HKSAR v. Seow Zhao Yan Keith also known as Seow Chow Ngan Keith

DCCC753/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 753 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, you pleaded guilty to six offences of theft, each contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. You have also pleaded guilty to six offences of using copies of false instruments, contrary to section 74 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. You admitted the facts and I convicted you.

2.In respect of Charges 13 to 17, these were ordered to be left on the file and not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal.

3.The facts were as follows.  You were employed as a training officer for the MTR between 1992 and 1993, and PW1 to PW3 were your colleagues.

Charges 1 to 5

4.Around June of 1992 PW1 found her ID Card to be missing.  On or about 11 July of 1992 Citibank received an application in the name of PW1 for a Visa Card.  The address given was 5A Kam Woo Building, No. 164 Ngau Tau Kok Road, Kowloon.  This was supported by a photocopy of PW1’s ID card, the MTR salary statement and employment letter.  Visa Card 4985 030 685 638 were sent to the address.  Between 27 July 1992 and 5 December 1992 there were 13 transactions totalling $32,000.

5.On or about 2 October 1992 Chase Manhattan Bank received an application for a VISA Card in the name of PW1.  That was at the same address and supported by a copy of her ID card.  The Chase Visa Card 4508 8516 1250 were sent to that address. 

6.On or about 12 December 1992 Citibank received another application for a Gold Visa Card in PW1’s name of the same address, and supported by a copy of her ID Card and salary statement.  Gold Visa Card 4996483212377 was sent to that address.

7.Between 7 January 1993 and 3 February 1993 there were seven transactions totalling $13,600.  PW1 never made the applications, did not reside at that address, and the salary statements and employment records were false.

Charges 6 to 9

8.About February 1993 PW2 found his ID Card missing and his salary statement.  On or about 22 February of 1993 Chase Manhattan Bank received an application for a Visa Card in the name of PW2.  The address given was 3rd Floor, 49A On Ying Building, Ting Fu Street, Ngau Tau Kok Road.  This was supported by a copy of PW2’s ID Card, telephone bill and MTR salary statement.

9.On or about the same day they also received an application for a MasterCard in the same name with the same particulars and supporting documents.  Also they received a copy on request of PW2’s tax demand which was dated 9 October 1992.  However, these applications were refused. 

10.On or about 6 February 1993 Citibank received an application for a MasterCard in PW2’s name with the same address and same supporting documents.  MasterCard 5410960100523552 was sent to the address. Between 25 February of 1993 and 1 March 1993 six transactions totalling $23,000 took place.  PW1 did not make the applications, did not live at that address, and the supporting documents were forged. 

Charges 10 - 12

11.About March of 1993 PW3 found her ID card missing.  On or about 31 March 1993 Citibank received an application in PW3’s name with her address as Flat 4, 5th Floor, Ting Shing House, 59 Ting Fu Street, Ngau Tau Kok Road.  This was supported by copies of her ID card, MTR salary statement and telephone bill.  It was refused as a Diner’s Card had already been issued to PW3. 

12.On or about 29 March 1993 the Chase Manhattan Bank received the same application for a MasterCard.  However, the bank refused it as it was not submitted by PW3.  PW3 made no such application and did not reside at that address, and the documents were forged. 

13.On 28 April of 1993, at 1500 hours, DPC 21838 executed a search warrant at your residence, which was Flat 6, 32nd floor, Block 11, Tak Bo Garden, Ngau Tau Kok.  Three items were seized.  At 1600 hours he searched your office and seized, amongst other things: (1) a Diner’s Club card application form; (2) a Chase Manhattan bank deposit slip; (3) two Chase Manhattan bank envelopes; (4) an MTRC message with your writing on the back; (5) a photocopy of your ID Card with the number and the date of birth blanked out.  At 1720 hours DPC arrested you and cautioned you for the offence of a forgery.  You were then released on bail.

14.In a subsequent cautioned interview on 28 April 1993 you made admissions of forgery.  Further admissions were made at an interview on 15 May 1993.  Forensic handwriting analysis was carried out.  From 24 July 1993 you failed to report to the police.  You were rearrested on entering Hong Kong on 15 May 2012.

15.You are a man of clear record in Hong Kong.  Mr Yuen, on your behalf, entered mitigation.  That mitigation was helpful as it was in written form.  He told me that you are 49 years of age, university-educated and a Singaporean national.  You are married, with a son of 2.  Prior to your arrest in May you worked and resided in Singapore.  Between 1993 and 2012 you had worked in the field of telecommunications, having various jobs and moving to ever more senior positions.  Between 2011 and 2012 you were executive vice president of Teledata Singapore Limited.  Mr Yuen produced a file of numerous awards and commendations relating to your employment, which I have fully considered. 

16.He told me that you were about to take up a new post as a regional manager in Indonesia, for which you received equivalent of HK$1 million per annum.  Mr Yuen stressed your plea of guilty and the saving of court time, also that you had fully cooperated with the police upon re-arrest.  He also stressed your clear record both here and in Singapore.  The present conviction would wreck your career and left your family with no income as you were the sole breadwinner.  Both financially and emotionally your wife was left to care for your son alone.

17.Mr Yuen read out letters from your mother who is 78 and is suffering from hypertension, and your father-in-law, a Hong Kong resident.  Both letters were supportive and spoke well of you.  There was a common theme in each in that there was a plea for leniency.  Mr Yuen also mentioned your various donations to Hong Kong charities and produced receipts to support these.  Whilst the sums were not large, you being a member of the middle class, so not very rich, they were consistent and regular. 

18.Mr Yuen then turned to offences themselves.  He said that the total loss to the banks was some $68,000.  Four credit cards had been obtained by you, but only three used.  The offences were not syndicated, not organised, only involved you with no accomplice, and there is no international dimension.  Mr Yuen submitted that you, as a foreigner, would find it more difficult in a Hong Kong prison.  He said that you are truly remorseful.  Since leaving Hong Kong in 1993 the offences had been on your conscience.  You were ashamed of what you had done, even more so since the birth of your son.  You wanted your punishment to serve as a lesson for your son that one has to take responsibility for one’s deeds.

19.He said in 1992 to 1993 you were young, you were in a foreign land, away from your family, and very stupid.  He produced a letter from you expressing your remorse, your hopes for the future, and apologies.  Also, unusually, you thanked the Correctional Services Department staff for their professionalism and courtesy.

20.Finally Mr Yuen produced four sentencing authorities, prosecution having already referred me to two.  The six in total referred to are, first of all, by the prosecution: R v Chan Sui To & Anor, CACC115/1996.  This sets out factors to be considered when assessing sentences for credit card fraud; R v Kwai Ying Ho, CACC527/1992.  This was not of great assistance being a very different scenario. 

21.The defence produced four, as I have said: HKSAR v Ejegi Godspower DCCC703/2009.  This was a District Court case where I myself imposed 14 months’ imprisonment for a much more serious offence, adopting a starting point of 5 years.  In HKSAR v Ng Kwan Hau CACC153/1999, this was a reduction of a starting point, 17 offences.  Ultimately 2 years was imposed on a plea of guilty.  R v Lai Chong Ning CACC 729/1996, this involved eight charges of using a false instrument.  The total obtained was a $128,100.  A starting point of 5 years was upheld.  And, finally, HKSAR v Tu I Lang CACC464/2006.  A 32 month starting point was reduced to 2 years. Finally Mr Yuen entered the plea for leniency on your behalf.

22.I turn now to the sentence.  Mr Yuen, in my opinion, assisted the court and you with a comprehensive, balanced and realistic set of submissions in mitigation.  I thank and congratulate him for that.  Whilst not underestimating the seriousness of these offences, I do recognise this to be a sad and unusual case.  This occurred some 19 to 20 years ago in circumstances where you found yourself in a foreign land, cut off from your family, and despite regular employment found yourself in financial trouble, which must, of course, have been of your own making.  It has been said you are youthful, but I do not accept that.  You were, in fact, a mature adult of about 30 years of age at that stage. 

23.Then, as we know, you foolishly and wrongly became a fugitive from justice despite the obligations of police bail.  So any troubles of conscience are of your own making and, in my opinion, undeserving of any sympathy.  The sadness that I perceive is that after fleeing you have worked hard and diligently to build up a career that will now be snatched from your grasp.  Further, as a sole breadwinner, your family is left devoid of your financial and emotional support and as you will be languishing in a Hong Kong prison for some time.  I accept fully you are a devoted father, husband and son. That you are a foreigner in a Hong Kong prison is, in my opinion, of no relevance at all. 

24.The offences themselves, though numerous, are of the lowest criminality within the ambit of credit card fraud, save for the aspect of manipulation of your colleagues who fortuitously were not the losers.  The sums obtained are modest.  You acted alone, and there is no international dimension.  I note your clear record and your charitable donations to those less financially or fortunate at time, and also your cooperation with the police when you were rearrested. 

25.Also the plea of guilty, when after 19 to 20 years you could have called upon the prosecution to prove their case, numerous and serious cases though as these are, I do find that even though you did abscond there is room for mercy to some extent, secure as I am in the knowledge that these criminal acts will never be repeated again.

26.My approach is to view this as a course of conduct and sentence on that basis.  The following individual sentences will be imposed:

Charge 1, I take a starting point of 9 months, reduced to 6 months for your plea of guilty;

Charge 2, 33 months to 22 months for your plea of guilty;

Charge 3, 24 months to 16 months for your plea of guilty;

Charge 4, 33 months to 22 months for your plea of guilty;

Charge 5, 18 months to 12 months for your plea of guilty;

Charge 6, 9 months to 6 months for your plea of guilty;

Charge 7, 33 months to 22 months for your plea of guilty;

Charge 9, 21 months to 14 months for your plea of guilty;

Charge 10, 9 months to 6 months for your plea of guilty;

Charge 11, 33 months to 22 months for your plea of guilty; and

Charge 12, 33 months to 22 months for your plea of guilty.

All these sentences will be served concurrently.

27.That is a total of 22 months’ imprisonment.