HKSAR v. Kong Tsui Pik
|
DCCC742/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 742 OF 2010 ----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant in this case has pleaded guilty to two offences. The first offence is one of obtaining property by deception and the second is one of attempting to obtain property by deception. 2.Both offences were committed on the same day, one shortly after the other on 7 May 2010 at the Gucci store, which is on the Ground Floor of the SOGO department store in Hennessy Road, in Causeway Bay. 3.As regards the 1st charge, she obtained a wallet and handbag, total value $11,400. She used a forged NEDBANK Visa card in the name of a person called Lily Cheung in order to obtain that property. 4.An hour later, the defendant went back to the store with the same card and attempted to obtain further property. Fortunately, the assistant recognised the defendant from the previous transaction and made enquiries about the card, and it was discovered that the card was forged. 5.The defendant has given two stories about how she came by this card. The first story which she gave was that she found it on the pavement two days before. She said she was greedy and hence decided to use it to purchase Gucci products. 6.She had claimed that she gave the goods to her boyfriend who already had left the scene by the time she was arrested. 7.When she was interviewed a bit later, she changed her version of events. She said that she had met a man called “Ah Chung” outside the store, and he asked her if she wanted to earn some quick money. He offered her cash to the equivalent of 5 per cent of the retail value of the products if she would use the forged credit card in order to obtain goods inside the store. She agreed to do so and proceeded to purchase the wallet and handbag by using the forged credit card and forging the signature. 8.She said she gave the goods to “Ah Chung” after making the first purchase. She said that she was then requested to make a further purchase, and agreed, and was arrested while attempting to purchase a haversack. 9.She said that she actually received no reward from “Ah Chung” in the end. She said that she did not know who Lily Cheung was. She denied having any knowledge that Exhibit 1, the credit card, was forged. 10.The wallet and handbag was recovered. 11.Forensic evidence confirmed that the credit card was forged. 12.The defendant has one previous court appearance and that was for two offences of possession of dangerous drugs, for which she was dealt with by a way of a fine. 13.In mitigation, I am told that the defendant is 34 years of age, she is divorced, and she was educated to Form 5 standard. 14.Shortly before her arrest, she had been working as a Public Relations Manager in a nightclub earning some $8,000 per month. 15.I am told that she became depressed because her then boyfriend with whom she cohabited was sentenced to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. Because of her depression, she lost her job and later was in financial difficulties. 16.I am told that at the time of the offence she had in fact been reemployed by the nightclub but was yet to receive her first month salary. 17.In mitigation, counsel repeated to the court the second story which the defendant gave to the police when she was interviewed about having been approached by “Ah Chung”. 18.It is urged upon me that “Ah Chung” was local, there is no international dimension to this, that it was a simple rather than any elaborate plan, and that the defendant was a mere cog in this whole operation, and at the end of the day, she gained no benefit. 19.Credit card offences are very common in Hong Kong and the courts take them very seriously. 20.Counsel told the court in mitigation that the defendant was a mere cog in this operation. However, the people who go into the shops to make purchases are the vital cogs. Without persons being prepared to go into the shops and buy the goods, the whole point of the forgery fails. That is what the scam is all about, obtaining luxury goods and selling them and dividing the proceeds. So the people who use forged credit cards in this way have got to be deterred, and because of that, the court takes a very serious view of people who do what this defendant did. 21.On this occasion, she was successful the first time, and only because of the alertness of the store attendant were suspicions aroused about the defendant and the deception uncovered. Had she successfully practiced the second deception, the card in my view would no doubt have been used elsewhere to obtain further goods, so it is the potential loss to the various companies involved that is the gravamen of this offence. 22.I note that the defendant’s record indicates that she has only one matter recorded against her and that was for a completely dissimilar offence. 23.The main mitigation in this case is that the defendant has pleaded guilty. 24.It seems to me on the facts of this case that a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate. 25.I give full credit for the guilty plea, and the sentence will be reduced to 2 years to reflect the guilty plea. 26.I have to consider the question of totality. It seems to me that starting point and the discount are appropriate on both of the offences. 27.Having looked at the overall situation, there was one offence being committed very shortly after the other. I take the view that the sentences should run concurrently. 28.The total period of imprisonment will be one of 2 years.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||