HKSAR v. Tan Swee Guan

DCCC 811/2026

[2026] HKDC 1960

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 811 OF 2026

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant is charged with one count of using a false instrument, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 and one count of possession of a false instrument with intent, contrary to section 75(1) of the Crime Ordinance, Cap. 200.  The defendant pleads guilty, admits the facts and is convicted accordingly.

FACTS

2.Around 11:45am on 2 October 2025, D sought to open a bank account with DBS Bank at Nathan Road to deposit a Cheque.  Ms Cheung of DBS attended to the D.  At Ms Cheung’s request, D produced a Cheque issued by MTR Corporation Limited, payable to D in the sum of HK$3,462,097.93 for her inspection.  

3.Ms Cheung inspected the Cheque and found it was a false Cheque, she relayed the matter to her manager and a report was made to the police.  MTR also confirmed the Cheque was forged.

4.Meanwhile, Ms Cheung asked D if he had any dealings with MTR.  D replied he did not and he had been introduced to a gold trader in Kenya with whom he wanted to engage in the gold trading business.

5.At about 12:47, police arrived.  D was arrested for using a false Cheque and the Cheque was seized.

6.Police further found D in possession a letter bearing the letterhead of MTR Corporation Limited, purportedly issued and signed by one Gillian Elizabeth Meller on 3 September 2025.  MTR confirmed the letter was not issued by it.  It was stated in the letter that：

“I am writing to formally state the purpose of the Cheque that Mr. Tan is presenting for deposit.  The funds (HK$3,462,097.93) from this Cheque will be used for the purchase of mining equipment to support Mr. Tan’s business operations in his new venture in the mining industry.

This purchase is necessary to enhance productivity and ensure the smooth running of his activities.

Kindly process the Cheque accordingly.”

7.D stated in the subsequent VRI that:

•  He was a retired account manager in Malaysia, his last monthly salary was around HK$10,000.

•  He came from Malaysia to Hong Kong to open a bank account because his attempts in Malaysia and Singapore were unsuccessful;

•  He came to HK on 1 October and his return flight was on 2 October 2025;

•  He was a middleman in the sale of a batch of gold from Ghana.  He found a buyer of the gold on Facebook.  He was to bear the shipping charges of the shipment of the gold to HK.  As he did not have sufficient funds, the shipping company referred him to a financier, i.e. MTR Corporation Limited, the drawer of the Cheque.

•  The Cheque was for storage fees, shipping charges and taxes payable to Ghana government;

•  The financer sent the Cheque and the letter to him from Benin by DHL, but the shipping company instructed him not to deposit the Cheque at Standard Chartered Bank.

MITIGATION

8.The defendant aged 64, a Malaysia National, divorced, living with his sister in Malaysia, he has a clear record in Hong Kong.  He received education up to Form 6, a retired account manager and worked as a deliveryman after retired earning around HK$4,800.

9.D was duped by an international scam syndicate into believing he was acting as a “middleman” in a commercial deal involving the sale of a batch of gold originating from Ghana.  Enticed by the prospect of earning a commission, he agreed to assist.  Upon looking at the Cheque, D believed it was not genuine.  D believed both the Cheque and the letter were false instruments.  Though D was not convinced the Cheque was authentic, he still foolishly decided to give it a try.

10.D is a first-time offender in Hong Kong and indicated his guilty plea at the first available opportunity.  The quality of the forged Cheque was conspicuously poor, containing obvious defects.  The bank has not suffered any loss.  D’s attempt to cash the Cheque was doomed to fail from the outset.  Both charges arise out of the same factual nexus.  Defence suggested a starting point of no more than 24 months, allow 1/3 discount for guilty plea and order the sentence to run concurrently.

SENTENCE

11.There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of using a false instrument or possessing a false instrument with intent.  A person commits such offences is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 14 years.  Each case would depend on the particular facts pertaining to the commission of the offences and the personal circumstances of an accused

12.The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Mazhar Taha Ahmed Elmansouri CACC 165/2012 upheld a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment for using a false bank draft in the sum of US$10 million.  The Court of Appeal also reviewed a number of similar cases where sentence ranged from 2½ years to 4½ years imprisonment.  However, the court stressed at §70 of the judgment that “the citation of individual cases for the purpose of comparing sentences is of limited assistance since the particular sentence in anyone case must depend on the individual facts of the case”. 

13.In HKSAR and RA Hyun Bin and Others CACC 353/2008, three applicants carried out an audacious scheme which was uncovered because of alertness of the staff at HSBC.  The scheme involved international element in that the scheme appears to have been largely pre-planned in the Mainland for execution on a Hong Kong-based bank. 1^st applicant came to Hong Kong to open a bank account.  Few weeks later, the 3 applicants visited the bank, a document which was purported to be a standby letter of credit issued by HSBC in the amount of £5 billion and a false MT799 SWIFT were presented to the bank. 2^nd applicant requested the bank to send out a telex with details as shown on the documents and took out a template which showed a draft SWIFT message text.  The staff was told to take it that there was €5 billion at the HSBC.  The 2^nd applicant was also in possession of 7 other false documents of similar nature.

14.All 3 of the applicants were convicted after trial of one joint charge of using a false instrument and 2^nd applicant was convicted of a further charge of possession of a false instrument.  2^nd applicant was sentenced to serve a period of 3 years 6 months imprisonment on each charge, concurrently. 

15.The Court of Appeal in RA Hyun Bin dismissed the 2^nd applicant’s appeal against sentence.  The Court was of the view that the scheme had been planned for some time and had the telex been dispatched, given the nature of standby letters of credit, might well have set in train a substantial number of subsequent transactions.  The documents which formed the subject matter of Charge 2 were part and parcel of the overall scheme. The trial judge was correct to order that these sentences be served concurrently and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

16.In HKSAR v Anofi Hamid Tunde CACC 248/2000, the applicant a foreigner opened the bank account within two days after he came to Hong Kong and within a week or so thereafter he deposited the false bank draft in the amount of HK$450,000 in his account.  Subsequently, the bank found the draft suspicious, after confirming it was false, reported the matter to police. The applicant was arrested when he attempted to leave Hong Kong.  The Court of Appeal considered a starting point of 3 years imprisonment is neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

17.Defence refers to HKSAR v Yeung Chauncey CACC 394/2006.  The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to use a forged cashier order in the sum of US$3.6 mil and one count of possession of false instruments (i.e. 4 forged Cheques, 4 forged confirmation letters issued by a bank, 7 forged US Bond Certificate and 7 forged letters of guarantee, the total face value of over US$ 100 mil).  The appellant conspired with others to set up a company and open 2 bank accounts for the company with a view to deposit the forged cashier order.  The bank discovered the cashier order was forged and reported to police.   Though the face value was huge but because of the poor quality of the cashier order and other false instruments, the Court of Appeal considered the appropriate starting point for the conspiracy charge should be 4 years’ imprisonment and that for the possession charge was 2 years.

18.MTR business in Hong Kong is centered around public transport and urban development.  D might have approached by an international scam syndicate.  However, he conducted an online search, discovered MTR is a railway company in Hong Kong and had nothing to do with gold trading or mining.  The Cheque has simplified Chinese characters and misprint on it and the Letter does not relate to any shipment.  D should be aware that all was a scam yet he still proceeded to cash the Cheque, came to HK to open a bank account to deposit the Cheque.  The bank was alerted because of the simplified Chinese characters on the Cheque.

19.I noted the face value and the poor quality of the Cheque, I consider the appropriate starting point for Charge one should be 3 years’ imprisonment.  The letter was related to the Cheque, I consider the appropriate starting point for Charge two should be 2 years’ imprisonment. 

20.I allow 1/3 discount for D’s plea of guilty, but I do not consider there to be any further mitigating factor in his case. I agree Charge one and Charge two are part and partial of the same transaction and order the sentence of both charges to run concurrently.

ORDER

Charge one  24 months’ imprisonment;

Charge two  16 months’ imprisonment, concurrent with Charge one, 24 months’ imprisonment in total.