HKSAR v. Ng Chi Wah
|
DCCC720/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 720 OF 2010 ----------------------
----------------------
-------------------------- Reasons for Sentence -------------------------- 1.Defendant you have pleaded guilty to an offence of Fraud contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210, Laws of Hong Kong. 2.The particulars being - and I paraphrase - that you, between 28 November 2008 and 5 December 2008, falsely represented to Chau Ping-keung that, firstly, a batch of machines were available for sale at HK$1.8 million and, secondly, that the seller was Ka Yee Industrial Company, with intent to defraud, and you thereby induced him to cause a total of $1.8 million to be paid to yourself and Kang Xuewang resulting in prejudice to Chau Ping-keung. 3.The brief facts which you have admitted show that you learned from a person called Ah Joe that a batch of printing machines were available to be purchased for $1.8 million from Cambodia. It was estimated that they could be resold for a very high profit. You lied to your business partner in Sam Luen, PW1, that these machines were to be sold by a company called Fortune Printers and that that company was closing down. You asked him to pay, and he caused to be paid, just over $1.74 million into an account claiming it to be the account of Fortune when, in fact, it was the account of your girlfriend, Kang. 4.Subsequently, you informed PW1 that a Mainland company would purchase the printing machines for $9.6 million but no payments were ever received as the machines were never delivered to the buyer. In order to cover up, you deposited $600,000 into Sam Luen’s account claiming that it was a deposit for the machines and you made further deposits amounting to $460,000 claiming they were further deposits. In all I am told, and accept, that the loss to PW1 was some $500,000. 5.It has been said on your behalf that all along this was to be a genuine business transaction, in the sense that the printing machines did exist and were available for sale, and you were hoping that the deal would go through. However, what happened was that you told a lie to Chau which subsequently led to the commission of this offence, which, it must be said, is a breach of trust to your business partner, Mr Chau, as well as a breach of trust to your company, Sam Luen. 6.The background report which is before me pays testament to your hard work throughout the course of your life and your responsibility to your family. You are 63 years of age and have never transgressed the law before. However, fraud of this nature is all too easy to perpetrate and custodial sentences, in my view, must be passed in order to dissuade others who engage in business from committing similar offences. 7.I take as my starting point a sentence of 2½ years’ imprisonment. This will be increased by six months to reflect the aggravating feature that I have referred to, being the breach of trust, coming to 3 years’ imprisonment. I will discount this by one-third to reflect your plea of guilty, coming to 2 years’ imprisonment, but I am prepared, in view of your old age and hitherto good character to give you an added discount of 3 months, arriving at a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment.
|