The Queen v. Wee Shau- ...(Illegible) and Another
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 293/1976 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 28 June 1976.
1. Court : Each accused has been found guilty of a series of serious offences of wilful tax evasion extending over a period of years. Each has made himself liable to a substantial monetary penalty in addition to a sentence of imprisonment. It seems that each may have considerable difficulty in paying a substantial fine. Nonetheless the Legislature in section 82 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance has indicated that offences against that section are to be regarded seriously. In the cases to which Mr.
Coram: EO Yu-ho, Deputy Registrar Date of Judgment: 28 June 1976 Accused present represented by Mr. Hu of Counsel. Mr. Soh for Crown. Charges read and explained to the accused. Accused pleads as follows:- 1st Charge: Guilty 2nd Charge: Guilty Offence : Wilful tax evasion (故意逃稅)
1. Court: Each accused has been found guilty of a series of serious offences of wilful tax evasion extending over a period of years. Each has made himself liable to a substantial monetary penalty in addition to a sentence of imprisonment. It seems that each may have considerable difficulty in paying a substantial fine. Nonetheless the Legislature in section 82 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance has indicated that offences against that section are to be regarded seriously. In the cases to which Mr. Soh has referred me the amounts involved were in two of the charges substantially higher than the total of the amounts omitted from the returns in question here. On the other hand in those other cases it appears that one accused had omitted to include quite substantial sums but the offences covered only two tax years. In the other although the offences covered a longer period of time and although the amounts omitted were quite substantial compared with the amounts omitted here in the former the omission related only to sales. Here the understatements relate to income and it is clear that in each case the defendant was a direct beneficiary himself to a substantial extent by the wilful intent to evade tax. It seems to me that if I merely impose a monetary penalty there will not be a sufficient deterrent to others because it may well be that an entrepreneuria businessman prepared to take calculated risks in seeking gain may well consider seeing that the resources of the Inland Revenue Department are limited as far as investigation of tax evaded is worth taking. I say paying double because treble the amount of tax evaded is the maximum penalty and the highest penalty so far inflicted seems to have been merely double. In this case it appears that both defendants have fully cooperated with the Department once the evasion has been discovered and both have readily admitted the offences before me. Each has a clear record which must weigh heavily in his balance since neither is a young man and both have been in Hong Kong for many years. An immediate custodial sentence is therefore not appropriate but I do think that it should be brought home to would be tax evaders on such a scale as this that the penalty as envisaged by the Legislature involves a consideration of a custodial sentence in addition to making good at a high rate of interest the loss of revenue to the Government. 2. The sentences which I think appropriate and which I hereby impose are as follows:
Case No. 293/76
Case No. 294/76
Representation: Accused present represented by Mr. Hu of Counsel. Mr. Soh for Crown. Charges read and explained to the accused. Accused pleads as follows:- 1st Charge: Guilty 2nd Charge: Guilty
I confirm that the figure relating to the second charge should be $27,284. The original error was an error in recording.
Representation: Accused present represented by Mr. Hu of Counsel. Mr. Soh for Crown. Charges read and explained to the accused. Accused pleads as follows:- 1st Charge: Guilty 2nd Charge: Guilty | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||