HKSAR v. Chau Chiu Yuet
|
DCCC 332/2012 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO.332 OF 2012 ---------------------------
---------------------------
Reasons for Sentence 1.The defendant faces 7 charges of Obtaining Property by Deception, contrary to s.17 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. He pleaded guilty to charges 2 to 7. Upon the application of the prosecution, charge 1 was kept on file and ordered not to be proceeded with against the defendant without the leave of the court. Re-amended summary of facts 2.The defendant approached senior citizens on the street, falsely claiming that he worked for the Social Welfare Department or that he could deal with the SWD so that the victims would receive more money or benefits from the SWD. Once he gained the trust of the victims, the defendant would accompany the victims to the bank to make cash withdrawals. The money would then be handed over to the defendant, with the defendant falsely claiming that he will deal with the money so that the SWD would pay the victims more in the end. The defendant would then disappear with the money. 3.Of the 6 victims, 4 are in their eighties and 2 in their seventies. The amount that the defendant had tried to deceive the victims out of ranged between $3,100 and $6,000. The $6,000 that the defendant had successfully obtained from his victim in charge 2 was returned to the victim after the defendant was told by the victim that the matter had been reported to the Police. The $3,000 that the defendant had obtained from the victim in charge 7 was recovered after the defendant’s arrest immediately after the Police operation had gone overt. Previous convictions 4.The defendant over 30 previous convictions relating to dishonesty, of those, 2 are similar to the present charges. Mitigation 5.The defendant is 48. He was born in Hong Kong, educated up to F.3 level and was unemployed at the time of arrest on 3rd February 2012. He had been in detention since. The defendant suffered from mental illness since 1999, currently having medical treatment in Kwai Chung Hospital. He is married. The defendant was residing in Sham Shui Po while his wife is residing in mainland China. 6.The defendant also suffered from depression and had received treatment. The defendant wished the court to take into consideration that no violence had been used in the incidents and no threats were made to the elderlies. 7.It is the defendant’s submission that the victims were partly to blame for their own greediness. Sentence 8.The maximum sentence for the offence of obtaining property by deception under s.17 of the Theft Ordinance is that of 10 years’ imprisonment. 9.The defendant targeted senior citizens who are vulnerable. The money the defendant had obtained or tried to obtain from the victims may have been small in terms of absolute amount but would have represented a significant loss to the victims, causing a serious negative impact to their livelihood. I find the defendant’s choice of such targets an aggravating factor. 10.The defendant committed the 2nd to the 6th charges over a period of around 8 weeks. He then stopped for 2 months before committing the 7th charge. I find that the commission of the 6 offences towards 6 different victims over such a period of time another aggravating factor. 11.The defendant has been before a court of law for 14 times from 1981 onwards, since when he was 18 years old. He has been convicted of a total of 42 charges. Of those charges, 32 were related to dishonesty. Of those 32, 2 are similar to the present charges but they were convictions back in 1991. The defendant was last convicted on 25th May 2011 for shoplifting when he was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment. It took about 5 months after his release before he committed the first of the present series of offences. The defendant is a repeat offender and he has scant regard for the law. As such, an element of deterrence must be incorporated into the sentence. 12.I disagree with the defendant and his solicitor on the point of the victims being greedy. In each of the cases, the victim had believed that the defendant was someone from the Social Welfare Department or that he had some official connection with the department. They made their decision to hand over the money based on the trust they have in the system, which the defendant had convinced them into thinking he was part of. I do not think they were being greedy. Just too trusting. 13.We protect our young and we protect our old. Old people are vulnerable because of their stage in life which invariably means that their minds may not be as sharp as they used to be. A deterrent sentence is required to ensure that those tempted to target the old and needy would think twice before doing so. 14.Bearing in mind the circumstances of the case, the aggravating factors and the need for deterrence, I find that for each of the 6 charges, an appropriate starting point is that of 3 years’ imprisonment. The defendant is granted the full one third discount for his guilty plea, taking the sentence for each charge down to 2 years’ imprisonment. Totality 15.Again taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case in particular the aggravating factors, I will order that 3 months of each of charge 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 be served consecutively to the sentence of charge 2 and each other . The defendant is therefore sentenced to a total of 3 years and 3 month’ imprisonment.
|