela Rhea Nerissa Curbi & Another, CACC 246/2021,10/3/2022, [2022] HKCA 422, in which the trial judge adopted a basis starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment for the individual charge, and the Court of Appeal considered that there was no reasonably arguable ground of appeal.  Ms Fung also referred me to 2 cases decided in the District Court, in which the sentencing judges adopted the starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment and 15 months’ imprisonment for this kind of offence respectively.

24.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 refusing to grant leave to appeal, Hon Macrae 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.”

25.In HKSAR v Li Ho Yin, CACC 128/2013, the Court of Appeal emphasized that tendering and in custody or control of counterfeit notes are serious offences affecting the financial system and causing loss to the public and vendors.  The relevant factors include the number, face value and quality of the notes.  For tendering a single counterfeit HK$100 notes, a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment was considered appropriate by the Court of Appeal in that case.

26.Unlike in the Maristela case involving 2 defendants committing the offences, the Defendant in the present case was not charged jointly with others.

27.The Defendant here used the same modus operandi to commit 4 offences, namely, tendering a counterfeit banknote to settle a small amount of taxi fare.

28.The counterfeit banknotes were of poor inkjet quality.  It would be difficult to pass these notes as genuine in normal circumstance.  However, despite the inferior quality of the counterfeit banknotes in the present case, the Defendant was successful in cheating all the relevant taxi drivers and got the change from all of them.  Apparently, the Defendant was targeting at taxi drivers, as they would be in hurry and did not have sufficient time to inspect the banknotes presented by passengers.  The Defendant therefore took these opportunities and handed the counterfeit banknotes to the taxi driver victims, and none of them were able to realize that the banknotes were counterfeit before they returned the change to the Defendant.

29.Taking all the circumstance into account, I adopt a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment for each of the charges.

30.The Defendant committed Charges 2 to 4 while he was on bail.  This is a serious aggravating factor.  See HKSAR v Leung Ting Fung & Another, CACC 109/2014, 14/11/2014 and HKSAR v Suen Ping, CACC  217/2023, 25/7/2024.  The Defendant reoffended within 3 months, and the modus operandi are the same.  He continued to obtain 3 more counterfeit banknotes from his friend in June 2024 and commit Charges 2 to 4 in June 2024 notwithstanding that he had already been arrested by police in March 2024.  These features demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law and persistent offending, which is itself a serious aggravating factor.  I consider that the base starting point should be enhanced by 3 months to 30 months’ imprisonment to reflect this factor.

31.The Defendant is not a fresh offender.  He committed a number of offences before and 5 of them were dishonesty related.  However, I accept Ms Fung’s submissions that those were committed during his youth, and the Defendant has no previous record for counterfeit related offence.  I decide not to further increase the starting point.

32.Personal hardships such as financial difficulties generally count for very little, if any, for mitigating factors.  However, the Defendant’s timely guilty plea is a significant mitigating factor.  He is entitled to a full one-third discount on each charge.  Further, he has fully compensated all the victims.  Taking these factors into account, I shall reduce the sentence of Charge 1 to 17 months’ imprisonment, and the sentences of each of the Charges 2 to 4 to 19 months’ imprisonment.

TOTALITY

33.The Defendant committed 4 offences on 3 different dates against 4 different taxi drivers.  The sentences ought to be served consecutively.

34.However, in applying the totality principle, I order 3 months of the imprisonment term under each of Charge 1 and Charge 2 and 2 months of the imprisonment term of Charge 3 to run consecutively to the imprisonment term under Charge 4.  The total sentence therefore is 27 months’ imprisonment.

SENTENCE

35.The sentences are as follows:

(1)  Charge 1: 17 months’ imprisonment, 3 months of which to run consecutively to Charge 4

(2)  Charge 2: 19 months’ imprisonment, 3 months of which to run consecutively to Charge 4

(3)  Charge 3: 19 months’ imprisonment, 2 months of which to run consecutively to Charge 4

(4)  Charge 4: 19 months’ imprisonment

The total sentence is therefore 27 months’ imprisonment.

36.I thank Mr Chan and Ms Fung for their assistance.