HKSAR v. Leung Chi Fai

DCCC1416/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1416 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.I have convicted the defendant, on his own plea, of one offence of using a false instrument.  The facts agreed by the defendant are essentially that on 27 November last year at about 8.30 pm, the defendant used a forged Bank of America credit card in an attempt to purchase a Rolex watch valued at $116,000.

2.The staff of the shop were able to discover that the card was counterfeit and the defendant was arrested by police.  The card was, in fact, in the defendant’s name but could not pass inspection. 

3.The defendant is aged 32.  He has been to prison on a number of occasions.  As early as 1995 he went to detention centre.  In the year 2000 for offences of false imprisonment and blackmail he served a term of 36 months’ imprisonment in total. 

4.More recently in 2008, he has been sentenced to sentences of 6 months’ imprisonment and 8 months’ imprisonment for offences of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence and the offences of acting as a member of Triad society and criminal intimidation.

5.The defendant is a married man but separated from his wife.  The defendant has, whilst serving his terms of imprisonment, been followed by the Hong Kong Christian Concern Association and they have written to me on his behalf.  Their impression is that the defendant is an intelligent man; that he is capable of teaching himself; and has acquired qualifications in accounting. 

6.The defendant has strived to better himself but found that the stigma of his previous imprisonment has prevented him from obtaining jobs that are commensurate with his abilities.  The association is optimistic that the defendant could be rehabilitated if he could find employment and they undertake to supervise him closely upon his release from prison. 

7.Now, the defendant has been convicted of an offence involving the use of credit card.  These are serious offences and it is clear from the authorities that a starting point of up to 3 years’ imprisonment is appropriate even in what is described as a small case.  Now, this is a small case; there is only one credit card involved and there is no actual loss to the victim.  This is as a result of the victim’s ability to identify the counterfeit card.  The operation was sophisticated enough for the defendant’s name to be used on the credit card itself. 

8.The other factor in sentencing of course is the defendant does have a poor criminal record, which shows the fact that the sentences so far have not deterred him from dishonest behaviour.  However, the defendant has not been convicted of this particular offence in the past. 

9.Now, taking all these factors into consideration, bearing in mind that there is only one credit card and one attempt to use it, in this case I will adopt a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment and I will deduct the sentence by one-third to reach a final sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment.