DCCC20/2025

DCCC20/2025

A A B B DCCC 20/2025 C [2025] HKDC 2015 C D D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E CRIMINAL CASE NO 20 OF 2025 F F G --------------------------- G HKSAR H H v I TRAN LE TUYEN (D1) I TO VAN LY (D2) J J ---------------------------- K K Before: Deputy District Judge N Wong L L Date: 26 November 2025 M Present: Mr Albert Hsu, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR M Mr Carl Yuen, instructed by A Lee & Partners, assigned by N N the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant O Mr Jeff Ho, instructed by T K Tsui & Co, assigned by the O Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd defendant P P Offence: [1] Possession of forged identity cards (管有偽造身分證) Q Q [2] Possession of false instruments (管有虛假文書) R [3] Possession of equipment for making false instruments R (管有用作製造虛假文書的設備) S S [4] Possession of equipment for making false instruments T (管有用作製造虛假文書的設備) T U U V V  -2- A A B B [5] Resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty (抗 C 拒執行職責的警務人員) C D D ----------------------------------------- E REASONS FOR SENTENCE E ----------------------------------------- F F G 1. On their own pleas and admission: G H H (a) D1 is convicted of one charge of possession of four I I forged Hong Kong identity cards, contrary to section J 7A(1) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance; one J charge of possession of false instrument, namely, one K K Construction Workers Registration Card and one L Construction Industry Safety Training Certificate, L contrary to section 75(1) of the Crimes Ordinance M M (Charges 1 and 2). N N (b) D2 is convicted of one charge of possession of O O equipment for making false instruments, namely, 36 P forged Hong Kong identity cards, contrary to section P 76(1) of the Crimes Ordinance; and one charge of Q Q resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty, R contrary to section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance R (Charges 4 and 5). S S T 2. In addition, both D1 and D2 also are convicted of a joint T charge of possession of equipment for making false instruments, namely, U U V V  -3- A A B B forged Hong Kong identity cards, contrary to section 76(1) of the Crimes C Ordinance (Charge 3). C D D The Facts E E 3. The facts can be summarised as follows. Very shortly before F F 8 pm on 8 August 2024, the police intercepted D1 as he came out from a G flat on the 3rd Floor of Lai Wing Building, situated at No 105 Argyle Street G in Mong Kok (hereinafter referred to as “the Flat”). H H I 4. Upon a body search, the police found on D1 the four forged I HKID cards referred to in Charge 1, and the Construction Workers J J Registration Card and the Construction Industry Safety Training K Certificate, listed in Charge 2. K L 5. Both the HKID cards and the construction industry papers L were subsequently found to be forged documents. M M N N 6. A few minutes after that, the police gained entry into, among O others, Room 1 of the Flat where D2 was seen to be striding over the O windows. In spite of the police officers’ demand for him to return to the P P room, D2 went out onto the window embankment and jumped down to the Q canopy on the 2nd floor. Q R R 7. One of the police officers, Sergeant 3734, gave chase. Being S pursued, D2 took out a pile of cards, 36 of them, from his sling bag and S threw it at the sergeant. Ignoring the repeated demands made by the T T sergeant for him to stop, D2 continued to flee. U U V V  -4- A A B B C 8. When the sergeant caught up with him on the canopy of the C st 1 floor, and managed to grab him on his shoulder from behind, D2 D D struggled vigorously, which caused the sergeant to lose his balance and fall E onto the floor. But eventually, seeing that there was nowhere to go, D2 E raised his arms, which I take to be an act of surrender, and was then F F subdued. G G 9. The 36 cards thrown by D2 at the sergeant were later found to H H be half-completed forgeries of Hong Kong identity cards. They were half- I completed because only the back had a pattern resembling the back of a I genuine HKID card. The front of these cards were blank. J J K 10. At around 8.14 pm the same evening, in the presence of D2, K the police found inside Room 1 a large quantity of materials set out in L L Charge 3. These materials were clearly there for making forged HKID M cards and/or other false instruments, and they included, without repeating M them all here: a total of 127 acrylic cards; over 4,930 laser stickers with the N N bauhinia pattern; a laptop computer; a printer; laminating machines; and O one photographic paper printed with the front side of two HKID cards O respectively in the name of Nguyen Thi Thoa and Lui Wai Shan. Both of P P these copies of ID cards were also later confirmed to be forgeries. Q Q 11. In the laptop computer, the police found some HKID samples R R bearing the name of the said Lui Wai Shan, but with photos of different S persons on them. In D1’s mobile phone, photos of some forged HKID S cards were also found, and D1 admitted in his video interview that the cards T T U U V V  -5- A A B B appearing in the photos were the ones he delivered to other people on two C previous occasions. C D D 12. D2’s fingerprints were found on a number of materials seized E by the police in Room 1. And when the mobile phones of the two E defendants were examined later, the police found that they had been in F F contact with each other for some time prior to the police raid in the evening G of 8 August. And it was also found by the police that a photo of D1, G believed to have been taken on 7 July 2023, appeared in D2’s mobile H H phone. I I 13. Lastly, in a medical examination conducted in the small hours J J of 9 August 2024, Sergeant 3734 was found to have suffered abrasions on K his forearm, his left elbow, his left palm, and his left knee. In addition, he K had a swelling at his kneecap area. And the doctors also found bruises on L L his right knee and his back. M M Defendants’ Personal Background N N O 14. D1 is 65 years old. He was born in Vietnam and came to Hong O Kong illegally around 12 years ago. He is a Form 8 holder, which means P P that he is on recognisance pending the determination of his non- Q refoulement claims. Currently, he is living with his wife, who is also a Q Form 8 holder in Hong Kong. R R S 15. He has a previous conviction for theft, which was entered in S May 2019, for which he was put on a bind-over. It is said by his counsel T T in mitigation that D1 used to work as a lorry driver when he was back in U U V V  -6- A A B B Vietnam. However, he suffered a stroke after landing in Hong Kong, C which has left him partially paralysed, mainly on the right side of his body. C I have this morning a letter written for D1, which repeated some of the D D things I have already outlined. E E 16. Turning to D2. He is 31 years old, a divorcee with two F F children, respectively 6 and 8 years old. He came alone to Hong Kong, G illegally also, in 2020. And like D1, he is on recognisance from the G Director of Immigration. He has a clear record in Hong Kong. H H I 17. According to D2’s counsel, D2 used to rely on a subsidy of I around $3,000 from the International Social Service. And it was said that J J he was introduced by a fellow countrymen to “participate in the fake K identity card business in question”. In return, D2 would receive some food K and clothings from the people behind, but there was no other monetary L L reward. M M Mitigations N N O 18. The primary mitigating factor here is no doubt the defendants’ O timely pleas. That aside, it was urged on the court by counsel for both P P defendants that, as each defendant is convicted of three offences, the court Q should consider totality when sentencing. Q R R S S T T U U V V  -7- A A B B Sentencing Consideration C C 19. There is no tariff or guideline laid down by the Court of D D Appeal for either the offence of possession of a forged HKID card or E possession of a false instrument. The statutory maximum term is 10 years’ E imprisonment for the former and 14 years’ imprisonment for the latter. The F F customary starting point would appear to be somewhere between 12 and G 18 months’ imprisonment. See for example, HKSAR v Li Chang Li, G HCMA 935A/2004. H H I 20. Likewise, the Court of Appeal has not laid down any I sentencing guideline for the offence of possession of equipment for making J J a false instrument. However, depending on the purpose and the scale of K the operation, it is not unusual for prison terms in the range of 2 to 3 years K to be used as a starting point: HKSAR v Ho Wan Chung, CACC 374/2003, L L and R v Chan Sui To [1996] 2 HKCLR 128. M M 21. At the same time, it is well established that committing an N N offence whilst on recognisance pending the result of one’s non- O refoulement claim is to be treated as an aggravating feature warranting an O increase of the sentence. P P Q 22. Now, of the five offences which I have to deal with, there can Q be no question that the most serious one is the offence of possession of R R equipment for making a false instrument. For that reason, it may be S convenient for me to deal with that first. S T T U U V V  -8- A A B B 23. Before coming to a figure for the starting point, however, C there are a few other matters which I believe I should address. The first C matter is the scale of the operation. In the present case, the evidence shows D D that the operation involved over 4,900-odd laser stickers with the bauhinia E pattern, a sticker which we all have on our HKID cards. On top of that, E there are a number of forged HKID cards and half-baked products waiting F F to be used as well. G G 24. In light of that, I am of the view that the operation can be H H properly regarded as one of medium scale. And from the facts of the case, I I think one can also infer that D1 was in the course of making a delivery of I the finished products, namely, the four forged HKID cards under Charge 1 J J and the two cards for the construction industry under Charge 2. K K 25. Now the second matter which I have to say a word on is the L L impact of the offences. Unlike the case of, for example, HKSAR v Sun Po M Tak, DCCC 332/2021, cited by Mr Yuen on behalf of D1, where the forged M HKID cards were used only for the purpose of making bookings for arenas N N provided by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, the forged O HKID cards and the other false instruments in the present case are clearly O to be used by either illegal immigrants or people not lawfully employable P P in Hong Kong to obtain jobs or services available only to lawful residents. Q To that extent, the offences involved in the present case are clearly more Q serious than the one the defendant faced in the case of Sun Po Tak. R R S 26. The third matter is about the roles or the individual roles of S the two defendants. Having pondered upon this issue long and hard, I do T T not think the court is in a position really to make a meaningful U U V V  -9- A A B B differentiation of their roles, although, on the face of it, D1 would seem to C be doing the work of a courier on the day of the police raid. C D D 27. Fourthly, and lastly, in spite of the considerable sympathy I E have had for D1 in light of his health condition, it is not such that I can E properly look at it as a ground for lowering the sentence. F F 28. Taking all these matters into account, I am of the view that 2 G G years and 9 months’ imprisonment term is a proper starting point for H Charge 3 for both defendants. But that is to be increased by 3 months to H reflect the fact that both defendants were on recognisance when I I committing the offence. J J 29. Dealing next with the starting point for Charge 1 and 4, both K K for possession of forged HKID cards. In each case we are dealing with L more than one card: 4 in the case of Charge 1 and 36 in the case of Charge L 4. In my view, a term of 18 months’ imprisonment is the lowest the court M M could consider as the starting point. N N 30. In relation to Charge 2, I shall take a starting point of 6 O O months. P P 31. Lastly, in relation to Charge 5, I shall adopt a starting point of Q 3 months. In this connection, I pause to note that, given the location of the Q place where the sergeant had fallen, there was in fact a chance that he could R R have suffered much more serious injuries as a result. D2 should consider S himself fortunate for the sergeant to be only left with some bruises, S abrasions and swellings. T T U U V V  - 10 - A A B B 32. With a full one-third discount for their timely guilty pleas, the C sentence for Charge 1 and 4 will be reduced from 18 months to 12 months; C the sentence for Charge 2 from 6 months to 4 months; the sentence for D D Charge 3 from 3 years to 24 months; and the sentence for Charge 5 from 3 E months to 2 months. E F F 33. Now as the offences under Charges 1 to 4 are all intertwined G and clearly arose out of the same incident, I shall order the terms of these G four offences to be served concurrently. H H 34. The charge for resisting a police officer, however, cannot be I I so regarded. Although it is connected with the other offences in terms of J temporal proximity, it is an offence of an entirely different kind, and J officers in the execution of their duty need to be protected. With that in K K mind, I shall order half of the term, that is 1 month out of the 2 months L term, to be served consecutively to the other terms D2 has to serve. L M M Sentence N N O 35. By reason of the above matters, D1 is sentenced to 12 months’ O imprisonment for Charge 1; 4 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2; 24 P P months’ imprisonment for Charge 3. All terms to be served concurrently, Q making a total term of 24 months’ imprisonment. Q R R 36. In the case of D2, he is sentenced to 24 months term of S imprisonment for Charge 3; 12 months for Charge 4; and term of 2 months’ S imprisonment for Charge 5. The sentences for Charges 3 and 4 are to run T T U U V V  - 11 - A A B B concurrently, with 1 month out of the 2 months term for Charge 5 to be C served consecutively, thus making a total of 25 months’ imprisonment. C D D E E ( N Wong ) F Deputy District Judge F G G H H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T U U V V