HKSAR v. Lim Geok Khoon

DCCC833/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 833 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to five charges. The first four charges relate to the use of two forget credit cards and the fifth charge relates to his possession of seven cards including one of the cards that he used in one of the charges.

2.The 1st charge is one of using a forged Standard Chartered Bank MasterCard in the name of Tan Khen Eng at the SOGO Department Store in Hennessy Road on 29 May 2011.  Shortly after that offence, he committed the second offence at a different department in the SOGO Department Store, on this occasion using the same card in an attempt to obtain property.

3.The 3rd charge was committed on the same day, 29 May, again at the SOGO Department Store, and in this case he used a different forged credit card, one drawn on the OCBC Bank MasterCard, again in the name of Tan Khen Eng.  The 4th charge was committed on 29 May at the SOGO Department Store.  Again, on this occasion he was using the same Standard Chartered Bank forged MasterCard that he used for Charge 1 and 2.

4.Having committed those offences, the police were alerted and the defendant was arrested outside the SOGO and found in his possession of seven forged credit cards all in the name of Tan Khen Eng.

5.The facts admitted by the defendant are that 3.20 on the afternoon in 29 May the defendant entered the SKII store in the SOGO Department Store on Hennessy Road.   He was wanting to purchase five sets of facemasks, which were valued at $6,880.  He presented a forged Standard Chartered Bank MasterCard in the name of Tan Khan Eng to the member of staff for payment. 

6.The member of staff prepared three sale memos and the defendant signed upon them.  The member of staff then handed the sale memos and the card to a cashier for processing and the transaction was successful.

7.The assistant then handed this card, I will call it Card 1, and five sets of facemasks to the defendant and the defendant told the assistant that he intended to buy another four sets of facemasks valued at $2,720 and would pay for them after he had visited another part of the SOGO Department Store, the Chanel Store.

8.The defendant then went off to the Chanel Store and he requested to buy five bottles of perfume valued at just over $5,000.  He presented the same card, Card 1, to a member of staff.  Sales memos were prepared and the defendant signed for them and the transaction was successful.

9.The 3rd charge.  Apparently whilst the member of staff in the 2nd charge was waiting for the card to be returned, the defendant left that shop and returned to the original shop, the SKII store, and there he presented an OCBC MasterCard, I will call that Card 2, which had been forged, to purchase another sets of facemasks.  The usual sales memos were prepared and the defendant signed them and the transaction was successful.

10.The defendant then returned to the perfume shop and he made a further purchase of four bottles of perfume valued at $3,700.  He presented Card 1 for payment, sale memos were presented and the defendant signed them, and the sale memos and card were passed to a member of staff there for the processing, a Mr Pang Hoi–yee.  The transaction was successful.  However, when Mr Pang examined the card he noted that its texture was different from genuine cards, so he phoned the card centre and it was confirmed that this card was forged.   

11.The member of staff handed the card to a manager and a report was made to the police.  Soon afterward, the defendant was arrested outside SOGO and in his possession the police found a further six forged cards all in the same name, Tan Khen Eng.

12.Under caution, the defendant admitted that the cards did not belong to him.  He said he was just trying his luck and he claimed that he had picked them up in Shenzhen.  Under caution, he admitted the offences of using two of the cards. 

13.The defendant, I am told has a clear record in Hong Kong.  He is 51 years of age, he comes from Singapore and he came to Hong Kong shortly before the commission of the offences, and I will deal with this later in the judgment.  I am told that he was educated to Form 7 level at high school in Singapore and previously had worked as a salesman but recently he has been working as an interior design constractor and from that he earned the equivalent of HK$30,000 per month, and because of that job he travels around the area of Asia for the purposes of his business.

14.I am told that he has a father who is 81 and a mother 79 and they sadly do not enjoy the best of health.  His father is retired and suffered a stroke.  I am told he is now bedridden and he has had to arrange for a full-time nurse to look after his father in Singapore.  He has an elder brother but I am told that the elder brother emigrated to Canada some 30 years ago, so he is the only one taking responsibility for his parents.

15.I am told that the defendant was married in Vietnam to a Vietnamese lady, and she has now recently, in October, given birth to a baby girl.  He has been in custody since May, so he has not in fact seen that child.  I asked what the defendant was doing in Hong Kong and I was originally told by counsel that the defendant had flown from Singapore to Macau on 27 May and then had gone to Shenzhen and then later ended up in Hong Kong.

16.I asked for clarification of that and I was told by counsel because it was some time ago the defendant had difficulty recalling his exact travel arrangements.  Counsel then told me that what in fact happened is that the defendant travelled from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong on 26 May.  He left Hong Kong the same day via the Lo Wu border to enter on to the Mainland. 

17.The following day, he left the Mainland via the Giang Bay check point, in order to enter Macau.  He there met a friend in Macau and he stayed there that day, and at the end of the day he returned to the Mainland.  He left Macau again, I am told by the Giang Bay exit point.  He then on 29 May left Shenzhen via Lo Wu to come to Hong Kong, and I am told that he was intending to take a flight from Hong Kong to Singapore and he had booked a flight on the internet. 

18.I was told in mitigation that how the defendant became involved with the credit cards was that whilst he was in a waiting area near a hotel in Shenzhen he came across a box in which there was these forged cards and also some coins and he helped himself to the cards.

19.Having heard the mitigation, I do not believe that these events happened in the way it did and he just happened to come across cards which were in a Singaporean name.  I also do not accept the travel arrangements which the defendant claims to have made for coming to Hong Kong.

20.With regard to the offences themselves the amount of money is not considerable, it is just over $18,000.  The size of the operation is not large.  There were eight credit cards involved.  There is an international dimension involved in the fact that the defendant comes from Singapore.  The operation itself was not sophisticated and there were no identification documents produced and there were no accomplices.

21.Having considered all those feature of the case, I have decided that for the first four charges the appropriate starting point, having considered the authorities, would be a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment.  In respect to the 5th charge, the starting point would be 3 years.  The defendant is entitled to a discount for his guilty plea and so those sentences will be reduced by one-third.

22.In respect of the Charges 1 to 4, that will be 32 months; in respect of Charge 5, it will be 2 years.  The sentences will run concurrently, so the total period of imprisonment will be 32 months.