HKSAR v. Teng Tao Hung

DCCC652/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 652 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, you were convicted upon your guilty plea of one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception.

2.In sentencing I take into consideration the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, your personal background, mitigation put forward on your behalf and  have had regard to sentencing precedents.

3.The facts you have admitted are straightforward and may be summarised as follows. 

4.You were on board a flight of the Emirates Airline.  When the plane arrived at Hong Kong and passengers were alighting, you produced a credit card belonging to another person in an attempt to buy perfumes and cosmetics at a total price of 4,100 Dirhams.  

5.Your attempt failed since the name of the credit card does not match that on the passport which you were asked to produce.  You were later arrested.  Upon search, two more credit cards not in your name were found in your possession. 

6.Under caution, you admitted to have borrowed these three credit cards from friends but you had since 2009 lost contact with them. The two credit cards found upon search had been reported lost. 

7.I was told you were 41 years of age, single and living with your family in Taiwan.  You received education up to University level and were a merchant in mobile phone business. 

8.Your counsel told me you committed the present offence in difficult financial straits since you had scant success in your business.

9.In mitigation, your counsel stressed that you are a first time offender and that you have pleaded guilty. 

10.I have considered the cases on sentencing for this nature of offence, including those referred to me by your counsel.  In R v Chan Sui To [1996] 2 HKCLR 128, the Court of Appeal set out the various factors which a sentencing court should consider in a case of this nature. 

11.In HKSAR v Ng Siew Thiam [2001] HKLRD 772, the Court of Appeal commented that it was the potential for losses which was the most important consideration.  

12.It was held in HKSAR v Tu I Lang CACC464/2007, that:

“Where the facts of the offence point to a small, unsophisticated operation, involving only one or a few forged cards uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the offender to a larger operation, then a starting point of three years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate.”

The other cases I have considered include HKSAR v Chan Kwai Fat CACC94/98, HKSAR v Wong Chin Hang CACC409/2008, HKSAR v Yim Wai Ling William CACC35/2004 and HKSAR v Fong Chun Hei Ernie CACC179/2006.

13.In the present case, there is little evidence that you were acting in concert with others.  What you had attempted to do was to make a minor purchase.  However, the potential of further use cannot be ignored.  You were in possession of three credit cards not in your name.  There is no evidence to show that it was a sophisticated operation and that the operation was not a small one.  There was no international dimension. 

14.Immediate custodial sentence are called for in this case.  Credit card offences are serious and must be deterred.  In all the circumstances I consider a starting point of 30 months appropriate.  You pleaded guilty and are therefore entitled to a one-third discount. 

15.Having considered the whole circumstances including mitigation, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount you are entitled to in this case.  Accordingly, I sentence you to 20 months’ imprisonment.