DCCC546/2025

DCCC546/2025

DCCC 546/2025 [2026] HKDC 764 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 546 OF 2025 ---------------------------------------- HKSAR v WONG KINMAN 1st Defendant YUNG WAILEONG 2nd Defendant ---------------------------------------- Before: Deputy District Judge Ivy Chui in Court Date: 28 April 2026 Present: Mr Fan S Y, Edward, counsel on fiat of Department of Justice, for HKSAR Mr Chan Chun Hei Ryan, Counsel instructed by Messrs Huen & Cheung,assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st Defendant Mr Ah-Weng Jonathan Winston, Counsel instructed by Messrs Yip, Tse & Tang, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for 2nd Defendant Offences: [1] Theft (盜竊罪) [2] Obtaining property by deception (以欺騙手段取得財產) [3] & [4] Obtaining property be deception (以欺騙手段取得財產) (against 1st accused only) [4] & [5] Attempted to obtain property be deception (企圖以欺騙手段取得財產) (against 1st accused only) [6] Attempted forgery (企圖偽造) (against 2nd accused only) [7] Possession of equipment for making false instruments (管有用作製造虛假文書的設備) (against 2nd accused only) [8] Possession of identity cards relating to other persons (管有他人的身分證) (against 2nd accused only) [9] Possession of a forged identity card (管有偽造身分證) (against 2nd accused only) [10] Possession of false instruments (管有虛假文書) (against 2nd accused only) [11] - [13] Theft (盜竊罪) (against 2nd accused only) [14] Using a copy of a false instrument (使用虛假文書的副本) (against 1st accused only) [15] Using a copy of a false instrument (使用虛假文書的副本) (against 2nd accused only) [16] Conspiracy to use a copy of a false instrument (串謀使用虛假文書的副本) (against 1st accused only) [17] Conspiracy to commit forgery (串謀偽造) (against 1st accused only) ---------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE ---------------------------------------- Introduction 1. This case involves three defendants. These Reasons for Sentence concern only the first defendant, Wong Kin Man (“D1”), and the second defendant, Yung Wai Leong (“D2”). The third defendant will be dealt with separately. 2. D1 faces eight charges, namely: (1) Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, originally laid jointly against D1 and D2 (“Charge 1”); (2) Obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, originally laid jointly against all defendants (“Charge 2”); (3) Obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance (“Charge 3”and “Charge 4”); (4) Attempted to obtain property by deception, contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 (“Charge 5”); (5) Using a copy of a false instrument, contrary to section 74 of the Crimes Ordinance (“Charge 14”); (6) Conspiracy to use a copy of a false instrument, contrary to section 74 and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance (“Charge 16”); and (7) Conspiracy to commit forgery, contrary to section 71 and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance (“Charge 17”). 3. D2 faces nine charges, namely: - (1) Attempted forgery, contrary to section 71 and sections 159G and 159J of the Crimes Ordinance (“Charge 6”); (2) Possession of equipment for making false instruments, contrary to section 76(1) of the Crimes Ordinance (“Charge 7”); (3) Possession of identity cards relating to other persons, contrary to section 7A(1A) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177 (“Charge 8”); (4) Possession of a forged identity card, contrary to section 7A(1) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance (“Charge 9”); (5) Possession of false instruments, contrary to section 75(1) of the Crimes Ordinance (“Charge 10)”; (6) Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance (“Charges 11”, “Charge 12”and “Charge 13”); and (7) Using a copy of a false instrument, contrary to section 74 of the Crimes Ordinance (“Charge 15”). 4. Both defendants pleaded guilty to all charges they face and agreed to the Prosecution’s Summary of Facts. In relation to D2, the Prosecution applied for Charges 1 and 2 to be left on the court file, not to be proceeded with without the leave of the Court. That application is granted. Facts Admitted Facts relating to D1 Charge 1 – Theft 5. On the night of 23 February 2024, the victim, IP(PW1), placed his wallet inside his shoulder bag before going out drinking with friends. When he awoke at about 8:30 a.m. on 24 February 2024, he discovered that the wallet was missing. Inside were HK$8,000 in cash, three bank cards, three credit cards, one UTCL debit card (“the Debit Card”), his Hong Kong Identity Card, Home Visit Permit and driving licence. 6. On 1 March 2024 at about 8:33 p.m., whilst PC 22248 (PW2) was on patrol near Hoi Nga House, Hoi Lai Estate, he noticed D1, who resembled the person captured in the CCTV footage he had earlier reviewed. PW2 therefore intercepted D1 and identified himself as a police officer. D1 was arrested. Under caution, he admitted that he had picked up the wallet in Sham Shui Po and had used the Debit Card. Charge 2 – Obtaining property by deception 7. At about 4:35 a.m. on 24 February 2024, CCTV at a 7‑Eleven convenience store at Hoi Lai Shopping Centre captured D1 entering the shop with D2 and D3. D3 used the Debit Card to purchase two iTunes cards worth HK$5,000 each and to pay HK$879 for drinks, food and cigarettes. D1 was seen placing the drinks and food on the counter. 8. On 1 March 2024 at about 8:53 p.m., D1 was further arrested by PW2 for this offence. Under caution, he said that “Fat Luk” was involved. Charge 3 – Obtaining property by deception 9. At about 5:01 a.m. and 5:02 a.m. on 24 February 2024, D1 entered a Circle K convenience store at Mei Foo Sun Chuen and used the Debit Card to purchase two Google Play cards totalling HK$4,000. 10. On 1 March 2024 at about 8:53 p.m., D1 was further arrested by PW2 for this offence. Under caution, he admitted the offence. Charge 4 – Obtaining property by deception 11. At about 5:04 a.m. on 24 February 2024, D1 entered a 7‑Eleven convenience store at Mei Foo Plaza, picked up an iTunes card and used the Debit Card to pay HK$5,000. When arrested at about 8:57 p.m. on 1 March 2024 by PW2, D1 admitted under caution that he had used the Debit Card to purchase iTunes cards for HK$5,000. Charge 5 – Attempted obtaining property by deception 12. Shortly after the transaction in Charge 4, D1 attempted to use the Debit Card again to purchase another iTunes card, but the transaction could not be completed because there were insufficient funds in the account. He left without completing the purchase. Photographs recovered from D1’s mobile phones (relevant to Charges 1, 14 and 16) 13. PC 22248 subsequently seized two of D1’s mobile phones. In his Samsung mobile phone, officers found one photograph of a piece of paper bearing PW1’s personal information; two photographs of PW1’s Hong Kong Identity Card (relevant to Charges 1 and 16); and six photographs of CHAN (PW8)’s Hong Kong Identity Card. In D1’s Huawei mobile phone, officers found three photographs of PW8’s Hong Kong Identity Card bearing D1’s photograph (relevant to Charge 14). Charge 14 – Using a copy of a false instrument 14. On 15 January 2022, D1 submitted an application for a virtual bank account with Mox Bank Limited using a copy of a Hong Kong Identity Card in the name of PW8 but bearing D1’s photograph. In that application, D1 took one selfie. Charge 16 – Conspiracy to use a copy of a false instrument 15. Between 8:38 p.m. and 11:21 p.m. on 2 March 2024, D1 was interviewed under caution in a video‑recorded interview. He stated that he became involved because he saw an opportunity to earn money. He stated that he had met “Ah Fei” and “Leong Jai”, that cards including PW1’s Hong Kong Identity Card, driving licence, credit cards and bank cards were placed in a computer bag he was holding, and that he later saw “Leong Jai” replacing the photograph on PW1’s Hong Kong Identity Card with D1’s photograph. He understood that this was for the purpose of applying for virtual bank accounts and/or bank loans. 16. He further stated that attempts were made to open accounts at Mox Bank, Fusion Bank and Livi Bank Hong Kong, that none of these applications was successful, and that he was together with “Leong Jai” and “Ah Fei” when these applications were made. He believed he would be rewarded several thousand dollars if the applications succeeded. Charge 17 – Conspiracy to commit forgery 17. In the same interview, D1 stated that, at the request of “Leong Jai”, he used “Photoshop” and a laptop provided by “Leong Jai” to make bank statements for the purpose of applying for American Express cards. He said he knew this was illegal. D1 did not know PW1. Facts relating to D2 Search and Arrest of D2 18. On 8 March 2024, DPC 18287 (PW5), together with other officers, attended D2’s residence at Room 3408, Hoi Nga House, Hoi Lai Estate. Hearing sounds inside, PW5 tried the gate, found it unlocked, slid it open and pushed the door. He saw D2 sitting in front of his laptop (“the Laptop”) in the living room. PW5 executed a search warrant and identified himself as a police officer. At his request, DPC 14791 (PW6) and other officers arrived shortly afterwards. At about 10:30 a.m., PW6 arrested D2 for “Theft”. Charge 6 – Attempted forgery (D2) 19. Upon entry into the flat, D2 was found sitting in front of the laptop (“the Laptop”) in the living room and using software named “Paint”. The scanned copy of XU (PW16)’s Construction Industry Safety Training Certificate displayed on the screen did not contain a photograph. A file containing the scanned copy of that certificate, a Construction Workers Registration Card and an image resembling PW16’s Hong Kong Identity Card was also open. D2’s DNA was found on the Laptop. Charge 7 – Possession of equipment for making false instruments 20. The bottle of spray adhesive found on the window sill, the cutter and pliers found on the TV cabinet, together with the printer scanner and the inkjet film labels (both printed and unused) found in the living room and inside the shoebox, constituted the equipment for making false instruments referred to in this charge. Several cards and certificates were placed on the document table of the printer scanner. Charge 8 – Possession of identity cards relating to other persons 21. Inside the shoebox in the living room, officers found Hong Kong Identity Cards of ONYIM (PW7), LIANG Yingfu, PW8, LAM Kwan‑ho, LAW (PW9), WONG (PW10), WAN (PW11) and LUK Henry (PW12). There were scratches on the photograph of LAM Kwan‑ho and on PW10’s identity card. Charge 9 – Possession of a forged identity card 22. Inside the shoebox, officers found a card resembling a Hong Kong Identity Card in the name of KAO (PW13), which was later confirmed by a forensic scientist to be a forged identity card. Charge 10 – Possession of false instruments 23. Inside the shoebox, officers found three pages of forged bank statements dated 10 February 2024 with PW1’s name printed on them, and two pages of forged bank statements with PW10’s name printed on them. Charges 11–13 – Theft 24. Inside the shoebox, officers found HON (PW14)’s Hong Kong Identity Card, Home Visit Permit, Hong Kong driving licence, Mainland driving licence, three name cards and a bank card. 25. On the TV cabinet, officers found TSANG (PW15)’s Hong Kong Identity Card, Mainland Travel Permit and driving licence. On the printer scanner, officers found PW15’s Construction Industry Safety Training Certificate, Zero Harm Induction Training Certificate and Construction Workers Registration Certificate. PW15’s Bank of China card was found inside the shoebox. 26. On the keyboard of the Laptop, officers found six pages of bank statements issued by the Bank of East Asia to PW16, a set of transfer statements and a set of transfer confirmations issued by Manulife to PW16, an electricity bill issued by CLP Power Hong Kong to PW16, and a letter issued by LO’s Project Consultation Company Limited to PW16. PW16’s entry permit and site pass were found on the TV cabinet. Charge 15 – Using a copy of a false instrument 27. D2 submitted an application for a virtual bank account to WeLab Bank on 29 January 2024 using a Hong Kong Identity Card in the name of PW13 but bearing D2’s photograph. In that application, D2 took two selfies. Victim confirmation 28. The victims of Charges 8 to 13 later confirmed that the identity documents and personal items recovered from D2’s flat belonged to them and had been lost or stolen on earlier dates. D2’s cautioned interview 29. Between 7:07 p.m. and 9:58 p.m. on 8 March 2024, D2 was interviewed under caution in a video‑recorded interview. He stated, among other things, that he had known D1 for about 5 to 10 years and that he would often go to D1’s residence. Personal Background and Mitigation D1 30. D1 is 52 years old and was born in Hong Kong. He received education up to secondary level. He is divorced and resides with his 21‑year‑old son, who is currently a university student and financially dependent on him. D1 was previously employed as a warehouse worker earning approximately HK$15,000 per month, but he has been unemployed for the past three years due to a ligament injury. 31. D1 has six previous court appearances involving a total of eleven offences. Four of those offences were obtaining property by deception committed in 2002, for which he was placed on a 24‑month probation order. His most recent conviction was in March 2016 for possession of an offensive weapon, for which he was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. 32. Mr Chan, counsel for D1, submitted that D1 pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and has made admissions to the police, including providing information that the Department of Justice has acknowledged in writing. He expresses remorse for his conduct. He was not the mastermind behind the forgery‑related activities; the materials suggest that others played leading roles in the organization and execution of the wider scheme. D1’s involvement was motivated in part by financial pressure arising from supporting his son’s education. No violence or threats were used in the commission of the offences. D1 respectfully invites the Court to take these matters into account in determining sentence. 33. D1 has also written a mitigation letter. In it, he states that he committed the offences under the negative influence of bad company. He further explains that his younger brother passed away in mid‑February this year, and he hopes for leniency so that he may return home as soon as possible to care for his mother and his son. D2 34. D2 is 40 years old and was born in Hong Kong. He studied up to Form 4. Before his arrest, he lived with his parents and contributed HK$4,000 to HK$5,000 monthly to household expenses. His father is a retired civil servant aged 76, and his mother, aged 75, suffers from health issues including a stroke and knee surgery. D2 maintains close family ties; his parents and fiancée visit him regularly. He previously worked as a renovation worker earning about HK$20,000 per month. He has been remanded in custody since 3 September 2025. 35. It was said in mitigation that D2 pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and expresses remorse for his conduct. He acknowledges the seriousness of the offences and indicates a desire to rehabilitate and resume supporting his family upon release. There is no evidence that D2 derived financial gain from the offences, nor is there any indication of an international dimension to his activities. He respectfully invites the Court to apply the totality principle when determining the overall sentence. 36. The defence has placed before me several mitigation letters, including those from D2 himself, his mother, his girlfriend, and the person‑in‑charge of Yau Yim Kee Fruit Stall. I have read and taken all of them into account. In his own letter, D2 states that having been in and out of prison repeatedly, he is exhausted and wishes to lead a simple and law‑abiding life upon release. His mother describes him as a filial son who frequently accompanies her to medical appointments. She is in poor health and hopes that he may be given a chance to return home to care for her. The employer from the fruit stall indicates a willingness to offer D2 formal employment upon completion of his sentence. 37. As for D2’s criminal record, he has previously appeared before the courts on 14 occasions, involving a total of 32 offences. These include nine offences under the Theft Ordinance, comprising theft, obtaining property by deception, and going equipped for stealing. He also has two counterfeiting‑related convictions from 2006, and a conviction in 2015 for possession of a forged Hong Kong identity card. 38. His most recent convictions were dealt with on 18 May 2023 in DCCC 104/2022 and DCCC 163/2023, for which he received an aggregate sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment. Those offences comprised making or possessing equipment for the making of a false instrument, possession of an identity card relating to another person, forgery, handling stolen goods, and possession of a forged document of identity. After serving that sentence, he was released on 27 December 2023 and committed the present offences shortly thereafter. Sentencing Considerations 39. I have carefully considered the mitigation advanced by both counsel, together with the authorities relied upon. I will deal with the sentence for D1 first. D1 40. D1 faces eight charges in total. His offending reflects a deliberate and repeated misuse of PW1’s debit card over a short period, causing actual losses of HK$14,879. The theft of the wallet, which contained HK$8,000 in cash and a full suite of identity documents, carries seriousness beyond the monetary loss. PW1 was deprived of essential documents and would have had to spend time and money to replace them. 41. The evidence demonstrates that D1 did not merely come into possession of PW1’s wallet by chance; rather, he actively retained, organized and utilized the identity documents contained therein. Photographs recovered from his two mobile phones show that he retained and organized images of PW1’s and PW8’s identity documents, including altered versions bearing his own photograph. His admissions confirm that he knowingly allowed his photograph to be placed onto PW1’s identity card, attempted to open virtual bank accounts using altered documents, and created false bank statements for credit applications. His conduct therefore extended beyond the opportunistic use of a stolen debit card and reflected a readiness to exploit the identities of others for financial gain. Charge 1 — Theft 42. This offence carries a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. The theft involved HK$8,000 in cash and a full suite of essential identity documents, and that it facilitated the subsequent deception offences. In my view, a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment is appropriate. After the one‑third discount for the guilty plea, the sentence is 8 months. Charges 2–4 — Obtaining Property by Deception 43. Each offence carries a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment. D1 used PW1’s debit card to conduct three successful transactions at different convenience stores. These were deliberate and repeated acts forming part of the sustained dishonest conduct described above. 44. Mr. Chan, counsel for D1, relied on the case of HKSAR v Li Chi Yat CACC 189/2018. In that case, the appellant had pleaded guilty to four offences: theft of a credit card (Charge 1), one count of obtaining property by deception by using that card (Charge 2), and two further counts of attempting to obtain property by deception by using the same card (Charges 3 and 4). The Court of Appeal held that a starting point of 3 years for the deception offences was manifestly excessive, and substituted a starting point of 2 years for each of those charges, while upholding the 9‑month starting point for the theft of the credit card and confirming that part of that sentence should run consecutively to reflect the distinct criminality involved. 45. While the present case involves the same general pattern of offending as in Li Chi Yat, the appropriate sentence must still be determined by reference to the particular circumstances of this case. Although these offences involved the use of a debit card rather than a stolen genuine credit card as in HKSAR v Lam See Chung, Stephen [2013] 5 HKLRD 242 and HKSAR v So Wah CACC 323/2011, the seriousness of the conduct should not be understated. The use of another person’s debit card to obtain or attempt to obtain property undermines the integrity of electronic payment systems, exposes financial institutions and merchants to potential loss, and represents a deliberate intrusion into the victim’s personal financial security. The criminality lies in the dishonest use of a payment instrument capable of effecting transactions, regardless of whether it is a credit or debit card. 46. In the present case, the offending involved three relatively low‑value transactions conducted with a stolen Debit Card. I consider that a starting point of 24 months for each charge is appropriate. After the one‑third discount for the guilty plea, the sentence for each charge is 16 months. Charge 5 — Attempt to Obtain Property by Deception 47. Although the transaction was unsuccessful due to insufficient funds, the criminality is comparable to the completed deception offences. I consider that a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment is appropriate. After the one‑third discount for the guilty plea, the sentence is 16 months. Charge 14 — Using a Copy of a False Instrument 48. This offence carries a maximum of fourteen years’ imprisonment. D1 used a copy of PW8’s identity card, altered to bear his photograph, to apply for a virtual bank account. This conduct formed part of the same pattern of identity misuse evidenced by the altered documents recovered from his mobile phones. 49. I consider that a starting point of 24 months is appropriate. After the one‑third discount for the guilty plea, the sentence is 16 months. Charge 16 — Conspiracy to Use a Copy of a False Instrument 50. This offence carries a maximum of fourteen years’ imprisonment. D1 conspired with Leong Jai and Ah Fei to use a copy of PW1’s identity card, altered to bear his photograph, to apply for virtual bank accounts. The involvement of multiple participants acting in concert increases the seriousness of the offending, which is consistent with his admissions in interview and the altered identity documents found on his phones. 51. In my view, a starting point of 33 months is appropriate. After the one‑third discount for the guilty plea, the sentence is 22 months. Charge 17 — Conspiracy to Commit Forgery 52. This offence carries a maximum of fourteen years’ imprisonment. D1 conspired with Leong Jai to produce false bank statements using Photoshop for credit applications. This was part of the same identity‑related offending and involved the deliberate creation of documents capable of deceiving financial institutions and facilitating further fraudulent activity. Further, the concerted nature of the offending adds to its seriousness. 53. I consider that a starting point of 33 months’ imprisonment is appropriate. After the one‑third discount for the guilty plea, the sentence is 22 months. The Totality Principle 54. I now turn to consider the totality principle. 55. Taking into consideration the totality principle, I consider that a total sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment is sufficient to reflect the overall criminality of D1. To achieve that total, Charges 2 to 5 were committed on the same day using the same debit card and form a single course of dishonest conduct. These offences will therefore run concurrently, producing a term of 16 months. The theft of PW1’s wallet, although arising from the same sequence of events, is a separate act of dishonesty and is of a different nature. Therefore, I order that of the 8‑month sentence for Charge 1, 4 months will run concurrently with Charges 2 to 5 and 4 months consecutively, resulting in a subtotal of 20 months for this group of offences (4+16). 56. The identity‑related offences (Charges 14, 16 and 17) represent a further distinct strand of offending involving the misuse of personal identification documents. These sentences will run concurrently with each other, producing a term of 22 months. Of that concurrent term, I order that 12 months will run consecutively to the sentences for Charges 1 to 5 so as to reflect the additional criminality involved (4+16+12). This results in a total sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment. 57. The total sentence for D1 is therefore 32 months’ imprisonment. D2 58. D2 faces nine charges in total. His offending is of a more serious and organized nature. The materials recovered from his residence reveal a systematic operation involving the retention, alteration and production of identity‑related documents. The items included a large quantity of identity documents belonging to numerous victims, forged documents, forged bank statements, a forged Hong Kong Identity Card, and a full suite of equipment used for the making of false instruments. His Laptop was found actively displaying scanned identity documents in the process of being edited. This was not incidental possession but active engagement in the production of false instruments. 59. The presence of equipment such as a printer‑scanner, inkjet film labels with headshots, adhesive spray, a cutter and pliers, together with open image‑editing files, demonstrates active participation in the production of false instruments. 60. I note the submission that there is no evidence that D2 obtained any actual financial gain. I do not agree. The criminality lies in the deliberate production and use of false instruments, which are inherently capable of deceiving financial institutions and causing loss. His conduct therefore created both immediate and ongoing harm to multiple individuals and posed a broader risk to the integrity of official identification systems. The victims of Charges 8 to 13 were also deprived of essential identity documents, the replacement of which inevitably causes inconvenience, disruption and expense. 61. D2’s criminal background is substantial and is a factor that cannot be disregarded in sentencing. His record is extensive. He has previously appeared before the courts on 14 occasions involving 32 offences, including theft‑related offences, counterfeiting offences, possession of a forged Hong Kong Identity Card, and five further offences for which he received an aggregate sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment on 18 May 2023. 62. According to the antecedents, D2 was released from prison on 27 December 2023. He plainly reoffended within just over one month of his release, and the remaining offences were committed within the following two months. The short interval between his release and the present offences, and the close similarity between his past and present convictions, demonstrate that the previous custodial sentence had no deterrent effect. This is a significant aggravating factor. 63. As the Court of Appeal observed in HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830, although an offender must be sentenced for the offence currently before the court and not punished again for past crimes, a persistent record of similar offending may legitimately increase the gravity of the present offence. Repetition of the same type of crime becomes an aggravating feature: it demonstrates that previous sentences have failed to deter and highlights the need to protect the public. In my view, D2’s persistence and the close similarity between his antecedents and the present offences justify a modest upward adjustment to the starting points to deter the defendant and to protect the public. Charge 6 — Attempted Forgery 64. This offence carries a maximum of fourteen years’ imprisonment. D2 was found actively manipulating PW16’s Construction Industry Safety Training Certificate on his Laptop, an activity forming part of the identity‑related offending described above. Having regard to the nature of the offence and his role, I consider a starting point of 27 months to be appropriate. I increase this by 6 months to 33 months to reflect the short interval between his release and the present offence, and the close similarity between his past and present offending. After the one‑third discount for his guilty plea, the sentence is 22 months. Charge 7 — Possession of Equipment for Making False Instruments 65. This offence carries a maximum of fourteen years’ imprisonment. The printer scanner, inkjet film labels, adhesive spray, cutter and pliers recovered from D2’s residence constituted equipment used for the making of false instruments. I consider a starting point of 36 months to be appropriate. I increase this by 6 months to 42 months to reflect his immediate reoffending and the similarity of the present conduct to his past convictions. After the one‑third discount for his plea, the sentence is 28 months. Charge 8 — Possession of Identity Cards Relating to Other Persons 66. This offence carries a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment. Officers recovered eight Hong Kong Identity Cards belonging to different victims from a shoebox in D2’s residence, with visible scratches on the photographs of two of them. In HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2005] 1 HKLRD 864, the Court of Appeal held that possession of another person’s identity card is inherently suspicious and often associated with unlawful purposes, and that the usual starting point after a guilty plea is 12 months’ imprisonment. In HKSAR v Fan King Lam CACC 220/2010, the Court held that even where the identity card is genuine and the offender is a permanent resident, a starting point of 18 months may be justified. 67. Having regard to these authorities and the fact that D2 possessed eight identity cards belonging to different victims for no legitimate purpose, I adopt a starting point of 30 months. I increase this by 6 months to 36 months to reflect his immediate return to similar offending. After the one‑third discount for his plea, the sentence is 24 months. Charge 9 — Possession of a Forged Identity Card 68. This offence carries a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment. Officers found a card resembling a Hong Kong Identity Card in the name of PW13, which was later confirmed by a forensic scientist to be a forged identity card. 69. Having regard to the applicable authorities and the seriousness of possessing a forged identity document, I adopt a starting point of 18 months. I increase this by 6 months to 24 months to reflect his immediate return to similar offending. After the one‑third discount for his guilty plea, the sentence is 16 months. Charge 10 — Possession of False Instruments 70. This offence carries a maximum of fourteen years’ imprisonment. Officers recovered three pages of forged bank statements bearing PW1’s name and two pages of forged bank statements bearing PW10’s name from the same shoebox. These documents were capable of facilitating further dishonest conduct. 71. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the seriousness of possessing multiple false instruments capable of being used in further fraud, I adopt a starting point of 15 months. I increase this by 6 months to 21 months to reflect his immediate return to similar offending. After the one‑third discount for his guilty plea, the sentence is 14 months. Charges 11–13 — Theft 72. Each offence carries a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment. Officers recovered identity documents and personal items belonging to PW14, PW15 and PW16 from various locations within D2’s residence, including identity cards, travel permits, driving licences, bank cards, training certificates and financial correspondence. 73. Given the nature of the offending and the fact that the items taken were essential personal documents, I adopt a starting point of 12 months for each charge. I increase this by 6 months to 18 months to reflect his immediate return to similar offending. After the one‑third discount for his plea, the sentence for each charge is 12 months. Charge 15 — Using a Copy of a False Instrument 74. This offence carries a maximum of fourteen years’ imprisonment. D2 used a copy of PW13’s identity card, altered to bear his photograph, to apply for a virtual bank account. 75. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the seriousness of using an altered identity document to obtain banking facilities, I adopt a starting point of 24 months. I increase this by 6 months to 30 months to reflect his immediate return to similar offending. After the one‑third discount for his plea, the sentence is 20 months. The Totality Principal 76. Taking into consideration the totality principle, I consider that a total sentence of 50 months’ imprisonment is sufficient to reflect the overall criminality of D2. To achieve that total, the offences fall into three groups. Charges 6, 7 and 15 concern the making, possession of equipment for making, and use of false identity documents. These offences form the core of D2’s identity‑related offending and will run concurrently, producing a term of 28 months. Charges 8 to 10 concern the possession of multiple false or forged identity documents and false instruments. These offences will also run concurrently, producing a term of 24 months. Charges 11 to 13 concern the theft of essential personal documents from three separate victims and will run concurrently, producing a term of 12 months. 77. I order that 10 months from the concurrent term for Charges 8 to 10 will run consecutively to the concurrent term for Charges 6, 7 and 15 (10+28). I further order that the 12‑month concurrent term for Charges 11 to 13 will run consecutively to the sentences for Charges 6 to 10 and 15 (10+28+12). This results in a total sentence of 50 months’ imprisonment. 78. The total sentence for D2 is therefore 50 months’ imprisonment. ( Ivy Chui ) Deputy District Judge