HKSAR v. Tang Man Chun

DCCC259/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 259 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of theft, seven charges of fraud and two charges of money laundering.

2.The offences were committed between early 2008 and the end of 2010.  The total sum of money obtained by the defendant in the commission of these offences was $192,088.

Charge 1 – Theft Offence

3.In February 2011 the defendant obtained a part-time job in a cyber café in Mongkok.  He had been a frequent customer of those premises. On his first day of work he left the café with a rubbish bin and was never seen again.  It was later discovered that $2,517 was missing from the till.

Charges 2 to 8 - charges of fraud

4.These charges concerned a series of deception cases. Internet chat-room contacts were used by the defendant to defraud the victims into paying moneys into bank accounts controlled by him or his girlfriend.

5.He represented that he had either property to let or items to sell.  The total amount involved in those charges was $41,928.

Charges 9 and 10 – Money laundering charges

6.The laundering charges also relate to deception cases perpetrated by the use of internet chat-lines. 

7.In respect of these offences, the defendant represented that he had either concert or Ocean Park tickets for sale.  In relation to Charge 9, 32 victims were induced to pay a total sum of $55,733 into his bank account.

8.In respect of Charge 10, 24 victims paid a total sum of $91,910 into an account in the name of his girlfriend.  

9.The defendant was arrested in December 2010 and made full admissions of the offences to the police.  He claimed that his girlfriend had no knowledge of his dishonest activities.

10.I am told by the prosecution that the reason it took so long to apprehended the defendant, notwithstanding that moneys were paid into either his account or the account of his girlfriend, was that he had moved address and he was difficult to locate.

11.I am told that the defendant has one previous court appearance, and that was in August 2005.  He was before the court on that occasion for three charges of obtaining property by deception, three of procuring the making of records in a bank by deception, two of theft, and one of using a false instrument.

12.In respect to those offences the defendant was imprisoned for a total period of 8 months.

13.In mitigation I was told that the defendant was born in Hong Kong in March 1981 and he is currently 30 years of age.  He was educated to Form 3 level, he started work as a kitchen worker, a position he held for 2 years, and for the following 4 years he worked in a dyeing factory.  His last job, which he held for 1½ years, was as a goods vehicle attendant and he earned $8,500 per month. 

14.He has been out of work for the last 1½ years prior to his arrest and was financially supported by his parents when he was unemployed.  At the time of his arrest he was living with his parents, two siblings and five children in the Tin Wah Estate in Tin Shui Wai. 

15.His father is aged 57, he works in a dyeing factory and earns $20,000 per month.  His 57-year-old mother is a housewife.  He has a younger sister living at home who works as a clerk, and a younger brother also living at home who works as a kitchen worker.

16.He has five children, two daughters aged 8 and 7 and three sons aged 6, 5 and 2.  The 2-year-old is in the care of the Po Leung Kuk and the other children are all looked after by his mother.  His wife left him in 2008 and he has no idea of her whereabouts. 

17.In relation to the offences, counsel has urged upon the court to give the defendant the benefit for his guilty plea which is an indication of his remorse.  The defendant cooperated with the police investigation and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, on 8 April 2011, when he first appeared before the court. 

18.His pleas have saved considerable court time in this case as there were a total of 75 prosecution witnesses.  It was urged upon the court that although the total amount involved is over $190,000, the individual amounts involved were not substantial, with the exception of Charge 6, where the amount involved was $24,800.

19.The defendant stole $2,517 from his employer on the first night of his employment.  He perpetrated a series of deceptions on 63 victims by using internet chat-rooms and obtained in the process $190,000. 

20.I have considered the appropriate sentences for each of the offences and also the totality of the sentence which should be imposed.

21.The first charges involves a breach of trust.  I take a starting point of 12 months for that offence and reduce it by one-third to reflect his guilty plea.  He will go to prison for 8 months for that offence.

22.The other offences were all perpetrated using internet chat-lines.  Trading in goods and services by use of internet is becoming increasingly common and those who abuse the system can expect deterrent sentences to be imposed when they are finally caught.

23.The system used by the defendant was not particularly sophisticated as money was paid either into his account or accounts in the name of his girlfriend.  

24.With regard to the fraud charges, Charges 2 to 7, the most serious is Charge 6, where the defendant obtained $24,800 from the victim in relation to the purported lease of a flat in Tuen Mun. 

25.In respect to that offence, I take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment and reduce that sentence to 12 months to reflect his plea.     

26.For the other fraud charges, I take starting points of 12 months and reduce them to 12 months, all sentences to run concurrently, but I order that 6 months of the sentences shall run concurrent to the sentence imposed on Charge 1.

27.With regard to the money laundering offences, I take a starting point of 21 months’ imprisonment and reduce them by one-third to reflect the guilty pleas.  

28.The sentences for each of those offences will therefore be 14 months on each, concurrent.  I order that 10 months of that sentence shall run consecutive to the other charges.  The defendant will therefore go to prison for a total period of 24 months.