Attorney General v. Yu Kin Keung

CAAR000009/1976

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

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

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 15th March 1976.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Pickering, J.A.:

1. The respondent pleaded guilty to four charges of endeavouring to obtain property upon forged documents contrary to s.75(a) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) and to one offence of actually so obtaining property by that means.

2. The respondent worked as a clerk with the Hang Seng Bank in the Insurance Department where he acquired knowledge of the method of making claims and of the treatment of claims in respect of workmen's compensation. With the assistance of a driving licence which was not his own but to which he had affixed his own photograph, the respondent rented a flat in King's Road in a false name. He never occupied the flat but used it as a correspondence address. Towards the end of September 1975 he took out a Workmen's Compensation Policy with each of the five insurance companies mentioned in the Particulars of Offence relating to the respective five charges. The policies purported to cover a non-existent amah against workmen's compensation risks. Early in October 1975 the respondent obtained from the Labour Department blank forms of "Notice by an employer of an accident to a workman resulting in incapacity under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance"; he also obtained from the five insurance companies blank forms of "Notice of an accident"; at the same time he also caused to be printed a number of "Hong Kong Government Medical Assessment" forms and made three forged chops of the Hong Kong Government.

3. In early November, using the fictitious name which he had employed to rent the flat and to take out the Workmen's Compensation Policies, he made a false report to the Labour Department about an accident to the non-existent amah and also reported the alleged accident to each of the five insurance companies. Towards the end of December the respondent made false compensation claims against each of the five companies with the assistance of forged "Hong Kong Government Medical Assessment" forms and forms of "Agreement between Employer and Workman". As a result one of the insurance companies sent the respondent in his assumed name, a cashier order for $38,829.07 which he paid into his own account. Another company sent him a cheque for $43,909.07 but stopped payment when suspicions were aroused.

4. The respondent asked for fifteen similar charges to be taken into consideration and had the attempted frauds all been successful he would have profited to the extent of something like $800,000.

5. The $38,829.07 which he obtained from one of the companies and paid into his own account remained untouched for some twenty days after which the offences were discovered whereupon the respondent made restitution of that amount and was generally co-operative with the police.

6. The learned judge in the court below imposed a sentence of two years' imprisonment suspended for two years and the Attorney General applies for the review of that sentence upon the ground that it is manifestly inadequate and that suspension is, in the circumstances of this case wrong in principle.

7. We agree that in the case of a carefully executed, deliberate, attempted fraud of this scale a suspended sentence, despite the appellant's clear record, is wrong in principle. A sentence of two years' imprisonment without any suspension would have been no more than appropriate for these offences. We therefore set aside the sentence of two years' imprisonment suspended for two years which was imposed by the trial judge and, reflecting the fact that this is an application for review which means that the respondent has been in peril twice in respect of the same offence with all the anxieties and frustrations attendant upon that circumstance, we substitute a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment to take effect forthwith.

Representation:

Sceats, C.C., for applicant.

Miss Fi-lan Chua (Y.Y.Y.) for respondent.