HKSAR v. To Ah Sin

DCCC 291/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 291 OF 2013

____________

____________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

1.The defendant pleads not guilty to one charge of fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

Introduction

2.Between July 1998 and July 2010 the defendant and her two children received Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (“CSSA”).  The prosecution opened their case on the basis that between the 8 August 2002 and the 31 July 2010 the defendant concealed from the Social Welfare Department the existence of fourteen bank accounts; two securities accounts and five insurance policies which were all in her name and three part time jobs with different companies.  Disclosure of the assets alone would have resulted in the defendant being ineligible for CSSA for the whole of this period and therefore the defendant has been overpaid the sum of HK$764,095.97. 

3.Following the production of the banker’s affirmations the court pointed out that two of the bank accounts, namely time deposits held with the Bank of China, appeared not to be included in the affirmations.  After checking the banker’s affirmations Mr Haddon-Cave informed the court that one account held with the Standard Chartered Bank was also omitted.  An adjournment was granted for the prosecution to consider whether the charge required amending as a result of these omissions. 

4.Further checks revealed not only were three accounts omitted from the affirmations but records of other bank accounts went back only as far as 8 June 2004.  This apparently was because the banks keep records for a fixed number of years and therefore when the police obtained the records from the banks the earlier statements supplied to the Social Welfare Department were no longer kept by the bank.

5.The charge was amended to shorten the period of the alleged fraud to between the 8 June 2004 and the 31 July 2010 and to reduce the amount of overpayment to HK$589,134.97. The concealment of assets now related to eleven bank accounts, two securities accounts, five insurance policies and the income from the part time work. 

6.In summary the prosecution case is that by reason of the amount of assets held by the defendant she was ineligible for CSSA for the whole of this period and that by concealing the bank accounts; the securities accounts; the insurance policies and the part time work the only inference to draw is that the defendant by deceit intended to defraud the Social Welfare Department.

7.The defence case in summary is that the monies in the bank accounts and securities accounts were monies belonging to the defendant’s mother.  The insurance policies which were taken out with money provided by the defendant’s mother were regarded as investments which were also held on behalf of the defendant’s mother. As the assets belonged to the defendant’s mother the defendant believed she did not have to disclose them to the Social Welfare Department.  The defendant did not disclose the income received from temporary jobs because she did not think that it was necessary to disclose temporary jobs.  The defence therefore say that the defendant did not act with intent to defraud the Social Welfare Department. 

Evidence

8.As a result of the amendment of the charge two witnesses from the Social Welfare Department were called in relation to the calculation of overpayment Liu Pui Yee (PW1) and Kwong Wai Ming (PW2).  Initially no prosecution witnesses were called all the evidence being admitted pursuant to provisions in the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221 and the Evidence Ordinance, Chapter 8.  Facts were admitted pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance(exhibit P3); bankers affirmations were admitted pursuant to section 20 of the Evidence Ordinance(exhibits P12-P15);details of one insurance policy was admitted pursuant to section 22A of the Evidence Ordinance(exhibit P16);and the statements of six witnesses read pursuant to section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance(exhibits P4-P11 and P17-P19). 

9.The defendant elected to give evidence.  No witnesses were called on her behalf.  Admitted in evidence is that the defendant has a clear record (see paragraph 8 of the admitted facts, exhibit P3).  In considering good character I direct myself in accordance with the decision in HKSAR v Tang Siu Man[1997-98] 1 HKCFAR 107.   

Summary of the prosecution evidence

10.The issue to be determined is whether in concealing from the Social Welfare Department the bank accounts, the securities accounts, the insurance policies and the income received from part time work the defendant intended to deceive the Social Welfare Department.  The failure to disclose these assets and income not being in issue the evidence of the prosecution can be briefly summarised.

Bank accounts & securities accounts

11.Details of the bank accounts and securities accounts are found in the banker’s affirmations (exhibits P12-15).  The defendant failed to disclose elevenbank accounts and two securities accounts: four with the Bank of China; three with the Standard Chartered Bank; two with the Hang Seng Bank and four with the Chiyu Bank.    

Insurance Policies

12.The defendant failed to disclose five insurance policies: one with the China Life Insurance (Overseas) Co Ltd and four with the Prudential Assurance Company Limited.  Full particulars of the policy with China Life is contained in the certificate (exhibit P16) and the four policies with Prudential Assurance in the witness statement of Lee Ka Yan (exhibit P4/4A/4B).

Work

13.The defendant failed to disclose income received from three part time jobs with Haw Hae Development Company Limited; Sing Kee Construction Works Co. Ltd and Sam Lung Products Ltd.  Details of the work are to be found in the witness statements of the employers (exhibits P5, P6, P7 & P11). 

14.The defendant worked for Haw Hae in 2007, 2008 and 2009 in the months of August and September (see exhibits P5 & P6) and for Sam Lung between June 2006 and November 2008 (see exhibit P11).  The owner of Sing Kee can only remember that around November 2005 he employed a Chinese female with the same name as the defendant to do cleaning work however all records relating to the employment have been lost (see exhibit P7). 

Review forms (exhibits P1 (c)-(j))

15.Periodically whilst the defendant was receiving CSSA she would be interviewed by staff of the Social Welfare Department to establish whether there was any change in her financial circumstances.  During the period of the amended charge the defendant was interviewed on eight occasions.  On each occasion a Review Form was completed to summarise the updated information provided by the defendant which Review Form the defendant signed (see paragraphs 2 & 3 of the admitted facts, exhibit P3).

16.In each of the Review Forms the defendant declared she had no job; no other bank accounts apart from one with HSBC; no insurance; no fixed deposits and no stocks and shares (see in particular sections 5, 10 & 15 of the Review Forms).  In section 15 the defendant also stated she will notify the Social Welfare Department if there should be any income other than the CSSA payments.

Social Welfare investigation

17.On 1 June 2009 Choi Ming Yan took over the investigation.  As a result of writing to the four banks and two insurance companies the Social Welfare Department discovered that the defendant had assets with the banks and insurance companies which had not been disclosed to them.  The Social Welfare Department also discovered that the defendant had failed to disclose income received from Haw Hae, Sam Lung and Sing Kee (see the witness statement of Choi Ming Yan, exhibit P17).

18.On the 23 June and 28 June 2010 Madam Choi interviewed the defendant.  On each occasion the defendant signed a declaration (see the witness statement of Choi Ming Yan, exhibit P17 as read with paragraph 9 of the admitted facts, exhibit P3).  Both declarations were the subject of editing prior to being admitted in evidence.

19.In summary on the 23 June the defendant signed a declaration (exhibit P17B) stating she had failed to report some income and that the bank accounts, stock accounts and insurance were her mother’s which were only held and managed by her.  The defendant repeated that she held and managed the accounts on behalf of her mother in the declaration (exhibit P17C) signed on the 28 June. 

Calculation of overpayment

20.From the information obtained from the banks and insurance companies Liu Pui Yee (PW1) assessed that the defendant was not eligible for CSSA as she exceeded the eligibility ceiling(see the witness statement of Liu Pui Yee, exhibit P10).  This calculation was based on the failure to disclose assets only.  The failure to disclose income from work overlapped with the period the defendant was not eligible for CSSA due to her exceeding the asset limit (see the witness statement of Liu Pui Yee, exhibit P9).

21.The calculation of the overpayment is set out in the Assessment Report (exhibit P10B) annexed to the witness statement of Liu Pui Yee, exhibit P10.  The calculation is divided into two parts covering the periods 8 August 2002 to 8 July 2009 and 8 August 2009 to 31 July 2010 (see the witness statement of Liu Pui Yee, exhibit P8).

22.The assessment report is a very detailed document.  After the notes of the assessor and the tables Assessment Part (1) and Part (2) which set out the amounts of overpayment there is a summary of the calculation for each month for the period 8 August 2002 to 8 July 2009.  This is followed by a breakdown of the assets of the defendant for each day of the month.  After page 172 there is the summary of the calculation for each month for the period 8 August 2009 to 31 July 2010 followed again by a breakdown of the assets of the defendant for each day of the month.  A copy of Assessment Part (1) and the summaries are also found annexed to the witness statements of Liu Pui Yee, exhibits P8 and P9 respectively. Assessment Part (2) is not annexed to the witness statement, exhibit P8, however the amounts of overpayment are set out in paragraph 4 of the witness statement. 

23.The Assessment Report continues with a series of tables relating to specific assets held by the defendant with the Hang Seng Bank and the Chiyu Bank.  The report finishes with the assessment of overpayment due to non disclosure of income, which assessment is stated to be for reference only. 

Re-Assessment Report

24.The amendment of the charge resulted in the prosecution preparing a Re-Assessment Report (exhibit P20) in order to recalculate the overpayment for the shortened period. This was undertaken by an additional witness Kwong Wai Ming (PW2), an assessing officer with the Social Welfare Department.

25.The defence required for cross-examination Liu Pui Yee the maker of the original Assessment Report whose statements (exhibits P8-P10) had been read pursuant to section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.  In cross-examination with reference to paragraph 3 of her witness statement (exhibit P9) Madam Liu explained the circumstances when the Social Welfare Department will consider disregarding income in calculating entitlement to CSSA and gave the formulae as to how much income may be disregarded.  In re-examination Madam Liu further explained that to give proper consideration as to whether any income is to be disregarded there must be disclosure of all income.

26.Kwong Wai Ming explained that the recalculation was solely based on the Assessment Report prepared by Liu Pui Yee.  Basically she deleted the records of three bank accounts as well as the records of other bank accounts prior to the 15 June 2004.  In answer to the court Madam Kwong confirmed that whilst she did the calculation with the aid of the computer such recalculation could be done manually by simply deducting the amounts of payment received pre 15 June 2004 from the overall amount.  The evidence of Madam Kwong being limited to simply a recalculation of the amount overpaid the defence had no cross-examination.

27.The Re-Assessment Report basically follows the same form as the Assessment Report however the summary of the calculation for the whole period of the amended charge is at the beginning of the report and not split as in the Assessment Report.  The tables relating to specific assets held by the defendant with the Hang Seng Bank and the Chiyu Bank and the assessment of overpayment due to non disclosure of income are not replicated. 

CSSA payments

28.Before Madam Liu was tendered for cross-examination I noticed there appeared to be no admissible evidence of the amounts of CSSA received by the defendant during the period 8 June 2004 and 31 July 2010 totalling HK$589,134.97.  Admitted in evidence was that the defendant was a recipient of CSSA but not how much CSSA she received (see paragraph 1 of the admitted facts, exhibit P3). Accordingly I drew this to the attention of the parties.

29.No questions were asked by the prosecution of Madam Liu save as to what was her responsibility in the Social Welfare Department and to identify her Assessment Report (exhibit P10).  In cross-examination when asked the source of the CSSA payments made to the defendant Madam Liu replied that they were generated from the computer. 

30.The prosecution did not ask any questions in re-examination on the source of the CSSA payments.  In answer to the court Madam Liu confirmed the payments of CSSA contained in the table Assessment Part (1) and in paragraph 4 of her witness statement, exhibit P8 (which are the same as in the table Assessment Part (2)) were obtained from the computer.  The prosecution asking no questions arising from this evidence I reminded Mr Haddon-Cave of the provisions of section 22A of the Evidence Ordinance.

31.Miss Chong objected to the prosecution adducing evidence in compliance with section 22A of the Evidence Ordinance on the grounds Madam Liu was not an expert in computers and that the application was too late.  I was satisfied the witness did not have to be an expert in computers to give evidence in accordance with section 22A. The defence case being there was no intention to defraud I was satisfied there was nothing unfair or prejudicial to the defendant in allowing the evidence to be adduced at this stage of the trial. 

32.Madam Liu gave evidence which satisfied the requirements of section 22A.  In cross-examination Madam Liu explained she attended training courses on the computer system operated by the Social Welfare Department.  I was satisfied Madam Liu could give this evidence.  In addition I note in cross-examination the defendant agreed that between the 8 June 2004 and the 31 July 2010 she had received CSSA payments in the total sum of HK$589,134.97.  

Defence evidence

33.The defendant who is 50 years of age, a widow, was born in the Mainland and came to Hong Kong in 1993.  The defendant studied on the Mainland to primary school level.  After her husband passed away in 1998 the defendant did not work and relied on public assistance because she needed to look after the children, a son and daughter, who were 3 and 6 at the time.  The defendant has undergone five operations one in 1996, two in 2009 and two this year in relation to her cervix area.  

Bank accounts and securities accounts

34.In summary the defendant testified that the money in the eleven bank accounts and two securities accounts was money belonging to her mother.  The bank accounts were opened in the name of the defendant because the mother who lived in Mainland China did not have a Hong Kong identity card and was not a resident of Hong Kong.  The defendant explained that initially her mother and father wanted to apply to come to Hong Kong and therefore brought some money to Hong Kong.  Afterwards the mother and father brought money to Hong Kong to make investments.

35.The defendant had no right to use any of the money and withdrew the money only on the instructions of her mother, which money she would then give to her mother.  

36.The defendant said she did ask her mother, who is now 90, to come to Hong Kong to be her witness but because she was too old and sick she was unable to come.

37.Reference is also to be made here to the declarations signed by the defendant on the 23 and 28 June 2010 (exhibits P17B & 17C) in which the defendant said she held and managed the accounts on behalf of her mother and that when arrested on the 5 February 2012 said the money belonged to her mother (see the post recording of arrest as contained in the record of interview, exhibit P2).   

38.When asked by Miss Chong why her mother has such money the defendant replied that all her brothers and sisters are doing business and that her parents own a very large scale vineyard.  In cross-examination after the defendant agreed that it was fair to describe her family in China as rich and successful Mr Haddon-Cave asked the defendant if she thought it strange that her family being rich and successful would let their daughter in Hong Kong be dependent on public assistance.  The defendant replied “I don’t think it is strange.  They are they and me is me.”   The defendant said she did not expect any benefit for helping her mother handle the money.

39.In cross-examination with reference to Capital Assets in section 5 of the Review Form, exhibit P1(d) the defendant agreed she told the Social Welfare officer that her cash in hand was $500 and that she understood that she was asked how much money she had in order for the Social Welfare Department to determine whether she was eligible for CSSA.  Later in evidence when the court drew to the attention of the defendant that she told the bank when opening the Hang Seng Bank account in January 2007 that she had assets of under $200,000 (see HSM 3 in the bankers affirmation, exhibit P15) the defendant said she could not remember the basis on which she had said this.

40.In answer to the court the defendant said that her mother first started giving her money in 2002.  The mother would come to Hong Kong once a year when she would give the defendant money and similarly the defendant would go to the Mainland once a year when the mother would again give her money.  At the beginning the amounts were bigger and after the defendant estimated she had $600,000 her mother gave her $50-60,000 each year. 

Insurance policies

41.Similarly the defendant testified that the five insurance policies were held on behalf of her mother.  Again because her mother did not have a Hong Kong Identity card the policies were not in the mother’s name.  The defendant explained she did not regard these as insurance policies taken out on her life but as investments similar to time deposits.  In cross-examination the defendant said the four policies with Prudential Assurance were not insurance policies and repeated that these were in the form of time deposits.  The defendant said she did it this way because she was told that she would earn more interest and that no one said anything to the defendant about insurance and did not explain the policies to her.

42.With regard to the policy number 000009585239 where the life insured was that of the defendant’s son the defendant said in cross-examination that her son’s name was used because she was told she could earn more interest than if her name was used.  When the court pointed out that one policy number 000009586570 in the name of the defendant was taken out the same day, the 1 May 2004, the defendant explained that she bought the one in her name first and then she was recommended to buy one in her son’s name because this gave the highest rate of interest.

43.The beneficiariesof policy number 000009586570 are stated as the defendant’s son and daughter.  In answer to the court when asked why her son and daughter were named as the beneficiaries the defendant explained that as this was used as investment she was told she could put in any name casually.  This is the same explanation the defendant gave for the naming of her children as beneficiaries in policy number 000009866054 taken out on the 1 January 2007.

Work

Sam Lung

44.The defendant said she did not disclose her income from Sam Lung because she did not think what she did was a job and explained that she did not work at Sam Lung but did a temporary job where she brought home things to do. 

Haw Hae

45.The defendant said she did not disclose her income from Haw Hae because she thought it was just a temporary job and not long term. 

Sing Kee

46.The defendant said she could not recall hearing of the name Sing Kee.

47.The defendant explained prior to charge she did not know she had to disclose short term work as no one explained to her what kind of jobs had to be disclosed when she signed the Review Forms (exhibit P1).  The defendant further said there were communication problems with the officers conducting the reviews and that she had difficulty in understanding them but did not seek clarification because she believed the Social Welfare Department would not deceive her.  In cross-examination the defendant disagreed that by signing the Review Forms she was indicating she understood the content of the forms and repeated she signed because she believed the Social Welfare Department would not deceive her.

48.In answer to the court the defendant said she could not recall where she deposited the cheques received for the wages from Haw Hae and Sam Lung.  The bank records show they were deposited into the accounts with the Chiyu Bank and the Hang Seng Bank (see CYT 2-6 in the bankers affirmation, exhibit P13 and HS 3, 12 & 29 in the bankers affirmation, exhibit P15 as read with the witness statements of the owners of Haw Hae and Sam Lung, exhibits P5, P6 & P11).

49.After this was pointed out to the defendant she was asked why she put her wages in the bank accounts held on behalf of her mother.  The defendant replied that she told her mother about the cheques and that her mother had told her to deposit the cheques in her accounts.  The defendant further said that she did not have to withdraw the money as her mother gave her the cash.  When asked why she did not deposit the wages in her own account with the HSBC the defendant replied that she deposited the cheques into her mother’s accounts for convenience as these were the only banks in the area where she lived.

Verdict

50.I have carefully considered all the evidence and fully familiarized myself with all the documentation.  I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr Haddon-Cave and Miss Chong. 

51.In reaching my verdict I remind myself of the burden and standard of proof and that the burden is on the prosecution throughout.  The defendant has to prove nothing.  I direct myself that I must be sure of the guilt of the defendant before I can convict.  On the other hand if the court thinks that the defence evidence pointing to innocence is true or may be true, it would follow that the defence has raised sufficient doubt in the prosecution case and the defendant entitled to be acquitted.

52.I remind myself that when drawing inferences from the evidence the inference must be a compelling one and the only one that no reasonable man could fail to draw from the direct facts proved.

Rejection of the defendant’s evidence

53.I have no hesitation in rejecting the defendant’s evidence and explanation given when interviewed by the Social Welfare Department in June 2010 and on arrest in February 2012 that the monies in the bank accounts; securities accounts and insurance policies was money belonging to her mother which money she held and managed for her mother. 

54.I do not find the defendant’s evidence credible, for example I do not find credible that if the monies in the accounts were held on behalf of her mother that the defendant would deposit the wages received from Haw Hae and Sam Lung into these accounts and not into her HSBC account (which had been disclosed to the Social Welfare Department).  The explanation that this was for convenience and that her mother would then give her the cash beggars belief. 

55.In addition I do not find credible the defendant did not have capital assets in excess of the eligibility ceiling.  In the Review Forms (exhibits P1(c) to (j)), the capital assets of the defendant are set out in section 5 as read with section 15, which were completed on information provided by the defendant (see paragraph 2 of the admitted facts, exhibit P3).  In particular in the Review Form, exhibit P1(e) the defendant stated on the 25 January 2007 that her cash in hand was $600 and she had $30.40 in the HSBC bank account.  No other assets were declared.  This is inconsistent with what the defendant said seven days earlier when applying to open a bank account with the Hang Seng Bank.  As can be seen from the account application form (HSM 1-7, exhibit P15) it is stated in answer to question 3 on page 3 (HSM 3) that the defendant’s total net wealth is less than $200,000.  

Insurance policies

56.Even accepting that insurance is a form of investment I find inherently improbable that if the monies belonged to the defendant’s mother that the insurance policies were not on the life of the mother but rather four policies were taken out on the life of the defendant with the beneficiaries of two of the policies being the defendant’s children and one policy was taken out on the life of her son.    

57.I do not find credible the explanation in cross-examination that policy number 000009585239 was taken out on the life of the son because she was told she could earn more interest than if her name was used.  On the very same day the defendant also entered into an insurance policy number 000009586570 on her own life. Equally incredible is the defendant’s answer to court that the beneficiaries of this policy were the two children because the defendant was told she could put in any name casually, an explanation which the defendant says was given to her again nearly three years later when she entered into policy number 000009866054 on her own life with her children as the beneficiaries. 

58.Nor do I find credible the explanation in cross-examination that the defendant was never told these were insurance policies and the forms were never explained to her before she signed.  The proposal forms signed by the defendant, which I note are bilingual forms, make very clear they are insurance policies on the life of the insured.

59.I also note the explanation that because the mother had no Hong Kong identity card and therefore could not take out the policies is inconsistent with the proposal forms which clearly allow for non HK residents to be the policy holder (see for example part 1, section 2 in respect of policy numbers 000009454798; 000009586570 and 000009866054, exhibit P4, PRU1; PRU 16 and PRU 21).

Work

60.I do not find credible the defendant did not think that it was necessary to disclose what she called temporary jobs with Sam LungandHaw Hae.  Whether called part time work, temporary work or piece work which the defendant did at home the fact remains the defendant was working from which she received income.  In the case of Sam Lung the work was over a period in excess of two years and was actually being undertaken when the Review Forms, exhibits P1(e) & (f) were signed where the defendant declared she had no job and said that if there was other income apart from CSSA payments she would inform the Social Welfare Department (see paragraph 15 of the Review Forms).  I reject the defendant’s evidence she did not know she had to disclose this income. 

61.I remind myself that the rejection of the defence evidence is not determinative of the issues in the case.  The defendant has to prove nothing.  A case in which defence evidence is called and is not believed is no different from one in which no evidence is called.  In either case the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

62.Before turning to whether the prosecution have proved the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt I wish to deal with two submissions made by Mr Haddon-Cave. Mr Haddon-Cave submits that section 5 of the Review Forms (exhibit P1) make clear that all assets in the defendant’s name or children’s name should be declared and therefore even if the assets were those of her mother’s then she was still under an obligation to declare the assets (see paragraph 16 of Mr Haddon-Cave’s written submission).  I do not agree section 5 states everything in one’s own name shall be declared.  Even if that is the policy of the Social Welfare Department, of which I have heard no evidence, the charge before the court is not failure to disclose simpliciter but failure to disclose with intent to defraud the Social Welfare Department. 

63.In the declaration (exhibit P17B) the defendant said: “I failed to report some incomes”. Mr Haddon-Cave submits that this is confirmation that the defendant intentionally hid the income from the Social Welfare Department in order to deceive them into granting her CSSA payments (see paragraphs 22 & 23 of Mr Haddon-Cave’s written submission).  In my view this statement is no more than confirmation that the defendant failed to disclose the income and not an admission of fraud.

64.Having carefully considered all the evidence I accept the evidence of Liu Pui Yee (PW1) and Kwong Wai Ming (PW2).  I am satisfied so I am sure full weight is to be attached to the witness statements read under section 65B (save for the employer of Sing Kee, exhibit P7), the bankers affirmations and the certificate (exhibit P16) relating to one insurance policy as read together with the admitted facts, exhibit P3.  With regard to Sing Kee as the employer no longer has any details as to the work I place no weight on the evidence in his witness statement.

65.I find as a fact that:

(i) between the 8 June 2004 and the 31 July 2010 the defendant received CSSA payments in the total sum of HK$589,134.97;

(ii) the defendant failed to disclose assets held in the eleven bank accounts, two securities accounts and the five insurance policies together with income received from part time work with Haw Hae and Sam Lung; and

(iii) that if the assets in the eleven bank accounts, two securities accounts and the five insurance policies had been disclosed the defendant would not have been entitled to any CSSA payments for the period 8 June 2004 to 31 July 2010.

66.I am satisfied so I am sure the defendant in the eight Review Forms falsely represented to the Social Welfare Department her assets and income. 

67.I am satisfied so I am sure that by concealing the bank accounts; the securities accounts and the insurance policies the only inference to draw is that the defendant did not want the Social Welfare Department to know about these assets because she knew this would affect her entitlement to CSSA. 

68.I am satisfied so I am sure that by concealing the work with Sam Lung and Haw Hae and not depositing into her HSBC bank account the wages from Sam Lung and Haw Hae the only inference to draw is that the defendant did not want the Social Welfare Department to know about this work and the income she received because she knew this would affect her entitlement to CSSA.     

69.Applying the test in R v Ghosh [1982] 1 QB 1053 I am satisfied that in concealing the assets and income the defendant was acting dishonestly.  I am satisfied so I am sure the defendant by deceit and with intent to defraud induced the Social Welfare Department to pay her CSSA in the total sum of $589,134.97.

70.In reaching my findings I have carefully considered everything said by Miss Chong both individually and collectively, including the defendant’s evidence that the bank accounts, securities accounts and insurance policies were monies held and managed by the defendant for her mother who could not open a bank account in Hong Kong is consistent with what the defendant told the Social Welfare officer in 2010 and on arrest in 2012 and that the defendant being a widow without gainful employment where else could the money have come from if it was not given by her mother.  Nothing said by Miss Chong causes me to doubt the only inference to draw is that the defendant by deceit concealed the assets and income with intent to defraud the Social Welfare Department. 

71.I am satisfied so I am sure there are no material and significant discrepancies, improbabilities or omissions in the evidence, which cause me to doubt the findings I have made.  I am satisfied so I am sure the prosecution have proved all the elements of the charge (save for reference to Sing Kee) beyond reasonable doubt.  The defendant is convicted as charged.