HKSAR v. Ahmad Syukri Bin Abu Jamal

DCCC686/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 686 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges, the first being using a false instrument, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, and the 2nd charge being possession of false instruments, contrary to section 75(1) of the same ordinance.

2.In Charge 1 the particulars involve one fake Citibank Mastercard that the defendant produced in a luxury item shop in Pacific Place.  The 2nd charge involves three different credit cards, the defendant knowing or believing them to be false.  All those four credit cards were in the same name.  Part of the name is the defendant’s surname. 

3.The facts of this case are very straightforward. On 8 June this year the defendant, who is not a Hong Kong resident but a Malaysian from Kuala Lumpur, entered the Louis Vuitton shop at Pacific Place and tried to purchase two items, the total value being $16,750.  When he produced a Citibank Mastercard the shop staff, looking at the credit card, felt suspicious and checked with the card centre, which in turn confirmed that this card was a counterfeit card.  A report was made to the police and the defendant was caught red-handed whilst still inside the shop.  Upon arrest he admitted that he was buying the items with a credit card that did not belong to him.

4.Later on, on the same day, he was searched at the police station and the three cards of Charge 2 were found on his person. He told the police that a lady aged about 40 gave him all four credit cards. 

5.He further admitted, in a video record of interview, that he had met a Chinese female online and, in mid-May this year, had been offered a job by the same woman.  An air ticket was bought for the defendant to come to Hong Kong.

6.He arrived in Hong Kong on 6 June and proceeded to go through Lo Wu and enter China.  He told the police that the same lady had given him four credit cards to make purchases.  The deal was that he would be given a reward of 10 per cent of the value of items purchased over $10,000.  He was told to dispose of the cards before he returned to China.  He knew full well that he was coming to Hong Kong to commit credit card fraud.

7.In mitigation, I have been told the defendant is 22 years old, has a clear record in Hong Kong, which is not surprising as he is not a Hong Kong resident.  I have been told that the reasons for coming to Hong Kong to commit these offences stem mainly from financial desperation. There was a family crisis and money was required for his mother’s medical bills.  The family borrowed money from loan sharks, and when they were unable to pay they were pursued.  When the defendant was offered the job here he took the chance to come here despite knowing that he would commit credit card fraud, but he took the chance to help his family.  

8.The defendant’s best mitigation today is his plea of guilty.  And clearly, from the facts, he has cooperated with the police upon his arrest. 

9.To consider an appropriate starting point for offences of this nature I have considered several authorities which are very relevant, the first being R v Chan Siu To [1996] 2HKCLR 128, as well as HKSAR v Cheung Ka Wo, Johnny [2002] 2HKC 517.  I have also considered relevant HKSAR v Tu I Lang CACC464/2006.  In that authority McMahon J summarised previous relevant authorities and said that small scale credit card offences cannot be subject to strict guidelines because the facts of such offences can vary significantly.  What would be an obvious relevant factor would be the number of cards used or possessed. 

10.What is relevant in this case is the number of cards.  There were four cards involved in the two charges.  The value of goods purchased is very relevant, and it is just over HK$16,000.  The cards were made for the defendant using his surname.  I have considered the fact that the defendant is not a Hong Kong resident, but I also considered that the cards were made here or in China and the defendant was invited here to commit these offences.  That fact does not make it a truly international scam or scheme.

11.In the HKSAR v Chan Ka Chung CACC379/2010, that authority refers to the authorities I have mentioned earlier, and those authorities are discussed in detail.  In this case Chan Ka Chung, the Court of Appeal held that a starting point of 3 years would be appropriate for local small scale criminal enterprises involving a limited number of credit cards.  In my opinion, the facts of this case would fit into that criteria. 

12.Defendant, please stand up.  After having considered the facts of this case, mitigation put forward and the authorities that I have referred to, I will take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for each charge.  You will, of course, be entitled to a discount of one-third for your plea of guilty.  That is a discount of one year. 

13.For Charge 1 and 2 you will be sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.  I will order that both charges run concurrently.  That would be a total of 2 years’ imprisonment.