HKSAR v. Chan Yiu Keung and Others

DCCC 398/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 398 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge

1.D1 to D11 plead guilty to conspiracy to forge documents, contrary to sections 71, 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. 

Facts

The Car Testing Centre

2.At all material times, D1 to D11 were the Approved Car Testers (ACT) of Dah Chong Hong (Motor Service Centre) Limited (DCH) stationed at Honda Service Centre (HSC), 2/F, 20 Kai Cheung Road, Kowloon Bay.  HSC comprises a service centre and a car testing centre (CTC).

3.According to Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374, private cars over 6 years and light goods vehicles not exceeding 1.9 tones are required to undertake an annual roadworthiness examination (RE) at a CTC designated by the Transport Department (TD).  Upon passing the RE, relevant Certificate of Roadworthiness (COR) would be issued by the handling ACT for the owner to renew the licence of the vehicle.  The COR will specify the type of the vehicle and that it has been examined at the Centre and was found to be roadworthy and to comply with the requirements of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374.  The COR concerned will then be submitted to TD as one of the required supporting documents for the extension of the vehicle’s licence.

4.The standardized examination fees charge by each CTC for private cars and light goods vehicles are $530 and $630 respectively and $165 and $210 respectively for re-examination within 14 calendar days in case of failure in the first examination. The CTC of DCH in Kowloon Bay is one of the 22 CTCs in Hong Kong.

Requirement for RE

5.TD requires CTC and ACT to perform the RE according to the Code of Practice (Code), Tester Manual (Manual) and advisory letters issued by TD from time to time and the RE must be conducted strictly according to the required standard.  The Code and the Manual both clearly stipulated how the RE should be conducted and under what circumstances, the vehicle should be considered as failing the RE.

6.RE is to be conducted by an ACT supervised by the Responsible Persons (RP) of each CTC.  Both ACT and RP are conferred by TD upon successfully completion of training courses conducted by TD.  RP may also perform the duties of ACT but not vice versa.  RE includes visual inspection, tests on brakes (on all relevant wheels), smoke emission, head lamp, wheels & tyres, steering systems, general items including speedometer and under carriage inspection.  Brake and smoke emission tests are major items and have to be carried out by the relevant machines which would print out the data of relevant test results.  ACT are required to fill in an Inspection Form/Defect List (IF/DL), inform the car owner/its representative of the result and input the results into a computer which is directly linked to TD.

7.TD requires the RP to conduct about 10% random checks on vehicles inspected by their ACT daily.  TD would conduct ad hoc inspections at each CTC.  If any irregularity is identified, actions would be taken including issuance of warning letter(s) to the ACT/RP and the relevant CTC. For serious breaches, TD may revoke the designation of the CTC and take appropriate action against the relevant ACT/RP.

8.LUNG Wai-hing (LUNG) was the Service Manager and overall-in-charge of HSC.  He joined HSC on 12 March 2007 and had the discretion to decide the amount of bonuses to be received by each ACT/RP and the staff deployment at HSC.  CHAN Wai-chong (CHAN) was the designated Foreman of CTC responsible for supervising the work of ACT thereat.  CHAN replaced the former Foreman LIU Sun-hung (LIU) who retired in 2010.  Foreman CHAK Tse-hon (PW1), CHEUNG Tsz-lok, CHENG Wai-ping, who were posted at the service centre, would rotate to act as RP in the CTC from time to time.

9.In HSC, there were about 19 ACT/RP, including D1 to D11, WONG Hing-ki, NGAI Hay-biu, WONG Kin-hing, CHEUNG Hung-chi, HUI Kin-fung and three newly qualified ACT.  D1, D2 and D3 were also RP having supervisory duties on ACT.  D1 and D2 only became RP in April 2011.  TD required at least two RP on duty per shift.  They would be deployed to either the service centre or the CTC and were required to work on shifts by turns.  Their remuneration included basic salary, monthly production bonus and annual bonus.  The amount of bonus would be proportionate to the number of vehicles repaired and tested.

10.Since 1996, DCH has been operating a business promotion program “DCH Motor Club” to retain and build up loyalty of their customers.  Membership is free and different membership cards will be issued to different classes of customers.  Club members can exclusively enjoy benefits and privileges, including bonus point rewards and discounts on purchase of franchised spare parts.  For Garage club members, they are issued with “Garage VIP” cards and this later serves as a means of identifying vehicles taken by garages to the car test centre for examination.

PW1’s Complaint to ICAC

11.PW1 reported the case to ICAC in May 2011, complaining that after LUNG joined HSC on 12 March 2007 the ACT and RP were pressurized by LUNG directly or indirectly to adopt a lax attitude during the RE of vehicles presented by garages as opposed to individuals, and the majority of those garages were VIP members of DCH, so that HSC could secure more business from these garages.  Because of fear of losing their job they agreed. A practice of giving favour in the testing of vehicles taken by garages to CTC then came into existence soon thereafter in which all ACT and RP took part.  This practice involved passing vehicles taken to HSC for RE even though some of them could not meet the standard required by TD.

12.After vehicles were taken to the car testing centre but before testing the vehicles cashiers of HSC had to process the relevant vehicle IF/DL; they were able to differentiate vehicles that were presented by garages and were instructed to pre-write the vehicle registration numbers of these vehicles on the relevant IF/DL before passing the document onto the respective ACT. This enabled the ACT to identify the vehicles they were to conduct tests on which were to be given preferential treatment.

13.In putting this plan into practice the RP and ACT would pass most of the RE of these vehicles even if they did not pass all the relevant RE tests.  They would use various means to assist them in passing the tests, including some of them using the test results of the other vehicles purporting them to be the test results of the failed vehicles.  Some would dispense with the visual inspection or ignore any visual defects.  Some might even pass the tests for vehicles they had not even seen and no test was conducted by them.  In his estimation, vehicles taken to CTC by garages amounted to some 80% to 90% of vehicles taken for RE in the CTC. About 10 to 20% of vehicles were taken there by individuals. On each occasion for vehicles taken to CTC by garages, after the RE, the RP or ACT concerned would issue a Private Car COR or a Light Goods Vehicles COR to the vehicle alleging that it was found to be roadworthy and to have complied with the requirements of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374 and its related regulations. The issue of a COR enabled the vehicles owners to successfully apply to TD for renewal of the vehicle licence.

14.On the other hand, in order to maintain the passing rate at a level not seen to be too high, some ACT and RP would look for defects and to fail the RE of those vehicles not presented by garages; and they were able to identify the vehicles as no vehicle registration number has been prewritten on the IF/DL.

15.According to the Annual Report of TD, between 2007 and 2011, the CTC of DCH in Kowloon Bay conducted a total of 155,230 RE.  The passing rate was maintained at around 91 to 94 percent per year.  The number of vehicles conducted RE thereat increased from 25,553 in 2007 to 34,837 in 2011.

Arrest

16.On 7 and 8 November 2011, D1 to D11 were arrested and interviewed under caution.

Video Cautioned Interview of D1

17.When interviewed by ICAC D1 made various admissions. He joined DCH in 1979.  He became an ACT in 2002 and RP in 2011.  He started to work in HSC in about 2007. 

18.LUNG had occasionally during meetings, instructed him and the ACT to adopt a lax/lenient attitude when conducting RE on vehicles sent by garages.  He understood that means to pass those vehicles that should have been failed if there were no serious problems such as smoke emission test. Reluctantly, he agreed and followed the instruction as he was only an employee.  On average, he conducted RE on 40 to 50 vehicles per week and about 10 of them should have been failed.  If the smoke emission was not up to standard, he would use the smoke emission test result of another vehicle to supplement in order to make the failed car pass the test.  This would happen in 1 out 10 of the vehicles examined by him which normally involved problem of light fitting getting loose.  He was under the pressure from LUNG to do so or otherwise, his appraisal and bonuses would be affected.  Before LUNG gave such instructions, LIU and the other retired manager had also given the same instructions.  In the CTC, not only he but all the ACT/RP did the same malpractice.

Video Cautioned Interview of D2

19.When interviewed by ICAC D2 made various admissions. He joined DCH about 30 years ago as apprentice.  He became ACT in 1990 and RP in 2011.  Apart from monthly salary, he also received monthly bonus subject to his productivities.  In the CTC, he worked mainly under CHAN. 

20.He regarded those garages issued with VIP cards as VIP.  He could identify them if the vehicle registration numbers were pre-written on the IF/DL by the cashiers.  He would try to pass these kinds of vehicles as much as possible for minor problems and allow them to fix it at the scene.  These happened to 1 to 2 out of 10 vehicles from VIP but for those non-VIP vehicles, he might fail them first.  In order not to offend the garages and affect the business turn over, he would let the vehicles pass as far as possible.  When he conducted smoke emission test on the garage vehicles, he would adjust pressure on the oil pedals to make them pass.  For those vehicles which slightly failed the brake test, he would apply the hand brakes in order to make them pass.  He had discussed these handling methods with LIU and CHAN and had reached agreement with them.  Where the vehicles should be marginally failed, he would not decide but leave it with the RP, mainly CHAN.  When CHAN decided to pass the vehicles, he would then agree with CHAN and issue the COR. Subsequently, it became long standing practices in the CTC.  In 2011 when conducting RE for a vehicle, he could not even find the vehicle.  He had asked the duty RP and was told that the vehicle was still under repair and not yet arrived.  However, he still issued a COR to the duty RP, possibly CHAN, by using test results of another vehicle under the instruction of the duty RP.

Video Cautioned Interviews of D3

21.When interviewed by ICAC D3 made various admissions. He joined DCH about 1983 as technician.  He became an ACT in 1994.

22.Most of the vehicles went through RE were sent by garages.  He had issued COR to those vehicles sent from garages which should have failed in RE.  Since about 3 years ago, LUNG had told him and other ACT in meetings that they should adopt a more lenient attitude and pass the vehicles as much as they could on garages vehicles, should treat garage vehicles better and faster and not to vex their customers so as to obtain more business, and should try their best to allow those vehicles to pass the RE.  He knew that this was wrong but he reluctantly followed LUNG’s instruction for fear of losing his job as LUNG was his boss.  Hence he would pass those vehicles sent from garages for minor defects such as dust cover damages which should have failed in RE under the requirement of TD.  For dangerous items, he would consult CHAN and let him make the decision.  For items which were too dangerous, he would not give a pass himself.   He could distinguish garage vehicles from other vehicles as the vehicle registration numbers were pre-written on the IF/DLs for VIP vehicles.

Video Cautioned Interviews of D4

23.When interviewed by ICAC D4 made various admissions. He joined DCH in 1992 as Mechanic B and was later promoted to Mechanic A. He became ACT in about 2006. 

24.During company meetings, LUNG and CHAN told all the ACT/RP that if the vehicle registration numbers were pre-written by the cashier on the IF/DLs, a lax/lenient attitude had to be adopted.  He understood it meant that the vehicles were from garages and if the defects were not dangerous, he had to let them pass the RE even they should have been failed. He agreed as he could not disobey his supervisors’ instructions as he needed the job.  When a vehicle from a garage failed in the smoke emission test, he would use the machine print out of another vehicle to substitute and this was taught to him by CHAN.  For the brake system test, he would either apply the brake with more force or would use the test result of another vehicle to substitute in order to pass the test.  The malpractices started from 2006 and after LUNG joined DCH, the situation got worse.  All the ACT in the CTC carried out the malpractices in the same way.  On average, he made 5 to 8 failed vehicles pass the RE each day.  The malpractices would temporarily stop when officers of TD conduct inspections at the CTC.  He understood that LUNG and CHAN wanted to secure more business from garage and hence instructed the ACT to adopt lax/lenient attitude to garage vehicles.  These would also affect his bonuses as they were calculated on the number of RE he conducted.  On an occasion which took place a few months before he was arrested, he was to conduct RE on a vehicle which did not show up.  However, after consulting CHAN, he still issued COR by using test results of another vehicle.

Video Cautioned Interview of D5

25.When interviewed by ICAC D5 made various admissions. He joined DCH since 1988 as apprentice and became an ACT in 2010.

26.He agreed and followed the malpractice of other ACT in passing the vehicles presented by the garages that should have been failed in the RE.  It had long been the practice of other ACT, and he learnt from and followed his senior colleagues’ practice as he started to work as an ACT.  He was told by other ACT that the malpractice was directed from the DCH management.  All ACT in DCH had carried on the malpractice for a long time.  For brake test, he would intentionally step slowly on the brakes pedals to create smooth data in order to obtain a pass result for the vehicle presented by garages.  For smoke emission test, he would adjust the petrol pedals and the readings of the testing machine to create a pass result for the vehicles presented by garages which should have been failed.  He could recognize the staff members of garages who presented their vehicles for RE from their VIP cards and the IF/DL with pre-written car registration number prepared by DCH’s receptionists, and he would conduct the RE quickly and with a lax attitude.  LUNG and CHAN had told all ACT to adopt a lax attitude on vehicles presented by garages for RE.  D5 had used satisfactory data of other vehicles to substitute for those vehicles presented by garages that failed in the RE and made them pass.  In conducting RE on vehicles presented by garages, he would, however, not pass vehicles if they involved items that he thought would create immediate safety concerns or if the shortcomings were serious.  He had never passed the RE for any vehicles he had not seen or without conducting any test. He would conduct the examination strictly when the vehicles were presented by vehicle owners other than garages.  However, he would not intentionally fail those vehicles which should have passed the RE.  

Video Cautioned Interviews of D6

27.When interviewed by ICAC D6 made various admissions. He joined DCH more than 20 years ago for vehicle repair and became an ACT about three years ago.  He worked for both service centre and the CTC in turn.  His income includes basic salary and a monthly production bonus calculated in accordance with the number of vehicles he repaired and tested during the month.  He also received annual bonus which depends on the yearly business performance of DCH. 

28.On the first day when he performed ACT duties, he was told by LIU that if he got IF/DLs with the vehicle registration numbers pre-written by the cashier, they were VIP vehicles from garages.  In such cases unless there was danger in relation to the vehicle, he should allow them to pass the RE.  Reluctantly, he agreed and followed LIU’s instructions.  During a meeting with about 20 ACT where he was also present, LUNG repeated LIU’s instructions about adopting lax/lenient attitude on VIP vehicles and added that this was in order to secure more business from garages.  The ratio of the garage vehicles to other vehicles would be around 7- 8 out of 10 and about 5 - 6 of the VIP vehicles had minor defects and 1-2 cars had serious problem.  Only for the first few times when he came across the problem of letting go those garage vehicles that should be failed, he had consulted LIU or other RP including CHAN for directions.  If the problem is serious, he must report to RP.  When they told him to pass those vehicles he had reluctantly agreed and issued the COR.  For vehicles with substandard smoke emission or braking results, he would, under the instruction of LIU, use the result of other vehicles to substitute.  Everyone at CTC followed the same malpractice. For non-VIP vehicles, they would tighten up the standard.   On around 3 to 4 occasions, some vehicles in fact did not exist for RE, but he was still instructed by the RP, including LIU, to issue COR using the test results of other vehicles.  He agreed and followed such illegal instructions for fear of offending his supervisors.

Video Cautioned Interviews of D7

29.When interviewed by ICAC D7 made various admissions. He joined DCH in 1993 as vehicle maintenance technician and became an ACT in 2008.  His monthly salary was about $10,000 plus monthly bonus. 

30.During company meetings LUNG instructed he and other ACT that for the sake of business, they should adopt a lax attitude when conducting the RE on vehicles from the garages and let them pass even though they should have been failed unless it involved dangerous matters.  For fear of losing his job, he agreed and followed.  For things like if the dust covers of CV joints were broken, despite it should be failed under the TD requirement, he would still pass the vehicle and allow the other side to fix it afterwards.  He could recognize the staff members of the garages by their faces as they were frequent customers.  LIU had also told him to ignore problems such as one of the lights and windows was not functioning properly.  He followed because he thought these items created no immediate danger unless the shortcomings were serious. For the smoke emission test, he would use the satisfactory test data slip of other vehicles onto the vehicles presented by garages that failed the RE and made them pass.  However, he never passed the RE for any vehicles he had not seen or without conducting any test. For vehicles presented by car owners, he and the other ACT would act in accordance with the TD requirements and fail them when they could not meet the standard.  Had he not been instructed by LUNG, LIU or CHAN to adopt lax attitude on garage vehicles, and had he not been in the fear of losing his job for disobeying his supervisors, he would have followed the instruction of TD during the RE.  The ACT would discuss amongst themselves the methods of turning the vehicles that failed in the brake and emission tests into pass.  The ratio for garage vehicles was around 6 to 7 out of 10.  Among these D7 would pass 1 to 2 which in fact should fail the RE.

Video Cautioned Interviews of D8

31.When interviewed by ICAC D8 made various admissions. He joined DCH in 1980 as an apprentice when its address was in San Po Kong.  In 1982 or 1983, D8 was posted to the present address in Kowloon Bay and he was subsequently promoted to a vehicle maintenance technician and become an ACT. 

32.LUNG, in a meeting and in subsequent meetings with ACT about 6 months after his joining DCH 4 or 5 years ago, had instructed the ACT to conduct the RE faster by adopting a more lax attitude towards vehicles sent from garages so that more vehicles would be sent to DCH from garages for vehicle examination.  He understood that to mean that he was to pass those vehicles with less serious defects but no immediate risk of danger even if these defects may warrant a failed test.  He reluctantly agreed and followed the instructions of LUNG for fear of losing his job.  He would pass those garage vehicles even if they could have been failed in the RE.  At the beginning, when there was real risk of danger on a garage vehicle, he would consult a RP.  However, since the RP would still direct him to pass the test and would even scold him for asking as they thought he was causing trouble, subsequently he desisted from consulting the RP but passed the garage vehicles even if there was risk of danger.  He could recognize the garage vehicle if the cashier had marked down the vehicle registration onto the IF/DL.  Where the brake efficiency reading failed during the test, he would input a lesser weight figure into the brake testing machine purportedly showing that the vehicle lighter than it was so as to create a satisfactory data for passing the brake test.  For smoke emission test, he sometimes would press the oil pedal longer to create a satisfactory data which was not permitted by TD.  He had come across vehicles the brakes of which had failed but he might have used another vehicle to perform the test and substituted the satisfactory result onto the failed vehicle.  In case of failing in the smoke emission test, he sometimes would also use the satisfactory result of other vehicles to substitute in order to expedite the services as requested by the customers.  He had been asked by LIU to sign and CTC issue a COR to a vehicle which he had not actually examined or seen at the CTC.  He admitted that in the CTC, more than 90% of the garage vehicles would obtain a pass because of what the ACT had done as indicated above. In the interview, Prior to LUNG’s instructions, the former foremen LIU had given similar instructions to him which he followed reluctantly. LIU had complained to LUNG about his attitude.  As a result LUNG had forbidden him from examining vehicles for 6 months. 

Video Cautioned Interviews of D9

33.When interviewed by ICAC D9 made various admissions. He joined DCH in 1986. 

34.LUNG had at meetings with ACT/RP at regular intervals, told them that in order to earn more money for the CTC, a more lax/lenient attitude should be adopted when testing cars from garages, especially for VIP garages.  LUNG had also instructed the ACT, including him, to pass vehicles with dark glasses, that is to turn a blind eye, if they were from VIP garages. He reluctantly agreed and followed LUNG’s instructions for fear of losing his job or reduction of bonuses.  He could recognize the cars presented by VIP garages as the receptionist had marked the car registration numbers on the IF/DLs before passing to ACT.  He would do the tests as loose or lenient as possible if the cars were from the VIP garages to make them pass.  D9 told that LUNG had only allowed ACT 10 minutes to complete the RE on a VIP vehicle to increase the productivity of the CTC despite the requirement of TD that the examination should take at least 15 minutes.  He had also used the test result of another car to substitute the one that failed the RE.  He understood that if he was to conduct the RE strictly in accordance with the requirements of TD, 70% of the cars should have been failed.  However, when the conditions of a vehicle were dangerous during RE, he would consult RP for them to make a decision. 

Video Cautioned Interviews of D10

35.When interviewed by ICAC D10 made various admissions. He joined DCH in 1989 as apprentice and become ACT in 2008. 

36.LUNG had in meetings with ACT/RP, told them to adopt lax/lenient attitude on vehicles from garages unless they were dangerous vehicles.  LUNG told the ACT to identify the VIP cars from the IF/DL that marked with the car registration number.  In early 2008, reluctantly he agreed and adopted a more loose/lenient attitude on testing the non-dangerous items such as smoke emission.  He had used the test results of another vehicle on a vehicle which should have been failed during smoke emission test.  All ACT in the CTC adopted the same lax/lenient attitude towards vehicles from VIP garages.  He agreed and followed LUNG’s illegal instructions reluctantly as he was afraid of losing his job or having a reduction of bonuses.  He understood that he had defrauded TD but he got no choice.  He was taught by LIU initially to use the test REult of another car to substitute the failed one to make it pass.  On around 10 odd occasions, some vehicles in fact did not even appear for RE, but D10 still issued COR using test results of other vehicles under the instructions of LIU and CHAN. 

Video Cautioned Interviews of D11

37.When interviewed by ICAC D11 made various admissions. He joined DCH as mechanic in 1981 and became ACT in 1991. 

38.LUNG had, in his office, instructed the ACT/RP to pass the vehicles from garages in order to increase the sales volume and hence LUNG would have a better performance.  For fear of losing his job and the reduction of bonuses he reluctantly agreed with LUNG and had since then passed vehicles that had failed in items including the brake and smoke emission tests.  LUNG did not exactly explain in detail as to how to do it but indicated that they (ACT) should pass as much as possible those vehicles from garages.  When these vehicles failed in smoke emission tests, he would use the result of other vehicles on the failed vehicles to make them pass.  For the brakes, he would use the hand brake to compensate the insufficiency of the failed vehicles to make them pass.  Around 80% of the cars for RE were sent by garages.  Before LIU’s retirement he had also instructed the ACT to carry out the said malpractices during RE.

The Conspiracy as a Whole

39.D1 to D11 each admitted that between 12 March 2007 and 7 November 2011 they conspired together amongst themselves and with Chak Tse Hon, Chan Wai Chong, Cheng Wai Ping, Cheung Tsz Lok, Wong Hing Ki, Ngai Hay Biu, Wong Kin Hing, Cheung Hung Chi, Hui Kin Fung, Lung Wai Hing, Liu Sun Hung and other persons to make false COR as mentioned above with the intention that the owners of the vehicles should use them to induce the Transport Department to accept them as genuine and extend the vehicle licences for the vehicles named in such COR.

Forging a False Instrument

40.D1 to D11 conspired with others to give favourable treatment to garages which took vehicles to the CTC for RE on behalf of vehicle owners, namely to pass the RE for some of these vehicles even if applying the relevant codes and directions of the Transport Department (TD) regarding the RE these would have failed in the RE. In doing so they conspired to make false documents, namely COR, which purports to show that the vehicles concerned and mentioned therein were roadworthy and to have complied with the requirements of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374.

41.According to the Crimes Ordinance, Cap, 200, s.69(a)(vii) a document is false if it purports to have been made in circumstances in which it was not in fact made. The defendants in this case had hence conspired together and with others to make false COR as they purported to be issued after conducting RE which showed that some of the vehicles concerned were roadworthy and have complied with the requirements of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374 when it was not in fact the case.

Mitigation

42.D1 – D11 each have a clear record.  Their counsel/solicitors in mitigation have drawn immense strength from their personal circumstances. 

43.On the one hand, they have worked hard and long to attain the professional qualifications as ACTs or even RPs.  They have served DCH for decades.  Being the sole or major breadwinner of their families, they are only lackeys fully malleable in the hands of their superiors LUNG, LIU, and CHAN.  They have passed cars of varying exhaust fume emission levels but they are more conscientious with the brake test.  They have passed only VIP cars with slightly lower brake efficiencies but not those grossly sub-standard. They have no reward for committing the offence except to have their livelihood and career sustained.  Except for D3, they have all given useful evidence resulting in the conviction of LUNG and CHAN who plead not guilty at trial (DCCC 605/2014).  They themselves, together with their families, have had the penal uncertainties hanging over their heads since the arrest on 7 November 2011 whereupon they admitted inasmuch as confronted by ICAC.  It has been 3 years and 7 months until now.      

44.On the other hand, I cannot belittle the fact that D1 – D11 had, over the whole period or part of the period of 4 years and 8 months, as the case may be, regularly and habitually perverted the car testing system entrusted to them by the Transport Department.  The integrity of the test results will fend for the well-being of the public interest in terms of the optimal brake efficiency and the control of exhaust fume emission.  The “Summary to quantify the frequencies of cheating” submitted by the prosecution (hereby marked Exh. P1) shows a substantial number of cases perverted by D1 – D11. 

45.For each defendant, I take a starting point of 12 months.  I will give the following discounts:

(1) 4 months for the guilty plea;

(2) 2 months for giving useful evidence at the trial of LUNG and CHAN, except D3;

(3) 2 months for their being under financial and career pressures to take part in the conspiracy;

(4) 1 month for the torture of having this case over their heads for 3 years and 7 months after their arrest and forthright admissions made to ICAC.

46.The sentence is 3 months’ imprisonment for all defendants except D3.  D3’s sentence is 5 months.  There are no exceptional circumstances to suspend the sentences.