HKSAR v. Urfa Younus
|
DCCC530/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 530 OF 2010 ----------------------
----------------------
----------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ----------------------------- 1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a single offence of using a false instrument, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200. A 2nd charge of possessing a false instrument, contrary to section 75(1) of that same ordinance, was ordered to be left on file and not to be proceeded with without leave of this court or the Court of Appeal. In respect of Charge 1, you admitted the Brief Facts, and I convicted you. 2.Briefly, the facts were as follows. Mr Fung Chung-pak was the manager of a wine shop, Enoteca, in Central. On the afternoon of 19 April last, he noticed a number of males lingering outside the shop. Being suspicious, he reported the matter to the police. Shortly afterwards, you entered the shop alone and selected two bottles of red wine valued at $13,960. You presented a Toronto Dominion Visa card in your own name for payment. However, this transaction was unsuccessful and you took back the card. You told Mr Fung you would return with cash. You then left the shop. 3.A police officer intercepted you. A search was conducted of you and inside your wallet was found $79.10 and the Visa card in question. You indicated you could speak simple Cantonese. You said you were born in Hong Kong. You admitted providing your particulars to a Chinese friend who subsequently gave you the card. You understood the card was forged in the mainland. In a subsequent video-recorded interview, you confirmed this admission. Subsequent forensic examination confirmed the card to be forged. You admitted to one previous offence of dishonesty in 2002. 4.On your behalf, Mr Sadhwani entered mitigation. He told me that you are Hong Kong-born, educated to middle level and recently married. You are of Pakistani extraction and you have three younger brothers in Hong Kong who do not live with you. At the time of the commission of the offence, you had been unemployed for about a year and were in receipt of social security of about $3,000 per month. 5.In respect of the charge itself, Mr Sadhwani emphasised the small amount involved, the fact it was unsuccessful, and that there was no international dimension nor any syndicate involved. He stressed your co-operation with the police and that your plea of guilty had saved a three-day trial. Mr Sadhwani also emphasised your light criminal record. 6.I turn now to the sentence itself. Credit card fraud is serious and widespread. Having said that, I do accept that this particular offence is at the lower end of the scale. It involved a modest potential loss. The transaction failed, and looking at the particulars of the card, it seemed the card was rather crude. There is no question of any international dimension or any syndicate involved. I also give you credit for being entirely co-operative when stopped, and I note you have a very light criminal record, having but one previous conviction. 7.Given all these matters in mitigation, I take what I regard as a lower starting point. I take a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment reduced to 16 months for your plea of guilty. You will go to prison for 16 months.
|