Attorney General v. Francis Cheung Chi-sun
|
CAAR000013/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 13 OF 1975 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, McMullin & Yang, JJ. Date of Judgment: 29th July 1975. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J.: 1. The Respondent was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment on each of seven counts of obtaining property by deception, those sentences to be concurrent and to be suspended for a term of two years. The Attorney General applies to this Court for a review of those sentences. 2. The offences were all identical in that they were obtaining property by deception and the method of deception was, as briefly as I can put it, as follows. The Respondent was the employee of a manufacturer of electronic equipment. His position was such that he was responsible for purchasing parts for the equipment , and the principal supplier was a company called Mackarl Engineering Company Limited (whom I shall call "Mackarl"). Mackarl were responsible for supplying all the particular components required by the employer of the Respondent and it was important for the employer that the supply should be regular. Mackarl were not able to supply all that was required. The Respondent then communicated with them and arranged that he would obtain the necessary components from a competitor of Mackarl on their behalf. He then had to pay for those goods, but he did not have the money. He obtained the money by giving false receipts for goods in favour of Mackarl so that he could cash letters of credit given by his employer. With that money he normally paid the supplier of the components, but on seven occasions, having come to an agreement with Mackarl to obtain components in this way, he had receipts duly executed, obtained cash under the letters of credit and then put the money into his own pocket. On those seven occasions the total amount involved was no less than $483,659.53. 3. The learned District Judge having decided that twelve months' imprisonment was appropriate then considered whether that sentence should be immediate or should be suspended. He said in his Reasons for Sentence that his original inclination was to pass an immediate sentence of imprisonment and not a suspended sentence, but he had in mind a previous decision of this Court where an immediate sentence of imprisonment was suspended on appeal. 4. We do not propose to go into all the cases which have been cited to us and we think it is sufficient to say that here was a case of a deliberate fraud, involving a very large sum of money, where we think a substantial and immediate term of imprisonment was necessary. We do not think that this type of case is in the normal course properly the subject matter of a suspended sentence: it calls for a heavy sentence and one which takes effect immediately. There may be, as we have said in the past, exceptional circumstances. The learned judge thought there were exceptional circumstances in this case, but having heard a very full argument on the matter we are not of the opinion that there was sufficient reason here for passing a suspended sentence, and in our view a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment did not meet the seriousness of this type of fraud. This Colony depends for its very existence on its commerce and commerce depends upon the trustworthiness of employees in business houses and the honesty of all who take part in business. In our view the proper course for us here is to substitute for the order which was made, sentences of two years' imprisonment, to take effect immediately, those sentences being concurrent on each count. 29th July 1975. Representation: |