HKSAR v. Shi Quan Jie

DCCC 236/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 236 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleads guilty to two charges of credit card frauds.

Summary of facts

2.The facts admitted by the defendant are familiar. 

3.On 12 February year 2015, the defendant attempted to use a forged VISA credit card, subject matter of Charge 1, to buy a gold chain from Luk Fook Jewellery shop in Mong Kok.

4.The transaction could not go through because the card centre informed the shop that the card was a forgery.  The shop assistant duly reported the matter to the police.

5.Two police officers came to the shop and arrested the defendant.  Inside the defendant’s wallet, a Chinese identity card and five more bank cards were found.  Amongst them, four VISA cards were confirmed to be false instruments, which form the subject matters of Charge 2. All the forged credit cards were in the name of “Jiang Tao”.

6.Under caution, the defendant admitted that he bought those cards in Shenzhen.

7.Travel index confirmed that the defendant entered Hong Kong on 10 February 2015.

Mitigation

8.In mitigation, defence solicitor told me that the defendant worked as a salesman in Shenzhen, earning RMB3,000 to 4,000 a month.  He is single and has a sick father to support.

9.He said the reason for committing the offences was because he wanted to buy a gold chain for his girlfriend.  He said he was foolish and greedy and now he asks for a chance.

10.He understands that immediate custodial sentence is inevitable, but he hopes to return to China as soon as possible so as to look after his father.

Sentence

11.Right at the outset, I must put in clear and unequivocal terms that I do not accept the defendant’s reason for committing the offences.  If his intention was to buy a gold chain, why would he need several forged cards?  There was every indication that he was to embark on a series of fraudulent purchases, yet he was stopped right at the beginning.

12.I have carefully considered the facts of the case and everything that could possibly be said on the defendant’s behalf by Miss Wong.

13.I have also read the judgments cited by Miss Wong in mitigation.

14.The sentencing guidelines for credit card frauds can be found in R v Chan Sui To & Anor, CACC 115/1996.

15.In HKSAR v Cheung Ka Wo Johnny, the Court of Appeal furthered that the potential for losses was the most important consideration in sentencing.

16.In the present case, whilst it is recognised that neither the shop nor the bank had suffered any loss, and also the police were unable to confirm the potential losses, the court still has to take into account of such important factor.

17.Miss Wong is right in pointing out that the customary starting point for each charge would be in the region of 3 years.

18.By reason of totality, the two sentences should run concurrently.

19.The defendant pleads guilty to the charges, so he is entitled to full one-third discount.

20.There is no other mitigating factor justifying further reduction.

21.I hereby impose a term of 2 years for each charge, which are to run concurrently.