R. v. Lai Chong Ning

CACC000729/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 729

(Criminal)

^{______________________}

^{______________________}

Coram: Hon Nazareth V.-P., Mayo J.A. and Gall J. in Court

Date of hearing: 19 June 1997

Date of judgment: 19 June 1997

^{_____________________}

J U D G M E N T

^{_____________________}

Mayo JA giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant pleaded guilty to 8 counts of using a false instrument contrary to s73 of the Crimes Ordinance Cap 200 with the intention of inducing the victim to accept it as genuine and thereby act to its prejudice. He pleaded guilty to these offences and was sentenced to a total of 3 years' imprisonment.

2. The false instrument in question was an application to the Chase Manhattan Bank made in the name of another person for credit cards to be issued.

3. The scheme was a relatively simple one. The applicant undertook it in conjunction with one of his friends. They would apply to the bank for a credit card in the name of another person. In support of the application they would supply a photocopy identity card of the other person together with copies of their bank statements. The address which was given of the person applying for the card was the address of a person who had a post box which was not secured by a lock. These post boxes were sought out and found by the applicant and his friend.

4. After the credit cards were issued withdrawals of cash were made from automatic teller machines.

5. The offences spanned a period of approximately four months and the total amount obtained was HK$128,100. Altogether 42 applications were made to the bank for credit cards.

6. What is clear is that the applicant co-operated with the police as soon as he was interviewed by them and he offered to assist them if they prosecuted his friend. This offer was never taken up.

7. Her Honour Judge Beeson adopted 5 years as a starting point for each offence and reduced it to 3 years for the plea and the offer of assistance to the court. In her reasons for sentence the judge referred to the case of R v. Chan Sui-to and another (unreported) being Crim. App. No. 115/96.

8. The approach adopted by the judge was to consider the appropriate sentences for the offences including the discounts for the pleas and then have regard to the overall criminality. She considered that it was necessary to order that all of the sentences should be served concurrently so as not to offend the totality principle. She also ordered that the applicant should forthwith repay to the bank $40,000 of the moneys he had received.

9. It is the reliance upon R v. Chan Sui-to which is the main ground of appeal in the perfected grounds of appeal. Mr Walters for the applicant contends that that case set guidelines for forged credit card syndicates and was inappropriate to the circumstances of the present case.

10. Even if that is so it has to be borne in mind that this was a systematic course of conduct over a number of months involving a relatively large sum of money.

11. While the case did not concern forged credit cards it did concern false names and the offence can be characterised as credit card fraud.

12. The sentence imposed was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive and this application is refused.

Representation:

Mr Kevin Zervos SCC for Crown/Respondent

Mr Robin Walters (DLA) for Applicant