HKSAR v. Lau Siong Chen
|
DCCC 217/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 217 OF 2010 ----------------------------
-----------------------------
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- 1.The Defendant pleads guilty to 1 count of “Using a false instrument” and 1 count of “Possessing false instruments”. 2.On 14th January 2010 the Defendant presented a forged Master Card to the salesperson of the Duty Free Shop in Tsimshatsui for payment of some cosmetic products in the amount of HK$12,680. The salesperson suspected that the Master Card was a forged one and enquired with the card centre. The card centre confirmed that it was a forged card and the salesperson made a report to the police. The Defendant was caught with another 5 forged credit cards on arrest. 3.The Defendant is a Malaysian. He is now 26 years old. According to him, he has a wife and 2 sons in Malaysia and his wife has deserted the family after knowing his arrest. The sons are just 1 and 3 years old and he was the sole bread-winner of the family. 4.Mr. Wong, solicitors for the Defendant, submitted that there is no evidence in this case suggesting the Defendant being part of a syndicate, nor is there any international element. I agree. 5.The present case is similar to the facts of HKSAR v. Tu I Lang Cr App 464/2006. In Tu I Lang, the defendant was a Taiwanese, he used a forged credit card to purchase a mobile phone and 2 more forged credit cards were found on him upon arrest. The Court of Appeal viewed that it was a “small scale credit card offence” and reduced the starting point of 4 years imprisonment adopted by the District Court to one of 3 years. 6.Although the number of forged credit cards involved in the present case is a few more than that in Tu I Lang, I see no reason not to adopt a similar starting point in this matter. 7.I note that the Defendant has a clear record in Hong Kong and the situation of his family. However, I do not think that they are substantial mitigating factors in view of the seriousness of the offence. The only material mitigation is in fact his guilty plea. 8.I adopt the starting point of 3 years imprisonment for each charge. Taking into account the guilty plea and the totality principle, the Defendant is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment for each charge and the terms of imprisonment are to run concurrently.
|