Read the full judgment text of CACC 000458/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 2 July 2008 before Stuart-Moore VP and McMahon J.
Criminal law – Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455) s.25(1) – dealing with property knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe it represents proceeds of an indictable offence – sentencing – cross-border fraud – dormant time deposit of elderly US residents stolen via forged documents – whether judge's reference to applicant's retention of private counsel was improper – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – whether circumstances of underlying theft may be taken into account in sentencing for s.25(1) offence – Court of Appeal reduces sentence from five to four years – whether applicant's engagement of private counsel is an aggravating factor – held not, but observation was directed at unsubstantiated offer of compensation – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – held that judge erred in taking into account the heartlessness of the underlying theft and the victims' loss, which were extrinsic to the s.25(1) charge – whether underlying indictable offence can be considered in sentencing for s.25(1) – following HKSAR v Xu Xia Li (CACC395/2003) and HKSAR v Chen Szu Ming (CACC270/2005), held that as a general principle the defendant should be sentenced for the s.25(1) offence only, save where the underlying crime is particularly serious – underlying theft here not of such gravity – appeal allowed in part, sentence reduced to four years' imprisonment, criminal bankruptcy order maintained.
Legal issues: Whether retention of private counsel is an irrelevant sentencing factor · Whether the sentence of five years was manifestly excessive · Whether circumstances of the underlying theft can be considered in sentencing for a section 25(1) OSCCO offence
Outcome: Appeal against sentence allowed in part; sentence reduced from five years' imprisonment to four years' imprisonment; criminal bankruptcy order remains intact.
Cited by 7 cases