HKSAR v. Tan Kien Meng

DCCC163/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 163 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to two charges before this court. The 1st charge relates to using a false instrument, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, whereby on 19 December 2009 at Louis Vuitton (Hong Kong) at Ocean Centre, you used two false credit cards to purchase goods.

2.In relation to the 2nd charge, that is, possessing false instruments, contrary to section 75(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, on that very same day you had in your possession 8 credit cards which were false.

3.On 19 December at about 5.30 pm that day you went to Louis Vuitton and indicated you wanted to buy a handbag worth $14,800. You produced a Chase MasterCard for payment. Whilst the saleslady was arranging payment using that card, the machine indicated that that card was a lost card. A report was made to the police.

4.Fortuitously, two police officers were already in the shop conducting an anti-theft operation. They were informed of the location of yourself. They thus kept you under observation. The saleslady was instructed to return the Chase card to you. She told you that she was unable to settle payment using that card. You then gave her another credit card, a WaMu credit card for payment. However, that card was not accepted for payment. You were thus told by the saleslady about this again.

5.You then told the saleslady that you would withdraw cash from the automatic teller machine and return to the shop later to complete the purchase. Outside the shop, you were intercepted by those officers who were already in Louis Vuitton, and upon search of you they found a further 8 credit cards which were false.

6.Under caution, you admitted that you knew all the credit cards were forged. You owed a gambling debt in Malaysia. Since you were unable to repay the debt, your creditor told you to purchase goods in Hong Kong using the forged credit cards. You said that the credit cards were given to you by a male called “Ah Sam” in Shenzhen but you did not have the contact number of “Ah Sam.”

7.The 10 cards were examined by the forensic scientist and all these cards were found to be forged.

8.Your solicitor, Miss Lin, has mitigated on your behalf this morning. I have taken into account all that she has had to say. You are aged 28 and of clear record. You come from Malaysia where you were born and were married in 2006, but quite sadly your wife passed away in a traffic accident in 2007.

9.You live with your mother although you have six siblings. She is not of good health and you are the sole breadwinner for her.

10.You have received little education and your first job after school, which was completion of Form 1, was as a hawker earning HK$3,000 a month. As you were unable to find a stable job and you were of low education level, you then came under the influence of bad peers, began to gamble and accumulated a debt of a sum of $30,000 in 2009.

11.As a result of your debt owed, you were requested by creditors to repay them the debt by buying these goods by using the false credit cards and giving it to them. You say there was little chance but for you to agree to the request and thus arrived in Hong Kong on 17 December 2009 and committed the offences two days after your arrival.

12.Miss Lin has said in mitigation for you that the amount was relatively small, $14,000; you have no criminal record and your early plea of guilty. There is no evidence that you took part in manufacturing or supplying of the false credit cards or were involved in any false credit card syndication. She has referred me to the case of Chan Siu To [1996] 115 Cr App R and another case of Hung Ping Wah, CACC241 of 1997.

13.Quite correctly, I must take into account your plea of guilty. I accept the amount was small on Charge 1 of only $14,000. However, in your attempt to purchase that Louis Vuitton handbag, you used 2 false credit cards, and then, after you were intercepted, you were found to be in possession of a further 8 credit cards.

14.Correctly, as stated in Chan Siu To, the factors to be taken into account are the size of the operation; whether it involves large sums of money; whether it concerned a large number of persons or forged credit cards. In this case, I do consider that in Charge 2 there was quite a large number of credit cards. There were 8 involved and of course I take into account the potential loss on those credit cards.

15.Although I do not see you playing a major role in running a syndicate or engaging in actual manufacture or organising, it does appear to me that whoever did organise this for you did it such that your name was on each and every one of these false credit cards.

16.You came to Hong Kong from Malaysia with the intention of committing these crimes. I consider this and the amount of credit cards involved an aggravating factor.

17.In the circumstances, taking into account all these factors, on Charge 1, I sentence you to 2 years’ imprisonment as a starting point after trial and reduce that term, giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, to 1 year 4 months’ imprisonment. On Charge 2, I consider a starting point of 3½ years to be appropriate. I give you full credit for your plea of guilty and reduce that term to 2 years 4 months’ imprisonment.

18.I have taken into account the principle of totality here and order those terms to run concurrent to each other. That would mean that you serve 2 years 4 months’ imprisonment in total.