HKSAR v. Woo Mei Bo, Mable

DCCC 343/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 343 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant, Madam Woo Mei-bo, Mable, stands convicted of Charge 1, “Using a False Instrument”; Charge 2, “Possessing a False Instrument”; and Charge 3, “Using a Copy of a False Instrument”, after trial.

2.The aforesaid three charges concern false bank documents used and possessed by the defendant.  The subject matter of Charge 1 purportedly shows that the defendant had HK$19.8 billion in her BOC account on 4 March 2011.  Charge 2 concerned a false instrument found during the house search following the arrest of the defendant on 26 July 2012.  The document in question purportedly states that the defendant had US$200 million in her HSBC account. Charge 3 concerns a copy of a false instrument.  The document in question states that the defendant had on 4 March 2011 HK$39.8 billion in her HSBC account.

3.The defendant used the subject matters of Charge 1 and Charge 3 on a financial middleman on 4 March 2011.  The defendant told the financial middleman that she had a railway project and she was in need of HK$100 billion.  She required financing for the railway project, and she produced the false instruments as proof of funds.

4.The financial middleman accepted the false documents as genuine documents and believed the defendant was a person of considerable means.  Eventually he was able to find a consortium who was interested in investing money into the railway project of the defendant.

5.Then the defendant threatened to pull out from the financing scheme.  The financial middleman was told the defendant was going to put an end to the financial arrangements.  The financial middleman would stand to lose all his remunerations and commissions if the financial scheme or the investment project failed to proceed.  The defendant asked the financial middleman for a loan of US$1 million.  The defendant indicated that she would carry on with the financial arrangement if the financial middleman was able to provide her with a loan of US$1 million.

6.The financial middleman acceded to the defendant’s request, and he found a Mr Cheung, who was prepared to invest US$1 million in the matter.  The sum was deposited into a bank account designated by the defendant.  Then nothing was heard of about the railway project, and the loan provided remained outstanding apart from a partial payment of HK$1.5 million a few months later.

7.The case took place in March 2011.  The defendant was arrested in July 2012.  Following the arrest of the defendant, a house search was carried out at the residence of the defendant, and the subject matter of Charge 2, a false bank document, was found by the ICAC officers.  The false instrument is a document purportedly issued by the HSBC and states that the defendant had US$200 million in her account.

8.The defendant is a 49-year-old lady with many previous convictions.  In 1982 she was convicted of two counts of theft and one of giving false information to police officers.  In 2002 she was convicted of one count of obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception, one of evasion of liability by deception, and four counts of theft. In 2004 she was again convicted of one count of procuring the making of an entry in the certain records of a bank by deception, three counts of obtaining property by deception, and six counts of theft.

9.Mr Kwok in mitigation submitted that the decision to lend US$1 million on the part of Mr Cheung, PW2 in this case, appears to be one made overnight by the witness.  The defendant had not by conduct or by words persuaded the victim to lend her the money.

10.Mr Kwok told me the defendant is a mother of seven children aged between 16 to 25, and three of them are still at school.

11.The present case is a very serious case of using false instruments.  With the use of P1 and P3, the defendant succeeded to swindle HK$7.8 million from PW2, Mr Cheung. Mr Cheung at the end suffered a total loss of HK$6.3 million, as he received HK$1.5 million as partial payment sum after he had lent the money to the defendant.

12.The evidence shows that the defendant acted with a Taiwanese Wang Tsung‑hsi and an Indonesian, Djohan Pangestu.

13.The act of using the false Bank of China document in fact took place at the coffee shop located at the lobby of Bank of China building, and in the afternoon on the same day, the defendant used the subject matter of Charge 2.

14.The crimes committed by the defendant were premeditated and were executed with great care.  The evidence shows that the defendant benefited from the crimes.  The moneys deposited into the designated account were used by the defendant.

15.In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the facts of this case and the amount of money suffered by Mr Cheung.

16.The defendant is not a person of clear record.  In fact, the criminal record of the defendant shows that she is a seasoned fraudster.

17.In my judgment, Charge 1 and Charge 3 call for a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant has shown no remorse throughout the trial.  As for Charge 2, a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.

18.For the reasons given, on Charge 1, I sentence the defendant to 6 years’ imprisonment.  On Charge 2, I sentence the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment.  On Charge 3, I sentence the defendant to 6 years’ imprisonment.

19.Bearing totality in mind, I order all terms of imprisonment for Charge 1, 2 and 3 are to run concurrently with each other.