HKSAR v. Wu Ping Yang, Jimmy

DCCC 114/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 114 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant in this case has pleaded guilty to two charges. The first charge is one of using copies of false instruments, contrary to section 74 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. The particulars are that on 12 November 2010 at Citibank in Hong Kong, he used copies of instruments which he knew or believed to be false. The documents concerned were five copies of what purported to be proof of funds issued by Citibank Singapore. He produced these documents to the staff at the Hong Kong bank with the intent for the staff there to accept them as genuine and to act to the prejudice of the bank. The 2nd charge is failing to answer bail on 28 May 2012 in respect of these proceedings.

2.On 15 October 2010, the defendant, who is a Taiwanese National but not resident in Hong Kong, went to the Citibank branch in the Cheong Hing Building in Nathan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong and he was there served by Miss Tam Chi-sum who was PW1 in these proceedings.  The defendant informed her that he required services of investment and would be depositing US dollars into the account.  Miss Tam assisted the defendant in opening a personal bank account (“the account”) with the bank with a total of eight bank services and investment items.  The account number was 84711280. The defendant told PW1 that the amount of money going in and out of the account would exceed US$1 million.  He was told that because of the large amounts that was intended to go through the account there would need to be some proof of the source of such funds. 

3.Four weeks later on 12 November 2010, the defendant went to the bank again and was again served by PW1 and he produced the five documents all dated 18 October 2010, which are the subject of charge 1.  The documents were purportedly issued by Citibank Singapore relating to the defendant’s account with the Singapore branch and the first document is a letter confirming funds availability of account 5344-1647-23 held in the name of Wu Ping-yang.

4.The second document was a confirmation of balance in relation to that account.  The third document purported to be a “Tear Sheet”.  There was also a letter of the same date regarding the confirmation of account status and proof of fund.

5.According to these documents, there was US$10 billion in the defendant’s Singapore account.  The defendant also produced a letter signed by him authorising the disclosure of information regarding the Singapore account.  When the defendant presented these documents to PW1 he knew or believed that the documents were false and he presented them in order to deceive her into accepting them as genuine, thus caused prejudice to the bank. 

6.The documents which he presented to the bank were passed on to a Miss Sze, PW2, on 12 November and PW2 made enquiries as to their authenticity with the Compliance Department of Citibank in Singapore the same day.  It was later confirmed that day that the documents had not been issued by Citibank and the account number 5344-1647-23 did not exist.

7.The defendant was arrested on 7 December 2011 by the police when he entered Hong Kong via the Lo Wu Control Point.  There was video-recorded interview with the defendant in which he admitted that he had opened a bank account at Citibank Hong Kong.  He admitted that he presented the documents to PW1 and said that they had been printed out from his e-mail.  He maintained that because of the size of the deposit in the Singapore account not every bank staff could access the account information.  He said it could only be accessed by a Swift password code system.  On 12 November 2011, he had US$10 billion in the Singapore account and was the owner of that account.  He maintained that the Sales Department could not access the information without a certificate of funds from him. 

8.The defendant was eventually released on bail in the sum of $100,000 and was due to stand trial at the District Court in Wanchai on 28 May 2012.  When he failed to attend, a warrant was issued for his arrest. On 26 March 2014, the defendant was arrested in Central, Hong Kong and brought back to Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station where he was cautioned.  He remained silent.  The defendant failed to surrender himself to custody without reasonable excuse.

9.The defendant is now aged 63.  He was born in Taiwan and educated to university level.  I am told that he had worked previously as a merchant in Taiwan, that he had his own investment business and earned the equivalent of HK$20,000 to HK$30,000 per month.  He is married with two daughters.  The younger daughter is now aged 19 and attending university in Taipei.  His elder daughter is 31 and married.  I am told that his wife is 56 years of age and sadly she has the hereditary disease Lupus for which she is receiving medical attention.  He has elderly parents in their nineties and I am told that his brother is not well and has been in and out of hospital.

10.The defendant initially pleaded not guilty to the two charges before the court.  I presided at the hearing and adjourned for reasons for verdict to be delivered.  On the day the verdict was to be delivered, the defendant indicated that he wished to call further evidence.  He subsequently dismissed the counsel who had represented him at the trial and a new counsel had to be found.  The case was further adjourned on two occasions with a view to further witnesses to be brought before the court.  On the defendant’s last court appearance I was told by counsel that he wished to enter a guilty plea to both charges and the case was adjourned so that a Summary of Facts could be agreed between the prosecution and the defence. 

11.Today, the defendant admitted both charges and admitted the Summary of Facts.  I am told by counsel that the defendant had some misunderstanding with relation to the charges which he faced.  He now accepts that he is guilty of both charges. 

12.In relation to the 2nd charge, failing to answer bail, he alleged at trial that the reason he failed to appear was because he was threatened.  Today, he still maintains that he was threatened but he accepts that that was no reason not to answer his bail.  I heard evidence in relation to that allegation and I did not accept that he was threatened and I was sure that he had no reason not to answer bail. 

13.Normally when a defendant pleads guilty to a charge the starting point for sentence would be reduced by about one-third to reflect the defendant’s remorse and saving of court time.  However, the circumstances in this case are very different.  I have failed to come across a case where a guilty plea has been entered at such a late stage.

14.I heard all the evidence in this case and I was sure the defendant lied to the court when he gave evidence.  He made allegations against the police which in my view were not true.  A witness was called from Singapore.  So this is a case where there has been no saving of court time or public expense. 

15.However, I accept that he now does plead guilty and that is accompanied by a change of representation, so I accept that he is entitled to some credit, albeit the plea was entered at a very late stage. 

16.Turning to the 1st charge, the courts have said that substantial sentences of imprisonment should be imposed for this kind of offence.  The maximum sentence is 14 years.  The defendant opened an account with Citibank in Hong Kong and attempted to pass off bogus bank documentation indicating that he had access to US$10 billion.  He told the bank that he wished to invest about US$1 million into the account. 

17.I had no doubt, and he now accepts, that the documentation was false and I am satisfied the defendant knew they were false. I am sure that the defendant intended to open the bank account in Hong Kong with a view to introducing substantial sums of money into the account from a non-verified source.  This sort of offence is not committed on the spur of the moment, it involves a degree of planning.  There is an international dimension to this case: the defendant is from Taiwan; he appears to be familiar with the banking system in Singapore; the false documentation he produced to the bank purported to be issued by a bank in Singapore and when he gave his evidence in this case he claimed to have been employed at one time by an American company and had business connections with companies on the mainland and elsewhere. Fortunately the deception was spotted by the bank staff and no loss was occasioned. 

18.In my view, a starting point of 4 years and 6 months is appropriate.  I have considered the guilty plea that has been entered at the late stage and what, if any, deduction should be made from that in view of the guilty plea.  I have decided to reduce the sentence by 3 months to 4 years and 3 months.

19.As regards the 2nd charge, in my view an appropriate sentence is 2 months’ imprisonment and I order that that sentence should run consecutive to the sentence on the 1st charge. 

20.So the defendant will go to prison for 4 years and 5 months.