HKSAR v. Peter Raymond Baird
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 242/2011 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 11 May 2012.
1. Defendant, you have been convicted, after trial, of an offence of fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, Laws of Hong Kong, the particulars of which have been adequately set out in my reasons for verdict.
|
DCCC242/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 242 OF 2011 ----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.Defendant, you have been convicted, after trial, of an offence of fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, Laws of Hong Kong, the particulars of which have been adequately set out in my reasons for verdict. 2.You dishonestly, and with intent to defraud, took advantage of the arrangements that had been made between yourself and PW1, the victim in this case, and while knowing that no standby letter of credit would ever be forthcoming transferred out of the escrow account slightly over US$600,000 to the obvious detriment of PW1. 3.As a result of your arrest at the airport in January of 2011, and your subsequent detention, I am told that you had been unable to continue to pay rental on your office premises and, as a result, lost your deposit of some $280,000 or thereabouts. In my view, you only have yourself to blame for this. But, in addition, I am urged to consider the fact that you have suffered from stress due to a delay in the resolution of these proceedings. Through no fault of your own the trial date has been adjourned on two occasions by application of the prosecution. The trial was originally listed for hearing in August of last year and did not start until some eight months later in April of this year. 4.You are, I am told, 51 years of age, a New Zealander, married with two daughters. You have a background in insurance and financial management. Being involved in this sort of business, no doubt you will be aware that commercial fraud is always serious, and in this particular case the amount of funds involved is quite substantial, the equivalent of approximately HK$4½ million. 5.I propose to adopt a starting point of 3½ years’ imprisonment. I am prepared to discount this by 3 months to take account of the delay that has occurred in these proceedings, which no doubt has caused you to suffer stress, coming to 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 242/2011