HKSAR v. Chui Siu Leung

DCCC295/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 295 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of using a false credit card and not guilty to the 3rd charge of assaulting a police officer.

2.The defendant was convicted of Charge 1 and 2, and the 3rd charge is to be left on court file.

The summary of facts

3.At about 3:08 pm on 19 January 2011, the defendant went to the shop of Louis Vuitton at Harbour City in Tsim Sha Tsui to buy a handbag and two wallets, worth a total sum of $22,750.

4.At first, the defendant presented a JCB credit card numbered 3587-6118-0717-2001 in the defendant’s name, Chui Siu-leung, for payment.  The transaction was not approved.  The salesperson of the shop suspected that the card was forged.

5.The defendant then presented another credit card NatWest Visa numbered 4637-5800-0145-9456, also in his name.  This time the transaction was successful.

6.A report was made to the police.  Soon, the police arrived at the shop and arrested the defendant.

7.Under caution at the scene, the defendant admitted that he used the two forged credit cards to purchase luxury items and would resell the goods for profit.

8.Subsequently, in the video recorded interview, the defendant further admitted that he got the credit cards from another person and he collected the forged credit cards in a toilet at the Star Ferry pier.

9.Forensic examination confirmed that the credit cards so seized are forged cards.

Mitigation

10.The defendant is 32 years old and is a drug dependent.

11.His last conviction of the offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception was committed in December 2010.  It was related to a loan application by using forged documents.  He was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.

12.For the present offence, it was submitted that the quality of the forged credit cards were not of high quality and the amount involved was not large.  The victim did not suffer any loss.  This was the defendant’s first attempt to used the forged cards.  The defendant was the purchaser of the cards, not the manufacturer.

13.Upon enquiry, the defence said the defendant paid $500 for these two forged cards.

14.The court was urged to consider the totality principle when taking into account of the defendant’s last conviction in March 2011.  The defendant is currently serving a sentence and is expected to be released on 4 July 2011 for that offence.

15.The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges at his first available opportunity.

Sentence

16.The defendant had 26 previous convictions with one similar back in June 2009.

17.I have seen the forged credit cards.  The cards, from the layman’s point of view, are of high quality and they involve financial institutes, namely, JCB and NatWest, that are not local institutes.

18.The defendant had signed on the back of the cards, which were purportedly issued in the defendant’s name.  That is clearly designed to reinforce the genuineness of the cards in the event the identification of the cardholder was required.

19.With the possession of two forged cards, I accept that this case is regarded as a small-scale operation.  However, it is clear that syndicate was involved in the perpetration of this kind of crime.  The cards were produced upon the defendant’s request, as the defendant claimed, and the defendant’s name was embossed on the cards.

20.I have considered the factors for sentencing as stipulated in R v Chan Sui To [1996] 2 HKCLR 128, HKSAR v Tu I Lang, CACC 464/2006, and HKSAR v Ng Pui Ling, CACC 519/2005.

21.I would adopt a starting point of 3 years for both Charges 1 and 2.

22.With the plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 years.

23.On the basis of totality principle, I order that both sentences are to be served concurrently.

24.I have also considered the defendant’s latest conviction of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.  I consider that the offence is of different nature from the present ones.  In my view, it would be wrong to suggest that the more crimes one committed, he would get more discount in sentence.

25.I have carefully considered the submission made by the defence, but come to the view that the present sentence should run consecutively to the defendant’s current sentence.  I so ordered.