Read the full judgment text of CACC 000299/2001 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 September 2002 before Stock JA, Lugar-Mawson J.
Criminal law – sentencing – fraud – use of false instruments contrary to s.73 Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200) – procuring false entries in bank records contrary to s.18D Theft Ordinance (Cap 210) – husband and wife convicted on twelve charges of defrauding two banks by means of bogus sale and purchase agreements and sham letters of credit – obtaining mortgage facilities of about HK$13 million and letter of credit facilities of over HK$6 million – banks' loss of about HK$12 million on mortgages and HK$5 million on letters of credit – applicants have three young children now aged 7, 3, and 16 months – sentence of four years' imprisonment concurrent – effect of imprisonment of both parents on young children not normally a mitigating factor – whether exceptional circumstances justify earlier release of mother – whether sentencing judge erred by failing to consider consecutive sentences and totality principle – previous good character of little weight in face of prolonged, repeated and planned fraud – attempts to induce defrauded bank to reschedule payments not restitution or evidence of remorse – children cannot be used as insurance by parents engaged in criminal enterprises – first applicant's out-of-time application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed – second applicant granted leave but appeal dismissed – original four-year concurrent sentence upheld – court indicated a totality of 5 to 6 years' imprisonment would not have been excessive
Legal issues: Effect of imprisonment of both parents on young children as mitigating factor · Application of totality principle and consideration of consecutive sentences · Weight of previous good character and alleged remorse in repeated fraud
Outcome: First applicant's out-of-time application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The second applicant was granted leave to appeal but her appeal against sentence was dismissed. The original concurrent sentences of four years' imprisonment on each of the twelve charges were upheld, although the Court of Appeal indicated that a totality of 5 to 6 years would not have been excessive and that the sentences were markedly lenient.
Cited by 3 cases