由此
A A
B DCCC 961/2009 B
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 961 OF 2009
E E
--------------------------
F HKSAR F
v.
G G
CHAN KWOK LUEN
H -------------------------- H
I I
Before: H.H. Judge E. Yip
J Date: 8 November 2010 at 10:56 a.m. J
Present: Ms. Maggie YANG, Senior Public Prosecutor of the
K K
Department of Justice, for HKSAR
L Miss Maggie WONG, instructed by M/s. K.C. Ho & Fong for L
Defendant
M M
Offence: (1)-(4) Wilfully with intent to evade tax omitted from the
N return made under the Inland Revenue Ordinance, Cap. 112 a N
sum which should be included（蓄意意圖逃稅而在根據香
O O
港法例第 112 章《稅務條例》須提交的報稅表中漏報原應
P P
申報的款項）
Q -------------------------- Q
Reasons for Sentence
R R
--------------------------
S S
Charges
T
1. The Defendant is convicted of 4 charges of wilfully with T
intent to evade Salaries Tax for 4 respective accounting years, namely for
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
B 2002/03, 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06 contrary to section 82(1)(a) of the B
Inland Revenue Ordinance, Cap. 112. He had understated income of
C C
$1,080,000 in total out of which the tax undercharged was $194,854. The
D details are as follows: D
E E
(1) 2002/03: $50,000 understated, $8,500 tax
F undercharged; F
(2) 2003/04: $350,000 understated, $64,750 tax
G G
undercharged;
H (3) 2004/05: $350,000 understated, $68,804 tax H
undercharged;
I I
(4) 2005/06: $330,000 understated, $52,800 tax
J undercharged. J
K K
Facts as found
L L
2. The Defendant was the leader of a group of account
M
executives (AEs) in several associated companies (jointly referred to as M
“Companies”). Both he himself and the AEs earned commission, apart
N N
from other forms of income from the Companies. He had the authority to
O determine how much commission each AE would get. He arranged for O
cheques inflated in the sum of a part of his own commission to be instead
P P
issued in the names of 19 AEs. He asked each of the AEs to return to him
Q the sums representing the Defendant’s commission soon. Q
R R
3. The Companies’ records and tax returns as well as the AEs
S tax returns reflected such sums of commission as earned by the AEs not the S
Defendant. Such extra sums would impose no or nominal tax payment on
T T
the AEs because of their low overall income. It is a common feature in the
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
B 4 Tax Returns (for 2002/3, 2003/4, 2004/5 and 2005/6) he submitted to B
IRD that under Part 4 Salaries Tax income thereof, he had included only
C C
the commission (on the Companies’ record) that he had received in his
D own name but omitted the commission (off the Companies record) that he D
had been paid back by his AEs. The Tax Returns comprised other parts
E E
such as Profits Tax income and Property Tax income. The omitted
F commission was not included anywhere in the Tax Returns. F
G G
Personal background and mitigation
H 4. The Defendant is 45 years of age. He has a clear record. He is H
married. His son is now 24 years of age and works as an estate agent. His
I I
mother is over 80 years old. He was brought up in a poor family. After
J completing F. 5, he worked in different fields at the beginning until he J
settled himself in the finance field 21 years ago. He evidently thrived and
K K
there was a prime moment in his career when he had around 400 AEs under
L L
him. He has 5 properties. He is living in one of them and the rest are
M
rented out. M
N N
5. He is commended by his family members, relatives, friends,
O and colleagues for his care, kindness, generosity and help. The present O
offences had caused loss to the revenue but he had already fully paid up the
P P
tax undercharged at around or before the time he was charged. There was
Q no out-of-pocket loss to anyone except the few AEs who had to pay a Q
nominal tax for the commission shouldered up for him.
R R
S 6. Defence counsel submits that there has been a lapse of 2 years S
and 8 months from the date he first realized his being investigated as a
T T
result of IRD’s search of his office and home (on 18 January 2007) up to
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
B the time he first entered a plea of not guilty in the District Court (on 22 B
September 2009). In the interim period, he was in active negotiations with
C C
IRD to resolve the matter. He had fully paid up the undercharged tax on
D and before October 2009. There is no complaint against the prosecution by D
way of inordinate delay but he has suffered immense stress throughout. He
E E
has built up a network of business in his new marketing job monitoring a
F number of AEs since January 2010. A term of imprisonment will break his F
connections and cause a loss of reputation.
G G
H Sentencing principles H
Immediate imprisonment is the norm
I I
7. It is universally accepted by the courts that tax evasion is a
J serious offence since the defendant committed with a wilful intent and the J
community suffers a loss of revenue. The norm is immediate
K K
imprisonment.
L L
M
8. Attorney General v Ma Lai-wu [1987] HKLR 744 features the M
applicable principle and comparable facts. Silke JA said in the Court of
N N
Appeal:
O O
“17. It is necessary for a Court to take into consideration when
P assessing the quantum of such sentence and this list is not P
intended to be exhaustive - the time span of the offences, the
systems and methods used to evade tax, whether or not there was
Q re-payment of the tax evaded, the amount of that tax, the Q
individual culpability of one or more defendants and the
circumstances of each defendant.
R R
18. Lenient sentences, where detection is not certain, may
S encourage persons to take a risk. Persons who commit offences S
such as these are favoured by the possibility of non-detection and
favoured yet again if upon detection they can look forward to
T leniency. T
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
B 19. The deliberate defrauding of the Inland Revenue is a serious B
matter which affects the community as a whole.
C 20. We do not accept, by itself, the “clang of the prison gates" C
argument in relation to such offences. This, if given too great
D weight, might mean that the whiter the collar the less the time D
spent behind bars and that, as a general proposition, cannot be
right. This is not, however, to detract from the salutary effect
E which a prison sentence of even short duration may have on the E
individual defendant and its effect upon the public at large. A
balance has to be maintained as between the appearance of
F F
leniency to an individual and the effect a prison sentence may
have on a defendant of hitherto unblemished character and who
G is of standing in the community.” G
H 9. It was an application for review by the prosecution. The H
respondents were the major shareholders and directors of a manufacturing
I I
company. They pleaded guilty to 24 charges of tax evasion. They had
J defrauded IRD by omitting sales proceeds from the accounts of the J
company and the tax returns for 6 years. When certain sales proceeds were
K K
received by the company, they cheated the book-keeper by alleging that
L L
those were only advances made to the company. They had kept their own
M
secret books of accounts and deposited amounts into separate accounts M
opened by themselves. The company’s auditor was not aware of the false
N N
system being used. The full sum omitted from the tax returns was near
O $2,600,000. The total tax undercharged was over $430,000. They paid up O
the undercharged tax in full before they were charged. The Court of
P P
Appeal affirmed a suspended sentence of 18 months after stating as
Q follows: Q
R R
“13. Sir Oswald Cheung, with him Mr. R. Mayne, emphasizes
that in the District Court, since 1978, there have been no
S immediate custodial sentences imposed for offences of this S
nature. Without, we hope, doing his submissions any injustice
we would summarize them as being if this Court thought
T immediate custodial to be correct, then leave that for the future T
and do not visit upon the heads of these Defendants such a
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 6 -
A A
B punishment. They had pleaded guilty and had done so on the B
basis of the known nature of the sentences previously imposed.”
C C
10. Defence counsel has drawn my attention to the case of
D HKSAR v Pak Wan Kam [2002] 2 HKC 465 where the appellant had been D
evading tax for 4 years by claiming deductions based on false receipts.
E E
The amounts of tax understated and undercharged respectively were
F F
similar to our present case. Defence counsel submits that the regime of
G
sentence resulting in 3 months’ imprisonment there can be adopted in our G
present case. I note, however, that that case had involved a mode of
H H
operation which I find quite different from our present case. I shall return
I to that in due course. I
J J
Exceptional circumstances to suspend sentence
K 11. In R v Lowery (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 485, Wright J said at K
page 489:
L L
M “No doubt, as counsel has submitted to us, the expression 'the M
exceptional circumstances of the case' is of sufficiently wide
construction so as to allow the Court to take into account all the
N relevant circumstances surrounding the offence, the offender and N
the background circumstances.”
O O
12. Defence counsel has prepared a list dated 27 October 2010 to
P P
this Court which contains sentenced cases from the Magistracy, the
Q District Court and Magistracy Appeal to illustrate the point that suspended Q
sentences have been imposed in tax evasion cases.
R R
S 13. A study of those cases shows that the courts have passed S
suspended sentences based on a combination of some of the factors as
T T
follows:
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
B B
(a) The defendant has invariably pleaded guilty
C C
(except in The Queen v Wong Yue Hung,
D Johnson 3 HKTC 733, which was decided on D
27 February 1992, one of the earliest cases
E E
included by the defence);
F F
(b) The mode of operation is simply the failure to
G G
disclose the income without other crimes such as
H the use of false documents; H
I I
(c) The offending period is not long;
J J
(d) During the long lapse of time between the
K K
detection and the laying of the charges, there has
L L
been immense stress or change in circumstances
M
on the part of the defendant or his family; M
N N
(e) The defendant has fully paid up the tax
O undercharged at a prior stage or early stage of the O
proceedings.
P P
Q Sentencing this Defendant Q
14. There are various factors in his favour. He has a clear record
R R
and he has a history of helping his friends, colleagues and even strangers.
S The investigation has taken 2 years and 8 months to end up in the District S
Court for plea. He and his family have been under immense stress. He has
T T
fully paid up the undercharged tax prior to or at the early stage of the
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 8 -
A A
B proceedings. Defence counsel also submits that court’s time has been B
saved as only 9 out of the 20 AEs on the list have to give evidence. I do not
C C
think much time was saved as the AEs’ evidence is not expected to be long.
D D
15. However, there are various factors in his disfavor. He had
E E
abused his position as a group leader. Firstly, he had abused his authority
F to access the income data of his AEs in identifying low income earners to F
suit his scheme. Secondly, he had instructed the AEs to carry out his
G G
scheme. There is no evidence of any express threat but it is obvious that
H his AEs could not refuse him because of his superior position and his sole H
discretion to distribute commission. He even involved a few of the AEs as
I I
knowing accomplices, who had aided and abetted him. Thirdly, he had
J abused his authority to implement the scheme. He was familiar with his J
Companies’ accounting system. He knew where his scheme could fit in.
K K
He had abused the autonomy the Companies had given him in the
L L
commission distribution within his own group. His conduct amounted to
M
false accounting. The Companies were deceived into reporting in the M
Employers’ Tax Returns the AEs and his commission based on the false
N N
figures. Such scheme was well-planned and lasted 4 years.
O O
16. I take a starting point of 6 months for each charge. The
P P
sentences shall be concurrent. His good character towards his family
Q members, relatives, friends, and colleagues has been cancelled out by his Q
imposition upon his AEs a scheme to benefit himself at the expense of their
R R
cheating the companies as well as IRD. I do not accept that he is entitled to
S any discount for his character. S
T T
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 9 -
A A
B 17. The investigation has taken slightly longer than usual as his B
scheme has involved false accounting and many AEs. He is not entitled to
C C
complain of any stress or change in circumstances suffered due to the lapse
D of time taken to get to court. In the course of hatching this scheme up to the D
time it end up in court, he has had a lot of time to give a serious thought to
E E
the dire consequences facing himself and his family in the event of his
F being caught and convicted. F
G G
18. I find no exceptional circumstances to suspend the sentences.
H H
19. As a financial penalty, I shall order a total amount of
I I
$389,708 as follows:
J J
(1) Charge 1: $8,500 tax undercharged, a fine of twice the
K K
amount, namely $17,000;
L L
(2) Charge 2: $64,750 tax undercharged, a fine of twice the
M
amount, namely $129,500; M
(3) Charge 3: $68,804 tax undercharged, a fine of twice the
N N
amount, namely $137,608;
O (4) Charge 4: $52,800 tax undercharged, a fine of twice the O
amount, namely $105,600.
P P
Q Q
R R
( E. Yip )
S S
District Judge
T T
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
A A
B DCCC 961/2009 B
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 961 OF 2009
E E
--------------------------
F HKSAR F
v.
G G
CHAN KWOK LUEN
H -------------------------- H
I I
Before: H.H. Judge E. Yip
J Date: 8 November 2010 at 10:56 a.m. J
Present: Ms. Maggie YANG, Senior Public Prosecutor of the
K K
Department of Justice, for HKSAR
L Miss Maggie WONG, instructed by M/s. K.C. Ho & Fong for L
Defendant
M M
Offence: (1)-(4) Wilfully with intent to evade tax omitted from the
N return made under the Inland Revenue Ordinance, Cap. 112 a N
sum which should be included（蓄意意圖逃稅而在根據香
O O
港法例第 112 章《稅務條例》須提交的報稅表中漏報原應
P P
申報的款項）
Q -------------------------- Q
Reasons for Sentence
R R
--------------------------
S S
Charges
T
1. The Defendant is convicted of 4 charges of wilfully with T
intent to evade Salaries Tax for 4 respective accounting years, namely for
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
B 2002/03, 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06 contrary to section 82(1)(a) of the B
Inland Revenue Ordinance, Cap. 112. He had understated income of
C C
$1,080,000 in total out of which the tax undercharged was $194,854. The
D details are as follows: D
E E
(1) 2002/03: $50,000 understated, $8,500 tax
F undercharged; F
(2) 2003/04: $350,000 understated, $64,750 tax
G G
undercharged;
H (3) 2004/05: $350,000 understated, $68,804 tax H
undercharged;
I I
(4) 2005/06: $330,000 understated, $52,800 tax
J undercharged. J
K K
Facts as found
L L
2. The Defendant was the leader of a group of account
M
executives (AEs) in several associated companies (jointly referred to as M
“Companies”). Both he himself and the AEs earned commission, apart
N N
from other forms of income from the Companies. He had the authority to
O determine how much commission each AE would get. He arranged for O
cheques inflated in the sum of a part of his own commission to be instead
P P
issued in the names of 19 AEs. He asked each of the AEs to return to him
Q the sums representing the Defendant’s commission soon. Q
R R
3. The Companies’ records and tax returns as well as the AEs
S tax returns reflected such sums of commission as earned by the AEs not the S
Defendant. Such extra sums would impose no or nominal tax payment on
T T
the AEs because of their low overall income. It is a common feature in the
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
B 4 Tax Returns (for 2002/3, 2003/4, 2004/5 and 2005/6) he submitted to B
IRD that under Part 4 Salaries Tax income thereof, he had included only
C C
the commission (on the Companies’ record) that he had received in his
D own name but omitted the commission (off the Companies record) that he D
had been paid back by his AEs. The Tax Returns comprised other parts
E E
such as Profits Tax income and Property Tax income. The omitted
F commission was not included anywhere in the Tax Returns. F
G G
Personal background and mitigation
H 4. The Defendant is 45 years of age. He has a clear record. He is H
married. His son is now 24 years of age and works as an estate agent. His
I I
mother is over 80 years old. He was brought up in a poor family. After
J completing F. 5, he worked in different fields at the beginning until he J
settled himself in the finance field 21 years ago. He evidently thrived and
K K
there was a prime moment in his career when he had around 400 AEs under
L L
him. He has 5 properties. He is living in one of them and the rest are
M
rented out. M
N N
5. He is commended by his family members, relatives, friends,
O and colleagues for his care, kindness, generosity and help. The present O
offences had caused loss to the revenue but he had already fully paid up the
P P
tax undercharged at around or before the time he was charged. There was
Q no out-of-pocket loss to anyone except the few AEs who had to pay a Q
nominal tax for the commission shouldered up for him.
R R
S 6. Defence counsel submits that there has been a lapse of 2 years S
and 8 months from the date he first realized his being investigated as a
T T
result of IRD’s search of his office and home (on 18 January 2007) up to
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
B the time he first entered a plea of not guilty in the District Court (on 22 B
September 2009). In the interim period, he was in active negotiations with
C C
IRD to resolve the matter. He had fully paid up the undercharged tax on
D and before October 2009. There is no complaint against the prosecution by D
way of inordinate delay but he has suffered immense stress throughout. He
E E
has built up a network of business in his new marketing job monitoring a
F number of AEs since January 2010. A term of imprisonment will break his F
connections and cause a loss of reputation.
G G
H Sentencing principles H
Immediate imprisonment is the norm
I I
7. It is universally accepted by the courts that tax evasion is a
J serious offence since the defendant committed with a wilful intent and the J
community suffers a loss of revenue. The norm is immediate
K K
imprisonment.
L L
M
8. Attorney General v Ma Lai-wu [1987] HKLR 744 features the M
applicable principle and comparable facts. Silke JA said in the Court of
N N
Appeal:
O O
“17. It is necessary for a Court to take into consideration when
P assessing the quantum of such sentence and this list is not P
intended to be exhaustive - the time span of the offences, the
systems and methods used to evade tax, whether or not there was
Q re-payment of the tax evaded, the amount of that tax, the Q
individual culpability of one or more defendants and the
circumstances of each defendant.
R R
18. Lenient sentences, where detection is not certain, may
S encourage persons to take a risk. Persons who commit offences S
such as these are favoured by the possibility of non-detection and
favoured yet again if upon detection they can look forward to
T leniency. T
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
B 19. The deliberate defrauding of the Inland Revenue is a serious B
matter which affects the community as a whole.
C 20. We do not accept, by itself, the “clang of the prison gates" C
argument in relation to such offences. This, if given too great
D weight, might mean that the whiter the collar the less the time D
spent behind bars and that, as a general proposition, cannot be
right. This is not, however, to detract from the salutary effect
E which a prison sentence of even short duration may have on the E
individual defendant and its effect upon the public at large. A
balance has to be maintained as between the appearance of
F F
leniency to an individual and the effect a prison sentence may
have on a defendant of hitherto unblemished character and who
G is of standing in the community.” G
H 9. It was an application for review by the prosecution. The H
respondents were the major shareholders and directors of a manufacturing
I I
company. They pleaded guilty to 24 charges of tax evasion. They had
J defrauded IRD by omitting sales proceeds from the accounts of the J
company and the tax returns for 6 years. When certain sales proceeds were
K K
received by the company, they cheated the book-keeper by alleging that
L L
those were only advances made to the company. They had kept their own
M
secret books of accounts and deposited amounts into separate accounts M
opened by themselves. The company’s auditor was not aware of the false
N N
system being used. The full sum omitted from the tax returns was near
O $2,600,000. The total tax undercharged was over $430,000. They paid up O
the undercharged tax in full before they were charged. The Court of
P P
Appeal affirmed a suspended sentence of 18 months after stating as
Q follows: Q
R R
“13. Sir Oswald Cheung, with him Mr. R. Mayne, emphasizes
that in the District Court, since 1978, there have been no
S immediate custodial sentences imposed for offences of this S
nature. Without, we hope, doing his submissions any injustice
we would summarize them as being if this Court thought
T immediate custodial to be correct, then leave that for the future T
and do not visit upon the heads of these Defendants such a
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 6 -
A A
B punishment. They had pleaded guilty and had done so on the B
basis of the known nature of the sentences previously imposed.”
C C
10. Defence counsel has drawn my attention to the case of
D HKSAR v Pak Wan Kam [2002] 2 HKC 465 where the appellant had been D
evading tax for 4 years by claiming deductions based on false receipts.
E E
The amounts of tax understated and undercharged respectively were
F F
similar to our present case. Defence counsel submits that the regime of
G
sentence resulting in 3 months’ imprisonment there can be adopted in our G
present case. I note, however, that that case had involved a mode of
H H
operation which I find quite different from our present case. I shall return
I to that in due course. I
J J
Exceptional circumstances to suspend sentence
K 11. In R v Lowery (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 485, Wright J said at K
page 489:
L L
M “No doubt, as counsel has submitted to us, the expression 'the M
exceptional circumstances of the case' is of sufficiently wide
construction so as to allow the Court to take into account all the
N relevant circumstances surrounding the offence, the offender and N
the background circumstances.”
O O
12. Defence counsel has prepared a list dated 27 October 2010 to
P P
this Court which contains sentenced cases from the Magistracy, the
Q District Court and Magistracy Appeal to illustrate the point that suspended Q
sentences have been imposed in tax evasion cases.
R R
S 13. A study of those cases shows that the courts have passed S
suspended sentences based on a combination of some of the factors as
T T
follows:
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
B B
(a) The defendant has invariably pleaded guilty
C C
(except in The Queen v Wong Yue Hung,
D Johnson 3 HKTC 733, which was decided on D
27 February 1992, one of the earliest cases
E E
included by the defence);
F F
(b) The mode of operation is simply the failure to
G G
disclose the income without other crimes such as
H the use of false documents; H
I I
(c) The offending period is not long;
J J
(d) During the long lapse of time between the
K K
detection and the laying of the charges, there has
L L
been immense stress or change in circumstances
M
on the part of the defendant or his family; M
N N
(e) The defendant has fully paid up the tax
O undercharged at a prior stage or early stage of the O
proceedings.
P P
Q Sentencing this Defendant Q
14. There are various factors in his favour. He has a clear record
R R
and he has a history of helping his friends, colleagues and even strangers.
S The investigation has taken 2 years and 8 months to end up in the District S
Court for plea. He and his family have been under immense stress. He has
T T
fully paid up the undercharged tax prior to or at the early stage of the
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 8 -
A A
B proceedings. Defence counsel also submits that court’s time has been B
saved as only 9 out of the 20 AEs on the list have to give evidence. I do not
C C
think much time was saved as the AEs’ evidence is not expected to be long.
D D
15. However, there are various factors in his disfavor. He had
E E
abused his position as a group leader. Firstly, he had abused his authority
F to access the income data of his AEs in identifying low income earners to F
suit his scheme. Secondly, he had instructed the AEs to carry out his
G G
scheme. There is no evidence of any express threat but it is obvious that
H his AEs could not refuse him because of his superior position and his sole H
discretion to distribute commission. He even involved a few of the AEs as
I I
knowing accomplices, who had aided and abetted him. Thirdly, he had
J abused his authority to implement the scheme. He was familiar with his J
Companies’ accounting system. He knew where his scheme could fit in.
K K
He had abused the autonomy the Companies had given him in the
L L
commission distribution within his own group. His conduct amounted to
M
false accounting. The Companies were deceived into reporting in the M
Employers’ Tax Returns the AEs and his commission based on the false
N N
figures. Such scheme was well-planned and lasted 4 years.
O O
16. I take a starting point of 6 months for each charge. The
P P
sentences shall be concurrent. His good character towards his family
Q members, relatives, friends, and colleagues has been cancelled out by his Q
imposition upon his AEs a scheme to benefit himself at the expense of their
R R
cheating the companies as well as IRD. I do not accept that he is entitled to
S any discount for his character. S
T T
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V
由此
- 9 -
A A
B 17. The investigation has taken slightly longer than usual as his B
scheme has involved false accounting and many AEs. He is not entitled to
C C
complain of any stress or change in circumstances suffered due to the lapse
D of time taken to get to court. In the course of hatching this scheme up to the D
time it end up in court, he has had a lot of time to give a serious thought to
E E
the dire consequences facing himself and his family in the event of his
F being caught and convicted. F
G G
18. I find no exceptional circumstances to suspend the sentences.
H H
19. As a financial penalty, I shall order a total amount of
I I
$389,708 as follows:
J J
(1) Charge 1: $8,500 tax undercharged, a fine of twice the
K K
amount, namely $17,000;
L L
(2) Charge 2: $64,750 tax undercharged, a fine of twice the
M
amount, namely $129,500; M
(3) Charge 3: $68,804 tax undercharged, a fine of twice the
N N
amount, namely $137,608;
O (4) Charge 4: $52,800 tax undercharged, a fine of twice the O
amount, namely $105,600.
P P
Q Q
R R
( E. Yip )
S S
District Judge
T T
U U
CRT29/8.11.2010/ DCCC961/2009/Sentence/8.11.2010
V V