HKSAR v. Hung, John Terence

DCCC1047/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1047 OF 2008

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. Defendant, you are convicted after trial of one count of agent soliciting an advantage and three counts of agent accepting an advantage contrary to sections 9(1)(a) and 12(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (“the Ordinance”), Cap.201.

2. The facts of this case have just been fully dealt with by me in the reasons of verdict and I do not intend to repeat those facts here.  Suffice it to say that in the 1st charge you have solicited a sum of $200,000, and in the 2nd, 3rd and the 4th charge, you have accepted money, namely, $250,000 and $100,000, and another $100,000 respectively from a middleman, Joseph Loong, when you were a voting member of the Hong Kong Jockey Club.

3. The acts were of course without lawful authority or reasonable excuse and it is my finding that it was done because of what you have proposed Joanne Wong to become a full member of the Hong Kong Jockey Club and assisting in the expeditious processing of her application.

4. It is also my finding that in one of the videotaped interviews under caution you have already made full confession to the solicitation and acceptances of the money to the officers of the ICAC.

5. You are a person of hitherto clear record.  You are of course a well-known figure in the community, a retired businessman with extensive experience in commerce and you were also a member - an executive member in various privilege clubs and organisations in Hong Kong including, of course, the Hong Kong Jockey Club.

6. Much of your personal background have actually been said by you when you testified in court during this trial and I also set it out in my reasons of verdict and I do not intend to repeat here.

7. Corruption offences is of course offences which the courts regard as serious.  It has always been regarded as a cancer that erodes the spirit of Hong Kong and a corrupt society is a sick society.  Therefore, the courts of Hong Kong will always do all within their power to stifle corruption at any level.

8. In your case there is an element of a very serious breach of trust.  In doing what you did you have opened a back door and you have made use of those impatient candidate to apply to become a full member of the Hong Kong Jockey Club.  This is a serious breach of trust case and as a voting member you play an important role in the affairs of the Hong Kong Jockey Club and you are entrusted for your integrity and for the membership candidate that you propose.

9. Each voting member each year can only propose one candidate for full membership.  You are required to fill in an application form, give detailed description of your association with the applicant and the reason why you consider the applicant is a suitable person to be a member of the club.

10. HKJC does not allow any solicitation or acceptance of any advantage by a voting member in relation to an application.  According to the evidence of the membership manager of the Hong Kong Jockey Club, the club considers that acceptance of advantage by voting member in return for sponsoring a candidate is a conduct highly prejudicial to the interest of the club.

11. The fact that the candidate has bribed his or her way into becoming a member is already conduct of impropriety and dishonesty, which is detrimental to the interest, character and reputation of the club.  Besides, such practice is also prejudicial to the right of other membership applicants because they could deprive those apply through the proper channels the opportunity of successful election for membership.  It is in these circumstances that you have failed the Hong Kong Jockey Club considerably.

12. I note of course that at the time of the offence you were in serious financial trouble.  But be that as it may, in my opinion it did not begin to operate as a mitigating factor, because it is always the case that the court will never accept a person to commit crime because of economic reasons.

13. The present conviction is no doubt a nasty fall from grace for a person like you but in my judgment you are the author of your own misfortune and you have only yourself to blame.

14. In sentencing, I took into account the clear authority that is submitted to me by the prosecution, the case of Secretary for Justice v Kwan Chi-cheong & Others, CAAR1/1999.  It has been clearly stated in that case that for the present offences the only proper sentence, even for a first offender is one of immediate custodial sentence.  The message has to be loud and clear and to be sent out as a deterrent sentence.

15. Your counsel, Mr Pierce, has properly acknowledged in mitigation that there exists no feature in your case which is justified in exceptional circumstances which can allow the court to depart from the usual sentences.  However, I agree with the submission made by Mr Pierce that although there are altogether four offences in this case, they are clearly matters of a single transaction.  The three accepting charges were made as a result of the single solicitation charge and in sentencing they could be properly dealt with globally.

16. Before I come to announce the final sentence I would say that normally in these cases I would have fixed a starting point of one of two and a half years for the solicitation charge and 18 months for the accepting charges because I do believe that in cases like this a voting member’s criminality is more serious than that of an intending candidate to become a full member or a racing member.

17. However, in common law a court would always be more lenient where a person is of advanced age.  The defendant is now aged 70.  However, I bear in mind that this is an act of mercy only and must be balanced among other mitigating factors such as the nature of the offence, culpability and the need of deterrence.  I bear this in mind in sentencing.

18. I am also cognisant of the fact that in the past you have served in the community.  In evidence I was told that you have contributed a lot in promoting the sports activities in Hong Kong and you are a Justice of the Peace as well as a recipient of a Silver Bauhinia Medal awarded by the HKSAR Government.  In recognition of all these, I decided that the sentence should be adjusted and for each of these factors, there will be a three-months’ reduction, making a total of six-months’ reduction.

19. As a result, the resulting sentence that I am going to pass is this: please stand up.  Mr Hung, on the 1st and the 2nd charge, you are sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.  On the 3rd and the 4th charge, you are sentenced to each 12 months’ imprisonment.  All these sentences shall be run concurrently to reflect the principle of totality.

20. Finally, I am asked by the prosecution to make a restitution order, which is a mandatory provision under section 12 of the Ordinance.  I order that you have to pay a total sum of $350,000 to the Hong Kong Jockey Club, and that is the sentence that I shall pass.