HKSAR v. Lee Kuan-te

DCCC 1195/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1195 OF 2012

____________

____________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

____________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Using a false instrument" (Charge 1) and a charge of "Possessing false instruments" (Charge 2). The false instruments involved are forged credit cards.

Summary of Facts

2.The defendant is a Taiwan citizen. He came to Hong Kong on 10 November 2012 via Lo Wu.

3.About 6:30 pm on the same day, the defendant was in the fashion shop particularized in Charge 1 purchasing a shirt, the price of which was $1,499.  He produced a credit card in the name of "Wong Chi Nam" as particularized in Charge 1 to a salesperson Madam CHAK.

4.The credit card transaction did not go through.  Madam CHAK checked with the card centre and was informed that the card holder should be an expatriate.  Feeling suspicious, she called the Police.

5.The Police arrived and arrested the defendant.  Upon search, 4 other credit cards in the name of "Wong Chi Nam" or "Wong Chi Wam" as particularized in Charge 2 were found in the defendant's trouser pocket.

6.Under caution, the defendant admitted that on the day he entered Hong Kong, he bought all 5 credit cards from an unknown male in Mongkok at the price of RMB800.

7.All 5 credit cards are confirmed to be forged cards.

Mitigation & Sentence

8.The defendant is now 55 and has a clear record. He is married with 3 children. He works as an estate agent in Taiwan earning about NTD25,000 per month.

9.Defence lawyer Mr. LAI submitted that the defendant went to mainland China to visit a friend a week before he came to Hong Kong. On the date of both offences, the defendant came to Hong Kong for shopping. After his arrival, he first went to the China Travel Service in Mongkok to renew his travel document for returning to the mainland. He met an unknown male there who offered to sell him the subject credit cards. Out of greed, the defendant purchased those credit cards and tried to use one of them to buy a shirt. Mr. LAI also submitted that the present case is a small-scale operation with no international element involved.

10.A letter written by the defendant was placed before me; its contents are duly noted.

11.Both the Prosecution and Defence have submitted cases on sentencing including HKSAR v CHAN Ka Chung CACC 379/2010, The Queen v CHAN Sui-to & another [1996] 2 HKCLR 128 and HKSAR v TU I Lang CACC 464/2006. According to those authorities, credit card offences are serious and must be deterred. Even a small scale credit card fraud with small losses by an offender who is not alleged to be part of a larger syndicate can attract a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that credit card fraud is a serious crime, which affects Hong Kong's reputation as an international trade and finance centre, and that offenders would not be treated lightly.

12.When determining the proper starting point for each charge, I have borne in mind the sentencing principles laid down in CHAN Sui-to. In the present case, I find the following features exist :

(i) 1 person and 5 forged credit cards were involved; a shirt of about $1,500 in value was attempted;

(ii) little or no advance planning was required (since the credit cards were not even in the defendant's name);

(iii) no evidence of any international element involved;

(iv) the defendant bought the forged credit cards shortly after his arrival at Hong Kong and started using one of them to make purchase almost immediately;

(v) the defendant made admissions upon arrest and pleaded guilty to both charges; and

(vi) the fashion shop did not suffer any loss.

13.I will treat both charges arising from the same set of facts. I consider 3 years' imprisonment to be the appropriate global starting point. Hence, for Charges 1 and 2, I adopt a starting point of 3 years each. A one-third discount is given for his guilty pleas, reducing the sentence for each charge to 2 years. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further discount.

14.I order the sentences for both charges to run concurrently. Thus, the total prison term for Charges 1 and 2 is 2 years.