HKSAR v. Sherryl Ventura Rosales

DCCC1025/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1025 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to using forged credit cards.

2.The facts of the case admitted by the defendant are that she is a Filipino national, and on 6 July 2010 she was on board the Cathay Pacific flight, CX734, flying from Singapore to Hong Kong.

3.In the middle of the journey, she indicated to one of the flight attendants that she wished to purchase a watch valued at $1,630 and a bottle of Chanel perfume valued at $500.  She presented two credit cards in her name, which turned out to be forged.

4.The transactions failed and when she arrived in Hong Kong, she was interviewed by Immigration officials and she handed over the two credit cards for inspection.

5.Under caution, she said that she was given the credit cards by her boyfriend in Bangkok, and thereafter, refused to answer any further questions.

6.Forensic tests show that the cards were forged and the numbers on them related to cards issued by different banks.

7.The defendant has a clear record.  She is 28 years of age, born in the Philippines.  She has an 11-year-old son.  Her parents are deceased.  She was brought up by her grandparents, one of whom is surviving.

8.I am told that she is very remorseful for this offence.

9.In mitigation, she said that the person - she described him as her boyfriend; she has met him twice - who gave her the cards, met on the Internet.  She met him in January this year for three days in Bangkok and in July for a further three days, and it was on the second occasion he gave her the credit cards.  She maintained that he told her, and she accepted, that these were complimentary credit cards, and that he would bear the expenses for them.

10.She said that she flew to Bangkok direct, but on her way back, she came via Singapore and was intending to transit in Hong Kong and then go back to Manila.

11.I indicated to the counsel representing the defendant that I did not accept her story about the credit cards and her belief that they were complimentary credit cards.  She elected to give evidence.

12.In her evidence, she repeated what counsel on her behalf said in mitigation.

13.I do not accept what she told the court as to her involvement in these matters.  I have seen the cards concerned.  Both are clearly printed in her name.  They both look reasonably professional cards. The airline staff were not suspicious.  It was only when they failed with the transactions that their suspicions were aroused.

14.This is a case involving a syndicated credit card fraud and as such, clearly, deterrent sentences are called for.

15.As these types of offences are concerned, I accept what was said in mitigation, that this is at the lower end of the scale.

16.I take the view that a starting point of 2½ years is appropriate.

17.The only mitigation in this case is that she has pleaded guilty, and she would ordinarily be entitled to a discount of one-third.

18.However, she placed before the court mitigation and gave evidence which I did not believe.  I take the view that in those circumstances, she is not entitled to the full discount in this matter.  The guilty plea is an expression of remorse. 

19.I have decided that she is entitled to a reduction of 5 months from the starting point, so the sentence will be 2 years and 1 month.