A DCCC 135 & 725/2014 A
(Consolidated)
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NOS 135 & 725 OF 2014 (CONS)
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
Zhang Qiang
F F
----------------------
G G
Before: HH Judge C P Pang
Date: 10 October 2014
H Present: Mr Joe Hui, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR H
Ms Chan Suk-han, Mary, of Ho & Ip, assigned by the
I
Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant I
Offence: (1) to (5) Fraud (欺詐罪)
J --------------------- J
Reasons for Sentence
K K
---------------------
L L
1. The defendant pleads guilty to five charges of fraud.
M He is a mainland resident. On 9 July 2013, he voluntarily M
surrendered himself to a Hong Kong police station and confessed
N that he had deceived three persons, PW1, PW2 and PW5, of a total N
amount of US$1.75 million. He said he had used up all the money
O O
and he felt guilty.
P P
2. Police investigation revealed that a total of five
Q
victims, PW1 to 5, had been deceived. PW1 to 4 are all mainland Q
residents. PW1 to 3 are business friends of the defendant while
R PW4 is his ex-schoolmate. PW5, the defendant’s brother-in-law, R
is a resident in the United States.
S S
3. According to the victims, the defendant owned a large
T T
scale company in Wuxi, China. He told them he had an investment
company in Hong Kong called QZ Capital Limited which had a high
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 1 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A yield investment fund jointly operated with the Hongkong and A
Shanghai Banking Corporation (“HSBC”). The defendant invited the
B victims to invest in the fund. He sent a forged HSBC investment B
application form to them by email. Lured by the false
C C
representation, the victims transferred money to the defendant’s
bank accounts.
D D
E 4. There were three bank accounts in Hong Kong involved E
insofar as the charges are concerned:
F (a) Account 1 held in the name of QZ with HSBC; F
(b) Account 2 held in the name of AEI with HSBC;
G G
(c) Account 3 held in the name of the defendant with
China Merchants Bank (“CMB”).
H H
Charge 1
I I
5. Between November 2009 and October 2010, PW3 remitted a
J total of Renminbi 3.24 million to the defendant’s bank account J
in China (not the subject matter of the charge) and US$70,000 to
K Account 1 in October 2011 for investment in the fund. K
L L
6. The defendant returned about Renminbi 1.23 million to
PW3 between May 2010 and March 2012. The defendant became out of
M M
touch since May 2013.
N N
Charge 2
O O
7. Between 15 November 2011 and 29 February 2012, PW2
P P
remitted a total of US$1 million to Account 1 for investment in
the fund. Between January and June 2012 the defendant returned
Q Q
a total of US$222,000 to PW2.
R R
Charge 3
S S
8. PW4 transferred Renminbi 2.4 million and US$25,000 to
T T
the defendant’s bank account in China (not the subject matter of
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 2 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A the charge). He also remitted a total of US$100,000 to Account 3 A
in April 2012.
B B
9. On 23 April 2013, the defendant returned Renminbi
C C
100,000 to PW4.
D D
Charge 4
E E
10. On 31 December 2012, PW1 remitted US$250,000 to
F Account 1 for investment in the fund. In about May 2013, PW1 F
found out from HSBC that the defendant had no investment fund
G G
cooperated with them. He demanded the defendant to return the
money. The defendant said he would return the money or he would
H H
surrender to the police.
I I
Charge 5
J J
11. PW5 is the brother-in-law of the defendant and resides
K in the United States. Between 24 May 2011 and 11 February 2012, K
he remitted a total of US$740,000 to Account 1. He did not
L L
receive any of his investment in the fund.
M M
12. In the interviews with the police, the defendant
N admitted the offences in Charges 2, 4 and 5 while denying N
Charges 1 and 3. Regarding Charge 1, he could not remember the
O remittance of US$70,000 by PW3. Regarding Charge 3, he said the O
US$125,000 was a loan from PW4.
P P
13. The victims in Charges 1 to 5 parted with a total of
Q Q
US$2.16 million. The balance of Accounts 1, 2 and 3 was zero or
R close to zero as in June 2013. R
S 14. While not stated expressly in the Summary of Facts, it S
transpired that the deception did not actually occur in Hong
T T
Kong. All the victims and the defendant are not Hong Kong
residents and have no connection with Hong Kong. By virtue of
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 3 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A the Criminal Jurisdiction Ordinance, Hong Kong courts have A
jurisdiction of the matter insofar as the money deposited into
B Accounts 1 to 3 are concerned. B
C C
15. Miss Chan, solicitor for the defendant, agrees that
Hong Kong courts have jurisdiction over the offences specified
D D
in the five charges.
E E
16. The defendant is a 39-year-old man, with no criminal
F conviction record in Hong Kong. F
G G
17. In mitigation, Miss Chan tells the court that the
defendant is married with two children. Because of this case,
H H
the defendant has separated with his wife who is now living with
I
the children in the United States. The defendant will also lose I
his residence in the United States because of the break of
J continuous presence. J
K 18. The defendant was born in China. He received his K
university education in the United States and obtained a Master
L L
degree in computer science in year 2000. After graduation, he
worked as a computer engineer in the States.
M M
N 19. In 2009 he set up his own companies running programmes N
in stock trading in Wuxi, China. The company suffered a huge
O loss. The defendant therefore committed the present offences in O
order to get money to keep the business going and to pay off the
P P
company’s debt.
Q Q
20. It is said that the defendant is now very remorseful
R and shameful for what he has done. He therefore surrendered R
himself to the Hong Kong police and made full confession. He
S provided all information and means of contact of the victims and S
his bank account details.
T T
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 4 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A 21. As to the reason why the defendant had to report to A
Hong Kong police and not Chinese authorities, Miss Chan
B explained that the defendant had initially surrendered himself B
to the local police in Wuxi. However, the local police refused
C C
to take up the matter saying that it was not within their
jurisdiction. The defendant therefore took a trip to Hong Kong
D D
specifically for the purpose of surrendering himself.
E E
22. In respect of Charges 1 and 3 which the defendant
F denied during investigation, Miss Chan explained that the F
defendant only confused with other money he borrowed from the
G G
two victims as loans. When he clarified from the documents
obtained from the police, he admitted his guilt.
H H
I
23. Miss Chan, while drawing my attention to R v Clark, I
submits that the present case is not a breach of trust case. She
J asks me to consider the principle of totality and take a J
starting point lower than the one taken in HKSAR v Chik Wai Wan
K Stephen CACC 254/2008, which I brought to the attention of both K
parties.
L L
24. The victims in this case are not Hong Kong residents,
M M
neither is the defendant. The only connection of the offences
N with Hong Kong is that the stolen monies were received in Hong N
Kong bank accounts. Although no citizen in Hong Kong has been
O deceived, Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial O
centre can be damaged by the defendant using local banks to
P P
receive proceeds of crime.
Q Q
25. Fraud, be it done in Hong Kong or elsewhere, must be
R deterred. Whether the victims are Hong Kong residents or not is R
neither here nor there.
S S
26. In deciding the proper starting point for each of the
T T
offences, the first issue is whether it was a breach of trust
situation.
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 5 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A A
27. Mr Hui, public prosecutor, initially asked the court
B to treat the case as one very close to breach of trust. He B
relied on HKSAR v Ng Tik Ki Chaneki, CACC 68/2011. When his
C C
attention is drawn to HKSAR v Chik Wai Wan, Stephen, he fairly
concedes that the present case should not be treated as a
D D
typical breach of trust.
E E
28. In my view, while the defendant did take advantage of
F the trust reposed in him by his friends and relative, he was not F
in a special relationship with them to place him in a position
G G
of trust to justify an enhancement of sentence.
H H
29. Two English Court of Appeal cases, R v Trevor Clark
I
[1982]2 Cr App R 137, a case referred to by Miss Chan, and R v I
Barrick [1985]81 Cr App R 78, have been adopted by Hong Kong
J courts in considering the proper level of sentence in cases of J
theft and fraud when the offenders had occupied a position of
K trust. K
L L
30. While the present case is not a typical breach of
trust case, some of the factors to be taken into account under
M M
the Barrick sentencing guidelines have general relevance to
N offences of dishonesty. These factors include, in particular, N
the period over which the fraud or theft has been perpetrated,
O the effect on the victim, the use to which the money or property O
dishonestly taken was put and those matters of mitigation
P P
special to the offender himself.
Q Q
31. I also make reference to the sentencing bands in HKSAR
R v Cheung Mee Kiu, [2006]4 HKLRD 776 as adjusted in HKSAR v Ng R
Kwok Wing, [2008]4 HKLRD 1017.
S S
32. The fraud perpetrated by the defendant for the five
T T
charges lasted for about four years. While there is no evidence
as to the effect on the victims, the money they have been
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 6 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A deceived are no doubt significant sums. There is also an A
international element in this case.
B B
33. On the other hand, I would accept that the defendant
C C
deceived the money to support his own company which suffered
huge loss and I find that the fraud in this case was not a
D D
sophisticated one. I further accept that the defendant is now
E remorseful. E
F 34. I would ignore the money being deceived and deposited F
into the defendant’s bank accounts other than Accounts 1, 2 and
G G
3 which, not being the subject matter of the charges, are not
within my jurisdiction.
H H
I
35. Charge 1 involves US$70,000, equivalent to about I
HK$540,000. I take 18 months’ imprisonment as the starting
J point. J
K 36. Charge 2 involves US$1 million which is equivalent to K
about HK$7.75 million. I adopt 54 months’ imprisonment as the
L L
starting point.
M M
37. Charge 3 involves US$100,000, equivalent to about
N HK$775,000. I take 22 months as the starting point. N
O 38. Charge 4 involves US$250,000, equivalent to about O
HK$1.9 million. 30 months as the starting point is adopted.
P P
39. Charge 5 involves US$740,000, equivalent to about
Q Q
HK$5.7 million. I adopt 48 months’ imprisonment as the starting
R point. R
S 40. A defendant should normally be entitled to one-third S
reduction only for a timely plea of guilty. The defendant in
T T
this case voluntarily surrendered to Hong Kong police
authorities when, as the prosecution agrees, there was no
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 7 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A investigation of the offences afoot. The offences might not have A
come to light without the defendant’s confession.
B B
41. In this case, even if the offences were somehow
C C
detected by the Hong Kong police, the prosecution could not have
been brought home to him if he, not being a Hong Kong resident,
D D
did not surrender himself to Hong Kong jurisdiction.
E E
42. For his confession, further discount should be given
F to him on top of the usual one-third reduction (See HKSAR v Ng F
Wing Chung CACC 176/2005). I am therefore prepared to give him a
G G
total reduction at about 40 per cent for his plea and
confession.
H H
I
43. Restitution should be taken into account. It is I
conceded by Miss Chan that only the US$222,000 in respect of
J Charge 2 should be properly treated as restitution. I will allow J
a further reduction of 3 months.
K K
44. The sentences of each offence are therefore as
L L
follows:
Charge 1 - 10 months’ imprisonment;
M M
Charge 2 - 29 months’ imprisonment;
N Charge 3 - 12 months’ imprisonment; N
Charge 4 - 18 months’ imprisonment;
O Charge 5 - 28 months’ imprisonment. O
P P
45. The last question is totality. Discounting the money
the defendant had returned to PW2 in Charge 2, the victims in
Q Q
Charges 1 to 5 parted with a total of about US$1.93 million
R which is equivalent to about HK$15 million. The fraud lasted for R
about four years. The defendant in Chik Wai Wan, Stephen used a
S false instrument to deceive his friend into investing US$2 S
million. The Court of Appeal said a starting point of 7½ years’
T T
imprisonment would have been more appropriate.
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 8 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A 46. In my judgment, after all deductions for the A
defendant’s plea and confession and restitution, a total term of
B 46 months’ imprisonment can reflect the defendant’s total B
culpability in the five charges.
C C
47. To reach this total term of imprisonment, I make the
D D
following order. Sentences on Charges 1 to 3 are to run
E concurrently with each other. Sentences on Charges 4 and 5 are E
to run consecutively. Sentences on Charges 1 to 3 shall run
F concurrently with those in Charges 4 and 5. The total term of F
imprisonment is 46 months’ imprisonment.
G G
H H
I I
(C. P. Pang)
District Judge
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 9 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A DCCC 135 & 725/2014 A
(Consolidated)
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NOS 135 & 725 OF 2014 (CONS)
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
Zhang Qiang
F F
----------------------
G G
Before: HH Judge C P Pang
Date: 10 October 2014
H Present: Mr Joe Hui, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR H
Ms Chan Suk-han, Mary, of Ho & Ip, assigned by the
I
Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant I
Offence: (1) to (5) Fraud (欺詐罪)
J --------------------- J
Reasons for Sentence
K K
---------------------
L L
1. The defendant pleads guilty to five charges of fraud.
M He is a mainland resident. On 9 July 2013, he voluntarily M
surrendered himself to a Hong Kong police station and confessed
N that he had deceived three persons, PW1, PW2 and PW5, of a total N
amount of US$1.75 million. He said he had used up all the money
O O
and he felt guilty.
P P
2. Police investigation revealed that a total of five
Q
victims, PW1 to 5, had been deceived. PW1 to 4 are all mainland Q
residents. PW1 to 3 are business friends of the defendant while
R PW4 is his ex-schoolmate. PW5, the defendant’s brother-in-law, R
is a resident in the United States.
S S
3. According to the victims, the defendant owned a large
T T
scale company in Wuxi, China. He told them he had an investment
company in Hong Kong called QZ Capital Limited which had a high
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 1 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A yield investment fund jointly operated with the Hongkong and A
Shanghai Banking Corporation (“HSBC”). The defendant invited the
B victims to invest in the fund. He sent a forged HSBC investment B
application form to them by email. Lured by the false
C C
representation, the victims transferred money to the defendant’s
bank accounts.
D D
E 4. There were three bank accounts in Hong Kong involved E
insofar as the charges are concerned:
F (a) Account 1 held in the name of QZ with HSBC; F
(b) Account 2 held in the name of AEI with HSBC;
G G
(c) Account 3 held in the name of the defendant with
China Merchants Bank (“CMB”).
H H
Charge 1
I I
5. Between November 2009 and October 2010, PW3 remitted a
J total of Renminbi 3.24 million to the defendant’s bank account J
in China (not the subject matter of the charge) and US$70,000 to
K Account 1 in October 2011 for investment in the fund. K
L L
6. The defendant returned about Renminbi 1.23 million to
PW3 between May 2010 and March 2012. The defendant became out of
M M
touch since May 2013.
N N
Charge 2
O O
7. Between 15 November 2011 and 29 February 2012, PW2
P P
remitted a total of US$1 million to Account 1 for investment in
the fund. Between January and June 2012 the defendant returned
Q Q
a total of US$222,000 to PW2.
R R
Charge 3
S S
8. PW4 transferred Renminbi 2.4 million and US$25,000 to
T T
the defendant’s bank account in China (not the subject matter of
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 2 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A the charge). He also remitted a total of US$100,000 to Account 3 A
in April 2012.
B B
9. On 23 April 2013, the defendant returned Renminbi
C C
100,000 to PW4.
D D
Charge 4
E E
10. On 31 December 2012, PW1 remitted US$250,000 to
F Account 1 for investment in the fund. In about May 2013, PW1 F
found out from HSBC that the defendant had no investment fund
G G
cooperated with them. He demanded the defendant to return the
money. The defendant said he would return the money or he would
H H
surrender to the police.
I I
Charge 5
J J
11. PW5 is the brother-in-law of the defendant and resides
K in the United States. Between 24 May 2011 and 11 February 2012, K
he remitted a total of US$740,000 to Account 1. He did not
L L
receive any of his investment in the fund.
M M
12. In the interviews with the police, the defendant
N admitted the offences in Charges 2, 4 and 5 while denying N
Charges 1 and 3. Regarding Charge 1, he could not remember the
O remittance of US$70,000 by PW3. Regarding Charge 3, he said the O
US$125,000 was a loan from PW4.
P P
13. The victims in Charges 1 to 5 parted with a total of
Q Q
US$2.16 million. The balance of Accounts 1, 2 and 3 was zero or
R close to zero as in June 2013. R
S 14. While not stated expressly in the Summary of Facts, it S
transpired that the deception did not actually occur in Hong
T T
Kong. All the victims and the defendant are not Hong Kong
residents and have no connection with Hong Kong. By virtue of
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 3 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A the Criminal Jurisdiction Ordinance, Hong Kong courts have A
jurisdiction of the matter insofar as the money deposited into
B Accounts 1 to 3 are concerned. B
C C
15. Miss Chan, solicitor for the defendant, agrees that
Hong Kong courts have jurisdiction over the offences specified
D D
in the five charges.
E E
16. The defendant is a 39-year-old man, with no criminal
F conviction record in Hong Kong. F
G G
17. In mitigation, Miss Chan tells the court that the
defendant is married with two children. Because of this case,
H H
the defendant has separated with his wife who is now living with
I
the children in the United States. The defendant will also lose I
his residence in the United States because of the break of
J continuous presence. J
K 18. The defendant was born in China. He received his K
university education in the United States and obtained a Master
L L
degree in computer science in year 2000. After graduation, he
worked as a computer engineer in the States.
M M
N 19. In 2009 he set up his own companies running programmes N
in stock trading in Wuxi, China. The company suffered a huge
O loss. The defendant therefore committed the present offences in O
order to get money to keep the business going and to pay off the
P P
company’s debt.
Q Q
20. It is said that the defendant is now very remorseful
R and shameful for what he has done. He therefore surrendered R
himself to the Hong Kong police and made full confession. He
S provided all information and means of contact of the victims and S
his bank account details.
T T
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 4 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A 21. As to the reason why the defendant had to report to A
Hong Kong police and not Chinese authorities, Miss Chan
B explained that the defendant had initially surrendered himself B
to the local police in Wuxi. However, the local police refused
C C
to take up the matter saying that it was not within their
jurisdiction. The defendant therefore took a trip to Hong Kong
D D
specifically for the purpose of surrendering himself.
E E
22. In respect of Charges 1 and 3 which the defendant
F denied during investigation, Miss Chan explained that the F
defendant only confused with other money he borrowed from the
G G
two victims as loans. When he clarified from the documents
obtained from the police, he admitted his guilt.
H H
I
23. Miss Chan, while drawing my attention to R v Clark, I
submits that the present case is not a breach of trust case. She
J asks me to consider the principle of totality and take a J
starting point lower than the one taken in HKSAR v Chik Wai Wan
K Stephen CACC 254/2008, which I brought to the attention of both K
parties.
L L
24. The victims in this case are not Hong Kong residents,
M M
neither is the defendant. The only connection of the offences
N with Hong Kong is that the stolen monies were received in Hong N
Kong bank accounts. Although no citizen in Hong Kong has been
O deceived, Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial O
centre can be damaged by the defendant using local banks to
P P
receive proceeds of crime.
Q Q
25. Fraud, be it done in Hong Kong or elsewhere, must be
R deterred. Whether the victims are Hong Kong residents or not is R
neither here nor there.
S S
26. In deciding the proper starting point for each of the
T T
offences, the first issue is whether it was a breach of trust
situation.
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 5 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A A
27. Mr Hui, public prosecutor, initially asked the court
B to treat the case as one very close to breach of trust. He B
relied on HKSAR v Ng Tik Ki Chaneki, CACC 68/2011. When his
C C
attention is drawn to HKSAR v Chik Wai Wan, Stephen, he fairly
concedes that the present case should not be treated as a
D D
typical breach of trust.
E E
28. In my view, while the defendant did take advantage of
F the trust reposed in him by his friends and relative, he was not F
in a special relationship with them to place him in a position
G G
of trust to justify an enhancement of sentence.
H H
29. Two English Court of Appeal cases, R v Trevor Clark
I
[1982]2 Cr App R 137, a case referred to by Miss Chan, and R v I
Barrick [1985]81 Cr App R 78, have been adopted by Hong Kong
J courts in considering the proper level of sentence in cases of J
theft and fraud when the offenders had occupied a position of
K trust. K
L L
30. While the present case is not a typical breach of
trust case, some of the factors to be taken into account under
M M
the Barrick sentencing guidelines have general relevance to
N offences of dishonesty. These factors include, in particular, N
the period over which the fraud or theft has been perpetrated,
O the effect on the victim, the use to which the money or property O
dishonestly taken was put and those matters of mitigation
P P
special to the offender himself.
Q Q
31. I also make reference to the sentencing bands in HKSAR
R v Cheung Mee Kiu, [2006]4 HKLRD 776 as adjusted in HKSAR v Ng R
Kwok Wing, [2008]4 HKLRD 1017.
S S
32. The fraud perpetrated by the defendant for the five
T T
charges lasted for about four years. While there is no evidence
as to the effect on the victims, the money they have been
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 6 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A deceived are no doubt significant sums. There is also an A
international element in this case.
B B
33. On the other hand, I would accept that the defendant
C C
deceived the money to support his own company which suffered
huge loss and I find that the fraud in this case was not a
D D
sophisticated one. I further accept that the defendant is now
E remorseful. E
F 34. I would ignore the money being deceived and deposited F
into the defendant’s bank accounts other than Accounts 1, 2 and
G G
3 which, not being the subject matter of the charges, are not
within my jurisdiction.
H H
I
35. Charge 1 involves US$70,000, equivalent to about I
HK$540,000. I take 18 months’ imprisonment as the starting
J point. J
K 36. Charge 2 involves US$1 million which is equivalent to K
about HK$7.75 million. I adopt 54 months’ imprisonment as the
L L
starting point.
M M
37. Charge 3 involves US$100,000, equivalent to about
N HK$775,000. I take 22 months as the starting point. N
O 38. Charge 4 involves US$250,000, equivalent to about O
HK$1.9 million. 30 months as the starting point is adopted.
P P
39. Charge 5 involves US$740,000, equivalent to about
Q Q
HK$5.7 million. I adopt 48 months’ imprisonment as the starting
R point. R
S 40. A defendant should normally be entitled to one-third S
reduction only for a timely plea of guilty. The defendant in
T T
this case voluntarily surrendered to Hong Kong police
authorities when, as the prosecution agrees, there was no
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 7 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A investigation of the offences afoot. The offences might not have A
come to light without the defendant’s confession.
B B
41. In this case, even if the offences were somehow
C C
detected by the Hong Kong police, the prosecution could not have
been brought home to him if he, not being a Hong Kong resident,
D D
did not surrender himself to Hong Kong jurisdiction.
E E
42. For his confession, further discount should be given
F to him on top of the usual one-third reduction (See HKSAR v Ng F
Wing Chung CACC 176/2005). I am therefore prepared to give him a
G G
total reduction at about 40 per cent for his plea and
confession.
H H
I
43. Restitution should be taken into account. It is I
conceded by Miss Chan that only the US$222,000 in respect of
J Charge 2 should be properly treated as restitution. I will allow J
a further reduction of 3 months.
K K
44. The sentences of each offence are therefore as
L L
follows:
Charge 1 - 10 months’ imprisonment;
M M
Charge 2 - 29 months’ imprisonment;
N Charge 3 - 12 months’ imprisonment; N
Charge 4 - 18 months’ imprisonment;
O Charge 5 - 28 months’ imprisonment. O
P P
45. The last question is totality. Discounting the money
the defendant had returned to PW2 in Charge 2, the victims in
Q Q
Charges 1 to 5 parted with a total of about US$1.93 million
R which is equivalent to about HK$15 million. The fraud lasted for R
about four years. The defendant in Chik Wai Wan, Stephen used a
S false instrument to deceive his friend into investing US$2 S
million. The Court of Appeal said a starting point of 7½ years’
T T
imprisonment would have been more appropriate.
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 8 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V
A 46. In my judgment, after all deductions for the A
defendant’s plea and confession and restitution, a total term of
B 46 months’ imprisonment can reflect the defendant’s total B
culpability in the five charges.
C C
47. To reach this total term of imprisonment, I make the
D D
following order. Sentences on Charges 1 to 3 are to run
E concurrently with each other. Sentences on Charges 4 and 5 are E
to run consecutively. Sentences on Charges 1 to 3 shall run
F concurrently with those in Charges 4 and 5. The total term of F
imprisonment is 46 months’ imprisonment.
G G
H H
I I
(C. P. Pang)
District Judge
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT24/10.10.2014/SY 9 DCCC 135 & 725/2014(Cons)/Sentence
V V