HKSAR v. Wong Kam Ha

DCCC1190/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1190 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges, one of using a false instrument and one of possession of a false instrument.  The false instrument in each case is a forged credit card, and both offences were committed on the same day, 12 September 2009.

2.The first offence of using a false instrument was committed inside a shop in The Lee Gardens in Hysan Avenue, Causeway Bay.  She used a forged credit card which was in her name knowing or believing that it was a forged credit card.  Having been arrested for that offence, she was found in possession of a second forged credit card, and that is the subject of the 2nd charge.

3.The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that in relation to the 1st charge, at about 6.30 on 12 September 2009, she was inside the Louis Vuitton shop at The Lee Gardens in Hysan Avenue, Causeway Bay.  The defendant told a member of the staff there, a Miss Cheng, PW1, that she wanted to buy a handbag which was valued at $6,050.  The defendant presented a GM visa card that is the subject of the 1st charge, which had been issued in her name, and she gave that to PW1 for payment.

4.PW1 handed the card to her colleague, a Miss Ngai, PW2, for processing.  PW2 noticed that the printing quality of the GM card was poor and she suspected that it was a forgery.  She informed the manager of the shop, who in turn made a report to the police.  The defendant meanwhile was becoming impatient and urged PW1 to speed up processing of the payment.  She suspected that the staff was suspicious and, therefore, she decided to leave the shop without collecting back the GM card.  Fortunately, as she was leaving the shop, a woman police constable arrived and arrested her.

5.The defendant was arrested and admitted that the GM card was false and that she had used it once before the present purchase.  Inside the defendant’s wallet, the officer found a second forged credit card, a Washington Mutual visa card, also issued in the name of the defendant, and the defendant admitted that that card too was false.  Forensic examination confirmed that both cards were forgeries.

6.PW2, the staff of Louis Vuitton in The Lee Gardens, is to be commended for her diligence in this matter.

7.The defendant has five previous convictions.  They relate to drugs offences and the use of identity cards relating to others.  Her last conviction was in 2006 for possession of dangerous drugs.  She was sentenced to the drug addiction treatment centre.

8.The court has been informed that the defendant is 37 years of age.  She was born in Hong Kong and educated to Form 3 standard.  And I am told that after finishing her education, she worked variously as a saleslady, a hairdresser, a waitress but she has been unemployed since she was 18 and supported by her boyfriend.

9.I am told that she has been a drug addict since she was 22 years of age and she lived with her boyfriend in Tin Shui Wai in public housing.  I understand that her boyfriend is currently serving a 4-year sentence for offences of deception.  The defendant has been in receipt of CSSA since 2008.  She has a 10-year old son and parents who are in their mid-70s.

10.I am told that she committed this offence because of financial difficulties.  She was approached by a man whom she knows as Ah Yee, and he told her that she could earn money by using counterfeit credit cards, and she agreed to do so.

11.Counsel for the defence urged upon me with regard to this offence it is at the lower end of the scale of seriousness for offences of this kind.  The defendant was involved in a small scale operation which was not sophisticated and without international dimensions and that she acted in a minor role.

12.I have considered the case of HKSAR v Tu I Lang, CACC464/2006.  In that case, the judge said that where the facts of the offence point to a small unsophisticated operation involving only one or a few forged cards, uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the defendant to a larger operation, then a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate.

13.Looking at all the factors that have been placed before me in this case, I take the view that a sentence of 3 years’ starting point would be appropriate in respect of each of the offences with the usual discount for the guilty plea which is the only real mitigation in this case.  I, therefore, impose sentences of 2 years on each offence, the sentences to run concurrently.