DCCC638/2019

DCCC638/2019

A A B B C DCCC 638/2019 C [2020] HKDC 379 D D E IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION F F CRIMINAL CASE NO 638 OF 2019 G G --------------------------------------- H H HKSAR I v I WONG ERNI-WAHYUNING J J --------------------------------------- K K Before: Deputy District Judge Newman Wong L L Date: 28 May 2020 M Present: Ms Bina Sujanani, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR M Mr William Allan, instructed by Mohnani & Associates, for N N the defendant O Offence: [1] to [2], [4] and [6] Conspiracy to defraud (串謀詐騙) O P [7] to [11] Using a false instrument (使用虛假文書) P Q Q ----------------------------------------- R REASONS FOR VERDICT R ----------------------------------------- S S T 1. Having considered all the evidence and the submissions made T by both the prosecution and defence counsel, the court is satisfied beyond U U V V  -2- A A B B a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved their case for Charges C 2, 4, 6 to 11. The defendant is accordingly found guilty of these charges. C The defendant is, however, found not guilty of Charge 1. D D E 2. These are the reasons for the above verdicts now. E F F The charges G G 3. The defendant faces a total of nine charges in this trial; that is, H H Charges 1, 2, 4 and 6 to 11 on the re-amended charge sheet. I I 4. The first four charges, namely 1, 2, 4 and 6 are conspiracy to J J defraud, brought under the Common Law and section 159C(6) of the K Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200), and also sections 2(3) and 4(2) of the K Criminal Jurisdiction Ordinance, (Cap 461). L L M 5. The other five charges, namely Charges 7 to 11, are using a M false instrument and these charges are brought under section 73, Crimes N N Ordinance (Cap 200). O O 6. The prosecution having offered no evidence against the P P defendant on Charges 3 and 5 on the re-amended charge sheet, the Q defendant has been acquitted of these two charges and the court is also of Q course no longer concerned with them. R R S 7. Now, for the sake of convenience, as can be seen shortly, the S nine charges could be divided into two groups: Charges 1, 2, 4 and 6 are T T in the first group, and the remaining five charges, namely 7 to 11, in the U U V V  -3- A A B B second. Except for the dates of offence, the co-conspirators named in the C charges and the persons referred to in the particulars of the representations C said to have been made to the Director of Immigration, the first four D D charges are almost identical in the way they are framed. E E 8. The particulars of Charge 1 read as follows:- F F G “WONG ERNI-WAHYUNING, between a day unknown in G 2013 and the 26th day of July, 2015, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, conspired with Yana-Krisdianti (also known as H Yana Krisdianti and Krisdianti Yana) and other persons H unknown, to defraud the Director of Immigration of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region I I and his officers, by dishonestly and falsely representing to the Director and his officers that the said Yana-Krisdianti was J employed by Chan Lap-sun, Louis, and thereby to induce the J said Director and his officers to act contrary to their public duty, namely to approve the said Yana-Krisdianti entry employment K visa in Hong Kong in which they would not otherwise approve.” K L L Yana-Krisdianti, whom I shall simply call “Yana” from this point onward, M is PW1 in the trial, whereas the said Chan Lap Sun, Louis, was called as M PW2. N N O 9. Now, Charge 2 is said to have been committed between a day O unknown in 2013 and 25 January 2014, with Rohaela and other persons P P unknown. Rohaela and the defendant are said to have conspired to defraud Q the Director of Immigration by dishonestly and falsely representing to the Q Director and his officers that Rohaela was employed by Tang Wah-fai, R R thereby to induce the Director and his officers to act contrary to their public S duty, namely to approve the entry employment visa of Rohaela which they S would not otherwise approve. Rohaela was called as PW3 and Tang Wah T T Fai, PW4 in this trial. U U V V  -4- A A B B C 10. Charge 4 is said to have been committed between a day C unknown in 2015 and 21 January 2018 with Ayun-Dwijayanti, whom I will D D simply call “Ayun”, and other persons unknown. And the dishonest and E false representation being that the said Ayun was employed by one, Sin E Chi-fai. Ayun and Sin Chi-fai were called as PW5 and PW6, respectively, F F in the trial. G G 11. Lastly, Charge 6 is said to have been committed between a H H day unknown in 2015 and 30 October 2016 with Alarcio Rose Pascua, I whom I shall simply call “Alarcio”, and other persons unknown. And the I representation being that the said Alarcio was employed by Cheung Tsz- J J kin. Alarcio and Cheung were called as PW7 and PW8 in the trial, K respectively. K L L 12. Now, turning to the second group of offences. Charge 7 reads M as follows:- M N N “Wong Erni-Wahyuning, on or about the 19th day of December, 2016, in Hong Kong, used an instrument which was and which O she knew or believed to be false, namely one copy of a Chong O Hing Bank Limited passbook account numbered ...... in the name of Wong Ching-yee, with the intention of inducing the officer(s) P P of Immigration Department to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to their own Q or any other person’s prejudice.” Q R 13. The remaining charges in this group are framed in an identical R way. The only difference being the dates of offence and the instrument in S S question. Charge 8, for instance, alleges that on 6 January 2017, the T defendant used a copy of a Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited (which I T shall simply call “BOC”) passbook, in the name of Ho Chun-leung. U U V V  -5- A A B B C 14. Charge 9 alleges that on 9 March 2017, the defendant used a C copy of the same BOC passbook. Charge 10 alleges that on 5 September D D 2017, the defendant used a copy of a BOC deposit confirmation in the name E of Yeung Kim Wa. And lastly, Charge 11 alleges that on 22 November E 2017, the defendant used a copy of a BOC passbook in the name of Yu F F Man-kwan. G G The prosecution’s case H H I 15. For Charges 1, 2, 4 and 6, the prosecution’s case in a nutshell I is that the co-conspirators named in each of these charges approached the J J defendant, who ran an employment agency called J’S Employment K Agency, in Hop Yick Plaza, Yuen Long, and asked her to help them to get K a domestic helper visa so that they could remain in Hong Kong, but without L L having to work as a domestic helper for the person named as the employer M in their contract and visa. In return for a fee to be paid by the co- M conspirators, the defendant agreed to help. N N O 16. Pursuant to the agreement, contracts with a bogus employer, O together with such supporting documents, were prepared and these P P documents were then submitted by the defendant to the Immigration Q Department. In each case, acting in the belief that the contract and the Q supporting documents were genuine, a visa and/or permission to stay was R R granted to the co-conspirator by the Immigration Department; something S which the Department would not have otherwise done had they known that S the documents were in fact false. T T U U V V  -6- A A B B 17. As to Charges 7 to 11, the prosecution’s case is that in C conducting the investigation, the Department found that the defendant had C in fact used false instruments, namely the ones referred in the charges, in D D relation to five other visa applications involving four different employers, E namely, Cheung Shuk Wa for charge 7; Ho Chun Leung for charges 8 and E 9; Yeung Kim Wa, charge 10; and lastly, Yu Man Kwan of charge 11. F F G Problem of duplicity in relation to Charge 1 G H H 18. Now, before I shall deal with the prosecution’s evidence, I I think I should say a word about the prosecution’s case in respect of Charge I 1. As can be seen in the original opening for the prosecution, which is J J dated 4 May 2020, the prosecution’s case is actually a little different from K what we are now seeing in the re-amended prosecution’s opening. K According to paragraph 4 of the original opening, the prosecution’s case L L then was that PW1, namely Yana, saw the defendant at her agency in early M 2013. On that occasion, the defendant offered to arrange a false domestic M helper contract for PW1 at $29,000 and PW1 would not be required to work N N for the employer stated in the contract after the visa application was O approved. PW1 agreed and paid the defendant the said $29,000 by two O instalments. A visa was then issued to her and she used it to stay in Hong P P Kong, doing something else instead of working for the employer stated in Q the contract or visa. Q R R 19. According to paragraphs 4 and 6 of the same original opening, S in early 2015, the defendant contacted PW1 to sign on documents for S extension of visa for employment contract with the same employer. On 27 T T April 2015, the Immigration Department received an extension of visa U U V V  -7- A A B B application for PW1 to continue working as a domestic helper for PW2. C This application was granted and PW1 was given permission to stay in C Hong Kong until 13 March 2016, together with a domestic helper entry D D visa. E E 20. As there were two occasions when PW1 had approached the F F defendant for help in respect of her visas to stay in Hong Kong, one in 2013 G and one in 2015, Miss Sujanani for the prosecution was asked by this court G if this could have given rise to a question of duplicity. In reply, Miss H H Sujanani said “No” at that stage, and that is because the extension I application made in 2015 was, according to her reading of PW1’s statement I to the Immigration, done gratuitously by the defendant, meaning at no extra J J cost. K K 21. However, as the evidence of PW1 unfolded in court, it became L L clear that when PW1 approached the defendant in 2015 for the visa M extension, she was told to pay $30,000, which she did by a few instalments. M N N 22. The question of duplicity was then raised by the court again O with Miss Sujanani. As pointed out by the court at that time, with two O different visa applications, one in 2013 and the second one in 2015, each P P accompanied by a fee paid by PW1 to the defendant for the service, one Q had difficulty in seeing how the two transactions could have been regarded Q as the same conspiracy, and, as such, the prosecution would have to elect R R as to which of these two they would proceed with on Charge 1. S S 23. After taking instructions from the Department of Justice, Miss T T Sujanani decided to amend the prosecution’s opening in the way as is now U U V V  -8- A A B B shown in the re-amended opening. And, as a result of this amendment, the C prosecution has elected, in effect, to focus on the 2015 transaction. The C 2013 transaction, as put by Miss Sujanani, is simply background D D information. This I shall come back to later. E E The issues F F G 24. As indicated by Mr Allan, defence counsel, both in the PTR G questionnaire and in court on quite a few occasions, and as is also apparent H H from the way the relevant PWs were cross-examined, the real issues taken I insofar as Charges 1, 2, 4 and 6 are concerned, is one of identity, namely, I was the defendant the person whom PW1, PW3, PW5 and PW7 said they J J had approached and conspired with for the making of the false K representation to the Director of Immigration and his officers, thereby to K induce the latter to approve the entry employment visa which they would L L not otherwise approve. M M 25. As to Charges 7 to 11, the real issue is whether, on the N N evidence put before the court, it can be satisfied so that it is sure that the O defendant had used the false instruments in question. O P P 26. Although Mr Allan did say at one stage also that knowledge Q was an issue, it can be seen in due course that this is perhaps only of Q secondary significance. R R S S T T U U V V  -9- A A B B Prosecution’s evidence C C 27. The prosecution has called a total of nine live witnesses. D D Namely, PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5, PW7 and PW15 to PW18. In addition, E three other witnesses, namely PW4, PW6 and PW8 had their witness E statements read into court under section 65B of the Criminal Procedure F F Ordinance. Their witness statements have since been marked as P75 to G P78, respectively. G H H 28. There are, in addition, three sets of Admitted Facts produced I under section 65C of the Criminal Procedures Ordinance, which were I respectively marked as P74, P80 and P81. And pursuant to the Admitted J J Facts, various documentary exhibits have also been placed before the court. K K The Admitted Facts L L M 29. Here, I propose to begin with the Admitted Facts. In M paragraph 1 of P74, that is the first set of Admitted Facts, it is admitted that N N the defendant was the sole director of a company called J’S Employment O Agency Limited, which had two businesses: (1) J’S Employment Agency O and (2) Chidi Jaya Shop, which I will simply call the “Shop” from this P P point onwards. Q Q 30. According to Exhibit P1A, between January 2013 and 3 May R R 2015, J’S Employment Agency was operating at Shop 1C, 1/F Tung Yick S Building, 8 Yu King Square, Yuen Long. From 4 May 2015, it was S operating at Shop 18A on the same floor of the same building. Shop 18A T T appears to be the registered address of J’S Employment Agency Limited. U U V V  - 10 - A A B B Now, the Shop, on the other hand, was situated at Shop 2A on the same C floor of the same building. C D D 31. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of P74 relate to Charge 1. In short, the E following facts were thereby admitted:- E F F (a) The Immigration Department received a visa G application of PW1 on 13 May 2013 to work as G a domestic helper for PW2 under employment H H contract J256289. Together with the visa I application were various supporting documents I which include, among others, copies of PW1’s J J passport; PW2’s Hong Kong ID card; a bank K account passbook and a tenancy agreement of a K public housing unit where PW2 is said to have L L been residing at with his family and the M electricity bill of the said unit. Now, both the M tenancy agreement and the electricity bill were N N in the name of PW2’s father, one Mr Chan Mun O Lun, and together these documents formed O Exhibit P2. And there is also submitted to the P P Immigration Department the employment Q contract between PW1 and PW2. This was Q marked as P2A. R R S (b) On 28 May 2013, PW1 was granted permission S to remain in Hong Kong as a domestic helper for T T PW2 until 28 May 2014, and also a domestic U U V V  - 11 - A A B B helper entry visa. These two documents were C produced and marked as P3 and P3A, C respectively. D D E (c) On 7 April 2014, PW1 departed Hong Kong and E returned on the same day to activate her entry F F visa, namely P3A. G G (d) On 27 April 2015, the Immigration Department H H received an application for extension of visa by I PW1 for her to continue working as a domestic I helper for PW2 under a new employment J J contract, number K569428. The application was K marked as P4. Like Exhibit P3, the application K had with it some supporting documents, the most L L important of which being no doubt the new M employment contract, P4A. M N N (e) On the same day, when the application was O submitted, PW1 was granted permission to O remain in Hong Kong as a domestic helper for P P PW2 until 13 March 2016, and also a domestic Q helper entry visa, both of which have been Q produced and marked as P5 and P5A, R R respectively. S S (f) On 24 July 2015, PW1 departed Hong Kong. She T T returned on 26 July 2015 to activate her domestic U U V V  - 12 - A A B B helper entry visa and was permitted to remain in C Hong Kong as a domestic helper for PW2 until C 28 May 2017. D D E (g) On both occasions, the Director of Immigration E approved PW1’s visa application in the belief F F that the information and documents provided G with the application were true. Had the Director G known that they were not true, PW1’s H H application for the entry visa would not have I been approved. I J J (h) The movement records of PW1 is also produced K by consent and marked as Exhibit P6. K L L 32. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of P74 relate to Charge 2. Very briefly, M these are the facts admitted thereby:- M N N (a) On 25 July 2013, the Immigration Department received O a visa application of PW3 to work as a domestic helper O for PW4 under contract number J842675. Together P P with the application was submitted a number of Q supporting documents, the employment contract being Q one of them. And the visa application was marked in R R this case as P14 and the contract P14A. S S (b) On 25 August 2013, PW3 arrived in Hong Kong to T T activate her entry visa and she was granted permission U U V V  - 13 - A A B B to remain in Hong Kong as a helper for PW4 until 25 C August 2015. C D D (c) The Director of Immigration approved PW3’s E application in the belief that the information and E documents provided with it were true. Had the Director F F known that they were not, PW3’s application would not G have been approved. G H H (d) PW3’s movement record is likewise produced. I I 33. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of P74 relate to Charge 4. They are framed J J in more or less the same way as above, and include, among others, the K following matters:- K L L (a) In February 2016, the Immigration Department M received a visa application for PW5 for her to work as M a domestic helper for PW6 under employment contract N N number L331648. O O (b) On 29 February 2016, in belief of the information P P provided to it, together with the application were true, Q PW5 was granted an entry visa by the Immigration Q Department, which she activated on the same upon her R R arrival in Hong Kong. S S 34. Paragraphs 11 to 13 of the same set of Admitted Facts, ie P74, T T are in relation to Charge 6. And likewise, it is framed in the same way as U U V V  - 14 - A A B B before. Suffice it for me to say that the facts admitted include, among C others, the following matters:- C D D (a) In February 2015, the Immigration Department E received a visa application for PW7 for her to work as E domestic helper for PW8 under contract number F F K878309. The visa application, together with a number G of supporting documents were produced and marked as G P44. The employment contract, which is also H H submitted, was marked as P44A. I I (b) On 26 February 2015, in the belief of the information J J provided in and with the application was true, PW7 was K granted both permission to remain in Hong Kong and K an entry visa. These documents were respectively L L marked as P45 and P45A. M M (c) On 25 July 2015, PW7 departed Hong Kong. On 19 N N August 2015, she returned to Hong Kong and activated O her entry which allowed her to remain in Hong Kong as O a domestic helper for PW8 until 26 February 2017. P P Q 35. Paragraphs 14 to 15 of P74 are in relation to Charges 7 to 11. Q In a gist, it is admitted by the parties that as part of the Immigration R R Department’s investigation, the Department looked into the computer S records and found the instruments named in the five charges, and said to S be false, were included in the foreign domestic helpers’ visa applications T T submitted to the Department by different employers, the names of whom U U V V  - 15 - A A B B have been referred to in the charges. Certified copies of these visa C applications and the supporting documents were also produced thereunder C and marked as Exhibit P52, P54, P55, P57 and P59, respectively. D D E 36. Paragraphs 16 to 17 of P74 deal with the finding of further E exhibits from the defendant’s office at Shop 18A on 13 March 2018. These F F included, among others, copies of the application forms, the contracts, G employers’ purported bank passbooks in respect of Charges 1 to 6 and the G purported copies of the bank passbooks in the names of PW17 and PW18 H H respectively. I I 37. Paragraph 18 of P74 deals with the defendant’s first arrest on J J 14 March 2018 and her re-arrest on 12 March 2019. K K 38. Paragraphs 19 to 29 deal with what is called the photographic L L ID parades conducted with PW1, PW3, PW5, PW7 and PW15 to PW18 on M divers days and times between the 8 April and 23 May 2019. These photo M ID parades followed the defendant’s refusal to attend an ID parade. N N O 39. According to paragraphs 19 to 29, the photo IDs were all O conducted fairly and properly. And the aforesaid witnesses all picked out P P a photo from the albums they were asked to look at. In the case of PW1, Q she identified the person in photo 4 of the album as Susan Wong. In the Q case of PW3, the identified the person in photo 3 of the album as Susan. R R In the case of PW5, she identified the person in photo 1 of the album as S Susan. In the case of PW7, she identified the person in photo 12 of the S album as Susan. In the case of PW15, she identified the person in photo T T 10 of the album she was shown as Susan. In the case of PW16, he identified U U V V  - 16 - A A B B the person in photo 3 of the album as Susan Wong. In the case of PW17, C he identified the person in photo 4 of the album as Ms. Susan Wong. And C lastly, in the case of PW18, he identified the person in photo 9 as Susan D D Wong. E E 40. Now, it is convenient for me to add at this point that having F F looked at the photos picked out by the aforesaid witnesses, I am satisfied G that the person shown in the photos picked out by them is the defendant G now in court. H H I 41. Now, that leaves me only with paragraphs 30 to 33 of P74. I Paragraphs 30 to 32 essentially deal with the integrity of the chain of J J documentary exhibits and the accuracy of the English translation of P62. K Paragraph 33 says that the defendant has a clear record. Now, that is K something which I have taken into account in my assessment when L L considering the defendant’s propensity to commit an offence. As the M defendant has chosen not to testify, as is her right, it has no relevance when M it comes to her credibility. N N O 42. In respect of the second set of Admitted Facts, ie P80, all that O I need to say is that it caters to the production of the witness statements P P given by PW4, PW6 and PW8 and the cross-referencing of the documents Q attached to their statements with the documentary exhibits produced in Q court. R R S 43. As to the third set of Admitted Facts, namely P81, it simply S provides for two things: one, the production of the bank passbooks kept by T T U U V V  - 17 - A A B B PW15, PW16 and PW18. These passbooks were produced and marked as C P53, P56 and P61, respectively. And they relate to Charges 7, 8, 9 and 11. C D D 44. The second thing being dealt with in P81 is the movement E record of the defendant for the period between 1 January 2011 and 1 E January 2020. This document is produced as Exhibit D1 and I shall return F F to this when dealing with the evidence of PW7 and PW8. G G PW1’s Evidence H H I 45. I turn next to the evidence now of PW1, Yana. PW1 is an I Indonesian lady who was born in 1980. She first came to Hong Kong in J J 2006 or 2007. Having worked for the same employer, one Madam Choi K for six years or so, she decided to have a change. She had heard from K someone that Susan Wong’s agency could help her to stay out, meaning, L L as it became clear when her evidence unfolded, that she could get an M employment contract and the necessary permission and/or visa from the M Immigration Department to stay in Hong Kong without having to live with N N or work for the employer stated in the contract. That way, PW1 could take O up such part-time jobs as she may be able to land her hands on. O P P 46. In early 2013, PW1 contacted Susan Wong’s agency, which Q was in Yuen Long and was called J’S Agency. She said, however, that for Q the dealings she had with the agency in 2013, she really could not R R remember if she contacted Susan Wong herself or just someone else of the S agency. She said when she first went to the agency, she talked to a person S who told her that if she wanted to sign, which I take to mean signing a T T contract, she had to pay so much, which she believed was either $26,000 U U V V  - 18 - A A B B or $28,000. After thinking about it, PW1 decided to go ahead and gave the C woman of the agency her last employment contract, meaning the one with C Madam Choi, PW1’s own passport and she said probably her HKID as D D well. E E 47. Now, when she was asked to look at Exhibit P2A, the F F employment contract with PW2, PW1 identified her signature on the G document and said she was asked to sign on this by the person of the G agency. But when she was asked to look at the visa application, P2, PW1 H H said although the signatures there looked like hers, they were not. In any I event, PW1 said after she paid, she eventually got the permission and the I visa, and on the strength of these, she remained in Hong Kong, but without J J working for PW2. K K 48. In 2015, PW1 said she sought help from Susan Wong before L L her last contract, that is, P2A, expired. She said she called first and then M went up to the agency herself. She said this time she is sure that she met M Susan Wong herself. PW1 said she asked the defendant, ie Susan Wong, N N if her contract could be renewed. In reply, Susan Wong, ie the defendant, O said “Yes”, but PW1 had to pay $30,000. When defendant told her at about O the same time that she would be with the same employer, PW1 agreed to P P the deal. Q Q 49. When PW1 was asked to look first at Exhibit P4A, that is, the R R new contract, and later, Exhibit P4, the visa application for 2015, PW1 said S the signatures in both of these documents did not look like hers. According S to her recollection, she said she did not seem to have signed anything in T T 2015. Subsequently, PW1 got her visa and for this she said she had paid U U V V  - 19 - A A B B the defendant $30,000 by two instalments. The first one was made before C she got the visa and the second one was after. She was also in fact given a C copy of the contract, ie P4A. D D E 50. PW1 said also in her evidence that for the dealings in 2015 E she had gone up to J’S Agency twice. The first time was when she went F F up to give the defendant her passport and the first $15,000, and the second G time afterwards. PW1 said they were using Indonesian when talking to G each other. H H I 51. Now, after confirming that she had picked out Susan in the I photo ID parade on 22 May 2009, PW1 also identified the defendant in J J court as Susan. I will say a few words about the identification she made K over the parade and in court later. K L L 52. Now, for her dealings with the defendant, she said that she has M been charged with and, on her plea, convicted of the offence of conspiracy M to defraud on 18 April 2019. The charge, which was read out by the N N prosecutor in court, was framed in almost identical terms to Charge 1 O herein. And PW1 was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment on 25 June O 2019, which term she had finished serving. P P Q 53. Under cross-examination, PW1 admitted that there were Q differences between her evidence in court and what she had said in her R R witness statement to the Immigration Department, the one dated 8 May S 2019. Now, in this statement of hers:- S T T U U V V  - 20 - A A B B (a) PW1 gave the impression that when she went to the J’S C Agency in the beginning of 2013, she had met Susan C Wong personally on that occasion and it was also the D D defendant who called her in around April 2013 to ask E her to come to the agency to get the visa. E F F (b) When talking about the payments she made in 2013, G PW1 said in the statement that it was by two G instalments; namely $14,000 and $15,000, respectively, H H making therefore a total of $29,000. I I (c) There is no mention in the statement that the defendant J J had asked for, or that she had paid the defendant, K $30,000 in 2015 at all. In fact, in her witness statement K there is no mention of her meeting Susan in 2015 L L (although in this connection it should be noted that in M PW1’s statement she did mention that in early 2015 M Susan had arranged a false contract for her to sign and N N that Susan called her later when she was back in O Indonesia to tell her that her visa was ready). O P P (d) In PW1’s statement, the only particular she gave of Q Susan Wong was that she was about 40 years of age. Q There is no mention by her in the statement of Susan’s R R build or the fact that she had curly hair. S S 54. In one of Mr Allan’s last questions to PW1, it was put by him T T that, “I’m not suggesting that you had never met PW1, but according to U U V V  - 21 - A A B B your court testimony you did not meet Susan Wong before 2015.” PW1 C agreed to that. When Mr Allan further put to PW1 that, “All along you C dealt with a middle person”, PW1 agreed. About the differences between D D what is said in her statement and her evidence in court, PW1 explained that E at the time when she gave her statement, she was afraid, as she was in E trouble herself; that she was confused and may well have gotten some of F F the things, like the year and so on, wrong in the statement. She was, G however, adamant that she had given the defendant a total of $30,000 in G 2015. That, she said, was in two instalments, each of $15,000. H H I PW2 I J J 55. I turn now to the evidence of PW2. Now, PW2 is one of the K four purported employers involved in the first four charges. He is the only K one called to testify in court. His statement is adopted by him and produced L L in court as P75, with the edited version, P75A. His evidence can be M summarised as follows:- M N N (a) He had never seen nor signed Exhibit P2, P2A, P4, P4A. O The signatures appearing there as the employer’s O simply were not his. P P Q (b) The address appearing in the above documents, a unit Q in Tai Wo House, Wo Che Estate in Shatin was and is R R indeed his. It is a public housing unit held in his S father’s name. S T T U U V V  - 22 - A A B B (c) The tenancy agreement submitted together with P2 was C also indeed the tenancy agreement for the family unit. C He had, however, no idea, how or why it was being D D included in the applications under P2 and P4. E E (d) PW2 said he had an account with HSBC and the copy F F of the first page of the bank passbook submitted to the G Immigration Department with P2 looks like the one he G had. He said, however, that it is a bank account which H H he had not used for a long time and, more importantly, I he had never had the sort of money one sees in the said I passbook. J J K Although a few questions were asked of PW2, none of them were of any K significance and I do not think it is necessary for me to refer to them here. L L M PW3 M N N 56. Like PW1, PW3 is a lady from Indonesia. She was born on O 28 October 1975. She first came to Hong Kong in 1998 as a domestic O helper. She resigned from her post after working for a year and returned P P home. In 2001, she came back to Hong Kong again to work as a domestic Q helper and remained in that capacity up to 2012. Q R R 57. In that year, PW3 was working with one Mr Ngan and his S family. However, after working for Ngan’s family for about 8 months, S PW3 decided to terminate her contract. But PW3 had wanted to continue T T to stay in Hong Kong to earn her living. What she did not want was to stay U U V V  - 23 - A A B B in with a fixed employer. For that purpose, she said she was introduced by C a friend to Susan, J’S Employment Agency, Yuen Long. A lot of people, C PW3 said, called Susan “Mammy Susan”. D D E 58. In July 2013, PW3 went to see Susan and asked Susan how E one could have a visa without having to stay with or work for an employer. F F Susan said it could be done, that PW3 could “purchase an employer” as G soon as PW3 paid her $30,000. PW3 understood that to mean she could G have an employment contract and visa without having to work for or stay H H with the employer stated in the documents. PW3 said that it was too I expensive, that she had to think about it and would get back to Susan later. I J J 59. This, PW3 did. She gave Susan a call, asking her to take care K of it. After that call, she went to Susan’s office the Sunday following, K bringing with her, on this occasion, her passport and photo. L L M 60. When PW3 met Susan, she asked Susan if she could pay half M of $30,000 first, the balance to be paid after the visa was completed. Susan N N agreed and gave PW3 a receipt for the $15,000 paid, which PW3 said she O had since lost whilst she was back in Indonesia. O P P 61. PW3 said she was also asked on the same occasion to sign on Q an employment contract, ie P14A. When asked, however, to look at P14, Q the visa application, PW3 said the signature there was not hers and she had R R not seen in fact the visa application before. After all that was done, PW3 S was told by Susan to wait in Macau for two weeks after her resignation S with Ngan. T T U U V V  - 24 - A A B B 62. PW3 did as told and went to Macau for two weeks. In late C August 2013, PW3 said the visa was ready and she asked a friend to collect C it from Susan. With that visa, PW3 returned from Macau to Hong Kong. D D Because she did not have enough money to pay Susan the remaining E balance of $15,000, PW3 said she asked Susan to help and was told by E Susan borrow that from a bank. According to PW3, she did that with F F Susan’s help. She went to a bank in Causeway Bay. She said all that she G had to do there was to tell the staff that she was sent by Susan, that she G wanted to borrow money and Susan was the one introducing her. She had H H the impression that Susan had made prior arrangements so that the staff I there already knew what she was there for. I J J 63. PW3 said that she knew that the money was transferred K directly to Susan’s bank account because: (1) a receipt was shown to her K and she could see Susan’s Hong Kong name and account number on it; and L L (2) she had called Susan after this visit to the bank and was told by Susan M that the money had been transferred. M N N 64. In around January 2014, before PW3 returned to Indonesia to O deal with her own divorce, she said she went to the same agency and bid O Susan farewell. Including this last trip, PW3 said she had met Susan a total P P of three times. They lasted between half to one hour; they were talking Q face-to-face with each other in Indonesian. The place was always well lit Q and she could remember Susan’s look very well. Susan, she said, had long R R hair, always heavily made up with, among others, fake eyelashes. She is S Indonesian, about 40 years old and she was, she said, tall. As already S mentioned, PW3 attended a photo ID parade on 23 May 2019 where she T T U U V V  - 25 - A A B B picked out a photo of the defendant, which she said was the person known C as Susan or Mammy Susan and in court pointed out the defendant. C D D 65. Like PW1, PW3 was also charged with and convicted of, on E her own plea, an offence of conspiracy to defraud on 10 April 2019 at the E Shatin Magistracy. The particulars of the offence are likewise identical or F F very similar in any event to Charge 2, and PW3 was yet to be sentenced. G G 66. Now, in cross-examination, Mr Allan followed basically the H H same pattern as he did with PW1. The following matters about PW3’s I statement to the Immigration Department were put to PW3:- I J J (a) In her statement, PW3 did not give the time or the date K of her meetings with the defendant. K L L (b) Apart from saying that Susan was an Indonesian M woman about 40 years old, no further particulars had M been given by PW3 in her statement. N N O (c) PW3 mentioned in the statement that she had met the O defendant twice, ie two times. No specific mention, it P P was said, of a third visit to be found in the statement. Q Q (d) PW3 had not told the Immigration Department that the R R signatures on P14 were not hers. S S 67. It was further suggested by the defence that what PW3 said T T about a bank loan is incredible, that she should still have a loan agreement U U V V  - 26 - A A B B if she had indeed got a loan from the bank. It was said by the defence that C the description she gave in court of the defendant as being tall is C incommensurate with the defendant’s actual stature, which Mr Allan said D D could only be described as short. E E 68. When asked by Mr Allan if the first time she went up to the F F defendant’s office was a Sunday or a Monday, PW3 said she believed it G was a Sunday, but she did not appear to be very sure. She said that it was G a holiday, in any event 1. H H I 69. In fact, PW3 was prepared to accept that the events she was I asked about happened a long time ago and her memory could therefore be J J a little confused. Be that as it may, she was very firm on her identification K of the defendant as being Susan or Mammy Susan, and she was also sure K that she had given the first $15,000 directly to Susan. L L M PW4 M N N 70. I shall deal with the evidence of PW4 next. PW4 was not O called to testify because the parties had agreed to the reading of his O statement into evidence under Section 65B of the Criminal Procedure P P Ordinance. The statement was produced and marked as P76, with an edited Q version marked as P76A. In a nutshell, PW4 said that he had neither seen Q nor signed on P14 and P14A. In fact, he said he did not know PW3 at all. R R He lived in a unit in Cheung On Estate in Tsing Yi, not the address shown S in either of the two documents, which was a flat up at Oak Street in Tai S Kok Tsui. As for the copy of the HSBC bank passbook submitted together T T 1 1 July 2013, the date appearing in the application, was of course a statutory holiday in Hong Kong. U U V V  - 27 - A A B B with P14, PW4 said it is not his as he did not even have an account with C that bank. C D D PW5 E E 71. PW5 is also an Indonesian lady. She is 31 years old. She first F F came to Hong Kong in 2008 as a domestic helper. Her employer then was G a lady called Lily. Now, between 2011 and 2013, she was working for an G employer called Madam Chung. In 2013, she changed to work for one, Lai H H Mee Ho and her contract with Lai was to expire in February 2016. As PW5 I had wanted to stay in Hong Kong with her boyfriend, Leo, for a few more I months after the expiry of her contract with Lai, she said she was J J introduced to Susan in November 2015. K K 72. Over the phone PW5 was told by Susan that in return for L L $40,000, she could make or give PW5 an employment contract and a visa M without her having to work for the employer stated in the contract. About M a week after this phone call, PW5 went up to Susan’s office, J’S N N Employment in Yuen Long with her boyfriend. There, she met Susan and O was asked to sign on an employment contract, P35A, where she said the O blanks were yet to be filled in. She was told by Susan that her “employer” P P was a 50-year-old man. Of course, she had never met this gentleman. Q Q 73. During that same meeting, PW5 said she also gave the R R defendant her passport and a copy of her Hong Kong ID. The meeting, she S said, lasted for about one-and-a-half hours. It was her boyfriend, Leo, who S paid Susan $18,000. Leo left early after staying for about half an hour. T T U U V V  - 28 - A A B B 74. In around February 2016, that was about two weeks or so C before her contract with Lai was to come to an end, she was told by Susan C to go to Macau for a day and she used in fact Punti and saying the two D D words “出境” meaning “to depart” from Hong Kong. PW5 did as told on E 29 February 2016. E F F 75. When she was in Macau, she received a call from Susan G telling her that she will be picked up by someone at the ferry pier there and G given her entry visa. PW5 went to the pier. She was met by a woman who H H told her that she was sent by Susan. With the visa she was given by this I woman, PW5 returned to Hong Kong and in effect activated that visa. I About three to four days after PW5 returned from Macau, her boyfriend, J J Leo, as far as she was aware of, went to Susan’s office to pay her the K remaining $22,000. PW5 did not go along on this occasion. K L L 76. However, PW5 said that she had met Susan again on six to M seven occasions after this as she went to the store cum restaurant called M Chidi Jaya Shop, which belonged to the defendant and which was situated N N on the same floor as the defendant’s employment agency. Initially, PW5 O said the store was almost like opposite J’S Employment, but corrected O P herself later when cross-examined about it, that it was simply nearby. PW5 P said there were occasions when she and the defendant bumped into each Q Q other, either at the store or at the agency and there were also times when R she and other Indonesians went to J’S Employment to consume the food R they bought at the shop. S S T 77. PW5 said she knew the defendant’s full name, namely the one T appearing on the charge sheet, because there was this occasion, which was U U V V  - 29 - A A B B amongst the six to seven times mentioned earlier, when she said she went C to the defendant’s office with the food and saw on that occasion the C defendant’s Hong Kong ID card lying on the table of the office. D D E 78. Like PW1 and PW3, PW5 also attended a photo ID parade, E which took place on 22 May 2019. She identified the defendant as the one F F she called Susan. She added that the defendant had a mole on her cheek G and she is a little taller than the defendant. She had long hair at the time G and was about 40 years old. PW5 said she believes the defendant was H H married to a Hong Kong man, but they always used Indonesian when I speaking to each other. I J J 79. In cross-examination, PW5 was asked various questions, like K what is the phone number she called to contact Susan, or what was it that K she had said in her first call. The main thrust, however, of Mr Allan’s L L cross-examination would seem to be that in PW5’s witness statement she M gave the impression that she had been to the defendant’s office twice before M she got her visa; not once, twice. The words used in the statement is, and N N I quote, “After the first meeting, one week later I went to Yuen Long to O meet Susan again.” And there is no mention in the statement of she having O made a phone call to the defendant first. P P Q 80. Now, when asked to explain about this, PW5 said because it Q was a long time ago, it is difficult to remember everything. Be that as it R R may, PW5 was adamant that as far as she could remember, she had only S met the defendant once before she got her visa. She accepted, under cross- S examination, that whilst she had talked about paying the defendant in her T T statement, she did not say that it was her boyfriend, Leo, who made the U U V V  - 30 - A A B B payment. Nor could any particulars in fact be found in her statement about C the lighting condition, the seating arrangement, size of the room or, for that C purpose, further particulars of Susan’s appearance, and that is apart from D D the description in the statement that Susan had long hair. And there is, E admittedly, also no mention in PW5’s witness statement that she had seen E the defendant’s Hong Kong ID card lying on the table. F F G 81. When asked by Mr Allan where her boyfriend Leo is now, G PW5 said she does not know because she has since married to another man H H and they (ie she and Leo) have not been in contact. When it was put to her I by Mr Allan that she had not mentioned in her statement also that she had I seen Susan six to seven more times after she got her visa in February 2016, J J PW5 said that, whilst that is true, she had actually said in her statement that K she could recognise Susan because she had seen Susan several times. PW5 K also maintained her position firmly when it was put by Mr Allan to her that L L the occasion she said she had seen the defendant’s Hong Kong ID card M never existed. M N N 82. Lastly, PW5, like PW1 and PW3 had also been charged with, O and convicted of on her own plea of the offence of conspiracy to defraud, O the particulars of which are similar to Charge 4 herein and she is still P P waiting to be sentenced. Q Q PW6 R R S 83. Turning now to PW6. PW6’s statement is also read into S evidence without him having to testify in court. The statement has since T T been marked as P77A. In short, PW6 said he had never hired PW5 and he U U V V  - 31 - A A B B had never seen or signed P35 or P35A. The address appearing in these C documents, namely Ha Kwai Chung Village was not his address. He was, C at all material times, living in Shek Wai Kok Village. The water bill, which D D was submitted to the Immigration Department with the application, in fact E also had the wrong address and was therefore not his. As for the BOC bank E passbook, PW6’s case is that whilst he had that account with the bank, the F F entries there were not correct. He never had the sort of money appearing G there. G H H PW7 I I 84. PW7 is a Filipino lady born in 1970. She first came to Hong J J Kong as a domestic helper in 1999. Her last employer was one, Lai Sek K Yan, Juliana with whom she had a contract, which had in fact expired in K February 2015. She was having difficulty at the time in getting a new L L employer. She was introduced to Susan, whom she said ran an M employment agency in Yuen Long. She went there one afternoon in around M February 2015 and met Susan there. They spoke for about half an hour. N N Susan told her that she could take care of everything regarding her O employment contract. PW7 said she was not expected to work for or live O with the employer. All that PW7 had to do was to give Susan her passport, P P a photo and pay her, meaning pay Susan, HK$30,000. Q Q 85. After agreeing to it, PW7 was asked by the defendant to sign R R on the visa application and the contract, namely P44 and P44A, which at S that time was still roughly left blank. PW7 then paid Susan $10,000 first, S the remaining balance she said she eventually paid by depositing these into T T Susan’s account. According to the best of her recollection, she said the U U V V  - 32 - A A B B first payment was in the sum of $2,500 and then followed by another C deposit of $3,000 and so on and so forth. When PW7’s visa was ready, C Susan rang her up and asked her to meet with a female colleague of hers. D D PW7 said she then paid this woman the outstanding balance of $10,000 in E cash. E F F 86. A few weeks after that, PW7 said she saw Susan again. That G was before 25 July 2015 when she went to India. PW7 said she went to G Susan’s office to ask her to help with a supporting letter for her to go to H H India. On this occasion, they met for about 20 minutes. In fact, on each I occasion, PW7 said she and Susan were speaking in English. I J J 87. On 17 May 2019, she attended a photo ID parade and picked K out the defendant’s picture as the person she has been calling “Susan”, and K in court, she identified the defendant again. In fact, she also produced in L L court a business card which she said was given to her by Susan, or the card M she said had the name Susan Wong, the agency name and address on it. M Since neither the prosecution nor the defence have asked for this card to be N N formally produced, it was simply left there. O O 88. Now, for her part of the dealings with the Immigration P P Department, PW7 was likewise charged with and on her plea convicted of Q an offence of conspiracy to defraud in April 2019. The charge she is Q convicted of is in effect a mirror charge of Charge 6 herein. R R S 89. In cross-examination, the main line of attack taken by Mr S Allan related to the payment PW7 said she had made after the first and T T before the last $10,000. PW7 clearly had some difficulty in remembering U U V V  - 33 - A A B B the details of these payments and how they actually added up to the total C of $30,000, which she said she had paid the defendant. Also, like the way C the other three witnesses had been dealt with, Mr Allan referred to the D D witness statement given by PW7 and put to her that there is no mention in E it of a number of matters, including (a) the fact that she went in the E afternoon for the meeting she had with the defendant; (b) that she was face- F F to-face with the defendant when they were talking; (c) that the meeting that G they lasted for about half an hour; (d) the lighting condition of the G defendant’s office; (e) the defendant’s age or build, and (f) that the H H defendant spoke English. I I 90. It was also put to PW7 by Mr Allan that in her statement, J J instead of meeting the defendant only once, PW7 said there that she had a K second meeting with the defendant and it was in that second meeting that K she gave the defendant her passport. PW7 said in reply that she could not L L be sure about that. But since she had told the Immigration Department the M truth, then that, meaning the version in the statement, should be the more M correct version. N N O 91. Mr Allan next referred PW7 to the Brief Facts which was read O out to and admitted by PW7 at the Shatin Magistracy when she, herself, P P appeared as a defendant. It was said by Mr Allan that PW7 admitted that Q she and the defendant had met a total of three times and that it was on the Q first occasion that they got acquainted with each other. R R S 92. It was put by Mr Allan that the following is said in the Brief S Facts about the second meeting, and I quote: “A few days after inquiring T T A1” - meaning Susan - “defendant attended the agency again, the second U U V V  - 34 - A A B B time, when defendant paid $15,000 to A1.” To this, PW7 maintained that C she had only given the defendant $10,000, not $15,000 on the first occasion C they met. D D E 93. Mr Allan then put to PW7 another part of the Brief Facts E which he says relates to the third meeting, and I quote: “In about February F F 2015, defendant was informed by A1, ie Susan, that the visa was ready for G collection. Defendant then attended the agency and paid another $15,000 G to A1.” PW7’s answer to this is that she did not agree with that. She said H H she cannot recall ever giving the defendant directly a sum of $15,000. I However, it soon became clear that the passages in the Brief Facts which I Mr Allan referred to, were all things which PW7 was said to have told the J J immigration officer under caution. In other words, they were extracts from K the cautioned statement of PW7. K L L 94. Of course, these things still constitute a version which is M different from the evidence PW7 has given in court. But being part of a M cautioned statement, what PW7 said there may or may not in fact be N N correct. Therefore, in admitting, after the Brief Facts were read to her at O Shatin Magistracy, that these were what she had said in her cautioned O statement, she is not necessarily admitting to the truth of the contents of P P the cautioned statement. Q Q 95. After this, it was put to PW7 by Mr Allan that she had made R R a mistake in her identification. It was, and I quote, said by Mr Allan that S “the person she had identified is not Susan”. PW7 disagreed. She is S adamant that she has not made any mistake as to that; that the defendant, T T she said, was the person she had spoken to. U U V V  - 35 - A A B B C 96. Lastly, it was put to PW7 by Mr Allan under cross- C examination that she could not be telling the truth when she said she D D remembered getting a call from the defendant’s mobile on the basis that E according to Exhibit D1, ie the defendant’s movement record, she is out of E Hong Kong from 10 February to 7 March 2015. PW7 disagreed with that F F and maintained that it was the defendant whom she had spoken to over the G phone on that occasion. G H H 97. In this connection, let me say this at this point, although I will I be returning to it later. When testifying in court PW7 made it clear that she I was not sure about the dates. When talking about the first time she saw the J J defendant, PW7 said in evidence that it was in around February. She only K agreed that she got the call at the end of February 2015, when it was K suggested to her by Mr Allan that was what she had said in her statement. L L To that extent, whether the call was indeed made to her at the end of M February 2015, a time when the defendant was apparently not in Hong M Kong, is therefore far from conclusive. Also since the defendant called N N PW7 with her mobile phone, PW7 may not really know where the O defendant was calling from. After all, the same number, or for that purpose O the caller’s name, would have appeared on PW7’s phone when it rang. P P Q PW8 Q R R 98. PW8’s statement is likewise read into evidence under section S 75B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance without him having to come to S testify. The relevant part of PW8’s evidence can be summarised in a few T T words: (a) he has never seen nor signed P44 or P44A; (b) the address on U U V V  - 36 - A A B B both of these documents were his, but he had never hired PW7, or for that C purpose, ever made any such application to the Immigration Department; C (c) an electricity bill forming part of the supporting documents for the visa D D application was not his as the account with the electricity company was not E held in his name; (d) as to the copy passbook with Wing Hang Bank, PW8’s E evidence is that it is not his also. Although he did have an account with F F that bank, he did not have the kind of money appearing in the copy G passbook. G H H J’S Employment Agency’s Address on Documents Submitted to I Immigration I J J 99. That is about all the evidence for Charges 1, 2, 4 and 6. There K are two other matters, which I should however add, both relating to K documents referred to and produced as part of the Admitted Facts. The L L first one is that if one were to look at the visa applications, the part to be M completed by the employers and some of the documents kept by the M Immigration Department for the matter under Charges 2, 4 and 6, namely N N P14, P15, P35 and P44, one could see that the address of J’S Employment O Agency in Tung Yick Building was put down there as the correspondence O address. P P Q 100. Of equal, if not greater, importance, is that the defendant’s Q name and ID card number could be seen in Exhibit P14 and the relevant R R part could be found on page 211 of the trial bundle and P15, at page 235. S The former is an acknowledgement of receipt of PW3’s employment S contract, namely P14A, purportedly given by the defendant to the T T Immigration Department on 19 August 2013. The latter is a document with U U V V  - 37 - A A B B two parts. At the top is a letter of authorisation by which the defendant C was purportedly authorised by PW4 to collect PW3’s entry visa label; the C lower-half is an acknowledgement of receipt of the said visa label D D purportedly given by the defendant to the Immigration Department. E E Copies of Bank Passbooks Found in J’S Employment Agency F F G 101. The second matter I should add relates to some of the G documents found at J’S Employment Agency by the Immigration H H Department on 18 March 2018. This included, among others, P11, bank I passbook with PW2’s name, but which he said was not his. It is in fact a I mirror copy of the passbook attached to P4 at page 66 and 74. P20 and 21 J J are mirrors copies of P14 at page 176 and 182. These are copies of the K bank passbook purported to be PW4’s, but which he said was not his. And K lastly, P50 and P51, likewise are mirror copies of P44 at pages 512, 515, L L 517 and 519. These are bills and bank passbook which PW8 said were not M his. M N N PW15 O O 102. Turning next to the evidence of PW15 to PW18, which are P P relevant of course only to Charges 7 to 11. Although these witnesses have Q come to court to testify, there is really no dispute of the evidence they had Q given by the defence. PW15, Cheung Shuk Wa, also called Beryl by her R R friends, is a young lady born in 1992. She is a bakery teacher by S occupation. In around the end of 2016, her mother was sick; PW15 S therefore wanted to have an overseas domestic helper. On the introduction T T of her aunt, PW15 went to see Susan at her office in Tung Yick Plaza in U U V V  - 38 - A A B B Yuen Long. They met for about 15 to 20 minutes, face-to-face. Susan was, C she said, about 30 to 40 years old. Fairly heavy make-up, she said, and C was believed by her to be Indonesian by nationality, but Susan was using D D Cantonese in their conversation. E E 103. Apparently, they had a video conference with some of the F F domestic helpers on Susan’s book, so that PW15 could look at the maids G available. On this occasion, PW15 picked a lady called Yanti. PW15 was G then told by Susan to prepare the papers. PW15 met Susan for a second H H time when she went up to Susan’s agency to sign the employment contract I and pay the agency fee, which she said was something between $9,000 to I $10,000. Amongst the documents which PW15 said she was asked to give J J Susan in 2016 was a copy of a Chong Hing Bank passbook belonging to K her mother, Madam Wong Ching-yee, with the account number of K 041286206035253. This was produced as Exhibit P53 and could be seen L L on pages 634 to 647 of the bundle. Obviously, this passbook was required M as proof of the employer’s financial standing. PW15 said she had to give M Susan her mother’s passbook because she, meaning PW15 herself, did not N N have one. O O 104. Having given Susan a copy of her mother’s passbook, PW15 P P was told by Susan that she had to make a few more deposits into the Q account. She did as told and sent the updated entries to Susan by Q WhatsApp. By looking at P53 at page 638 of the bundle, one could see R R that a deposit of $2,000 was made into the account on 16 December 2016 S and then a few smaller deposits followed. Apart from that, PW15 said she S had to sign on the application form, which is P52, page 570, where her T T signature could be seen on page 578 and 582. PW15 had also signed on an U U V V  - 39 - A A B B employment contract, which copy has been produced also as part of P52 at C pages 576 to 579. C D D 105. That is all PW15 had to do. Having signed on the forms and E the contract and having given Susan the copy of the bank passbook of her E mother and the fees, the application was then entrusted by PW15 to Susan. F F According to paragraphs 14 and 15 of P74, ie the Admitted Facts, G documents making up PW15’s application for entry visa for domestic G helper, Yanti, was received by the Immigration Department. In the belief H H that the information provided therein was correct, the application was I approved. I J J 106. The next time PW15 saw Susan was after Yanti had arrived K in Hong Kong. PW15 was told to go to Tuen Mun Town Centre to pick K Yanti up and on that occasion Susan was also there. PW15 added that in L L fact she had seen Susan again in 2018 when she went to Susan’s office to M try to get Yanti’s passbook back as Yanti would need to travel herself. M N N 107. Now, coming back to the documents included under P52 on O pages 584 to 593, there is a copy of a Chong Hing Bank passbook with the O same account number, namely 041286206035253 and the name Wong P P Ching-yee on it. But the entries under the column for balance are very Q different from what one can see on page 53. In short, each entry thereon is Q $300,000 larger than their counterpart in P53. The difference becomes R R even larger when it comes to pages 589 to 592. It is clear that someone S had done something to the copy PW15 gave to Susan to make the bank S balances in P52 much larger than what they really are, as can be seen in T T P53. But of course all that PW15 could say is that she did not know about U U V V  - 40 - A A B B the change or the alteration. She did not do it herself and does not know C exactly who did it. C D D 108. The only thing taken up by Mr Allan in cross-examination is E a letter dated 28 March 2018, which bears PW15’s signature. The letter E was addressed to the Immigration Department saying that, and I quote, “As F F she wishes to depart from Hong Kong, together with Yanti, she would like G to obtain Yanti’s passport and employment contract back from the G Immigration Department.” The letter is produced as Exhibit D2. H H I 109. PW15 said in answer that this was actually not written by her I and she did not actually leave Hong Kong with Yanti, subsequently. She J J said she signed the letter nevertheless so that Yanti could have her passport K and contract back. Although it is not made very clear by Mr Allan whether K this is the fourth or last occasion when PW15 saw Susan, it became clear L L in re-examination that that must be the case. And it became also quite clear M that Exhibit D2 was in fact given to PW15 by Susan to sign. M N N 110. In any event, it is admitted by the parties that PW15 attended O a photo ID parade that took place on 8 April 2019 and she picked the O defendant’s picture out. PW15 of course also pointed the defendant out in P P court when asked by the prosecution if she could still recognise Susan. Q Q PW16 R R S 111. PW16 was the next witness called. He is a driver by S occupation. In September or October 2016, as his wife became pregnant, T T PW16 felt that they would need a domestic helper, and on the instruction U U V V  - 41 - A A B B of his mother, he went to Susan Wong’s J’S Employment Agency in Hop C Yick Plaza or Centre in Yuen Long. At the meeting he had with Susan in C her office, he picked a helper called Santi by looking at a photo album. He D D was told by Susan that he would need to provide her with some documents, E like proof of his salary and bank proof. This first meeting he said lasted E for about half an hour and he had a very good look at Susan. F F G 112. After the meeting, PW16 said he went back to his office and G got, among other things, his BOC passbook in his name and with the H H account number 01256910111041, and he returned to Susan’s office, I where they met again. In this second meeting, which lasted also for about I half an hour, PW16 said he gave his passbook to Susan for her to make a J J photocopy. And after that, the passbook was returned to him. This bank K passbook of PW16 was produced as P56. According to PW16, the K passbook has been kept in his own custody all along after it was returned L L to him by Susan. PW16 also paid the fees of a little over $10,000 to Susan M on that occasion. He left after signing the application form and the M employment contract, which formed part of Exhibit P54 in court. N N O 113. PW16 described Susan as an Indonesian or Southeast Asian O lady. Susan, he said, was not tall; had curly hair and was in her late 30s or P P early 40s. He said they were using Punti in their conversation. Q Q 114. In about February 2017, PW16 said he got a call from Susan R R telling him that Santi, the helper he picked earlier, could not come to Hong S Kong and therefore he was asked to sign another contract, meaning he had S to pick a new helper. This he did as told. When he met Susan again, he T T was asked to sign on a new application form and a new employment U U V V  - 42 - A A B B contract, which formed part of P55. As far as he could recall, he did not C provide further documents of support on this occasion. And after that was C done, the application for the immigration visa was entrusted by him to D D Susan. E E 115. The next thing which happened was that he was told in around F F May 2017 that he could go and pick his new helper up. The new helper G was called Wasri. And when PW16 went to Susan’s agency to do that, G Susan was there. The meeting lasted for about a quarter of an hour. H H I 116. Now, in both the first and the second application made in I PW16’s name, ie P54 at pages 670 to 677 and P55 at pages 756 to 762, J J there is a copy of a BOC passbook in PW16’s name and with his bank K account number. However, the entries for the bank balance appearing in K both of these, ie P54 and P55, are very much larger than what appeared in L L P56. One could see the difference if one looks at the entries on pages 672 M and 674, and then compare these with the entries on page 827 and 828. The M difference, as one can see, is one of $300,000. When asked, PW16 said he N N did not know what happened to the photocopy Susan made of P56, and he O could not tell why there were these differences. O P P 117. Like PW15, PW16 also attended a photo ID parade. This Q photo ID parade was conducted on 11 April 2019 and he picked Susan’s Q picture, photo number 3, as the person whom he had been dealing with in R R relation to the visa application for the domestic helper. And in court he S pointed the defendant out. S T T U U V V  - 43 - A A B B PW17 C C 118. PW17’s experience is almost identical to that of PW15 and D D PW16. According to her, she went to an employment agency in Hop Yick E Plaza, Yuen Long, in July 2017. There she met with a Mrs Wong. After E learning from PW17 her requirement, Mrs Wong told her that she had a F F helper who was at the end of her contract. Later, a staff of Mrs Wong G brought the helper, who was called Susiani, to the restaurant where PW17 G was working so that she could look at this helper. After PW17 agreed to H H hire Susiani, she went up to Mrs Wong’s agency again in either July or I August, to sign the contract and pay the fees. When she was asked to look I at the documents which formed P57, PW17 confirmed that the contract J J dated 20 July 2017, which one could see on pages 848 to 855, is the K contract she had signed with Susiani and she also identified the application K for visa for domestic helper, which also bears her signature. L L M 119. On the same occasion when she signed these documents, M PW17 gave Mrs Wong also what she described as a printout of her income N N from her bank, namely BOC. She was asked to have this by Mrs Wong O over the phone before the second meeting. PW17 said she understood that O in order to be able to hire an overseas domestic helper, the employer should P P have a deposit of at least $360,000 or a monthly income of $17,000 or Q above over a period of three months or more. Q R R 120. After paying Mrs Wong the fees and giving her the printout, S the rest of the application, PW17 said, was entrusted by her to Mrs Wong. S And of course, it is not in dispute that an application in the name of PW17 T T for hiring Susiani, together with the other supporting documents in P57, U U V V  - 44 - A A B B was received by the Immigration Department on 5 September 2017 and C was eventually approved in the belief that the information provided to the C Department was true and accurate. D D E 121. Now, in Exhibit P57, there is a BOC fixed deposit E confirmation dated 1 September 2017, which one can see on pages 856 to F F 859 of the bundle. The document has PW17’s name on it and shows that G she had a time deposit of $360,000 to be held with the Bank for six months, G that is up to 1 March 2018. When PW17 was asked to look at this H H document, she said it was not hers. She does not have an account of the I account number shown in the confirmation. In fact, she does not have any I fixed deposit with the Bank of China. And certainly, it is not the printout J J she had given Mrs Wong. K K 122. In any event, Susiani, the helper, arrived in Hong Kong using L L the visa granted. As PW17 was happy with her service, she actually went M back to Susan’s agency afterwards and brought her some buns as a token M of gratitude. Including this last time they met, PW17 had a total of three N N meetings with Mrs Wong and on each occasion, according to her O description, she had very good opportunity to look at the defendant’s O appearance and face. P P Q 123. On 9 April 2019, PW17 attended the photo ID parade I Q mentioned earlier and picked out the defendant’s picture, and in court she R R pointed the defendant out also. S S 124. In cross-examination, apart from confirming with PW17 that T T at the time she had her dealings with the defendant, everything appeared to U U V V  - 45 - A A B B her to be proper and above board. The only other thing brought up by Mr C Allan is that PW17 had been sentenced to the Drug Addiction Treatment C Centre after she breached a probation order in 1996. D D E 125. Now, given that she was still very young at the time and it E took place such a long time ago, it is difficult for the court to see really F F what relevance that has with the matter now the court has to consider, and G that is particularly so when the defence has not sought to impeach PW17’s G credibility or reliability in any way. H H I PW18 I J J 126. I come to deal with the last witness, PW18, Yu Man Kwan. K Now, PW18’s experience is very similar to PW15 to PW17. She is a clerk K by occupation. She was born in 1997. Because of her mother’s illness, she L L decided to hire a domestic helper in around July 2017. At that time, a friend M of hers gave her a name card of an employment agency with the name M Susan Wong on it. And on that card there was also Susan Wong’s number N N and the name of the agency. PW18 called the number and asked for help. O She was told over the phone that she had to prepare some information O which included proof of her address and identity, and so on. P P Q 127. PW18 said because she did not have the necessary proof for a Q $15,000/month income, which I understand to mean that she was earning R R less than $15,000 per month, she was asked by Susan to provide her with S her bank account passbook. After that call, PW18 met with Susan at her S office in Tung Yick Plaza one afternoon. In this meeting, PW18 asked T T about procedure and provided Susan with the documents she was asked U U V V  - 46 - A A B B for, one of these being her BOC account passbook number -- account C number 01260710191558, which she said was given to Susan for C photocopying and then returned to her. This passbook of PW18 has been D D produced in court and marked as P61. E E 128. PW18 also paid Susan agency fee of about $9,000. She signed F F on the visa application form, which could be found at page 898 of the G bundle, and the employment contract with a helper called Siana, which G could be found at pages 904 to 910. The meeting she said lasted for about H H an hour. I I 129. Now, both of these documents which she had signed, J J including what appears to be a copy of her bank passbook, have been K submitted to the Immigration Department on 22 November 2017 and has K been produced in this trial as Exhibit P59. After receiving the application L L and in the belief that the information provided therein was true and M accurate, PW18’s application for a visa for domestic helper was approved. M N N 130. PW18 met Susan at her office a second time in or around O December 2017, (she in fact made a mistake initially when she said this O was in August), when she gave Susan an updated electricity bill. She also P P gave the same passbook, but with some updates, to Susan which Susan also Q made a photocopy of. In Exhibit P61, one could see on page 994 of the Q bundle, a $100 deposit which was made on 2 December 2017. This R R deposit, according to PW18, was the updating she did with the passbook. S And this second meeting she said took about half an hour to finish. S T T U U V V  - 47 - A A B B 131. In the documents received by the Immigration Department, C that is P59, there is a copy of a BOC bank passbook with PW18’s name C and account number on it. However, the bank balance shown on each page D D are larger than what PW18 really had, as shown in Exhibit P61. For E instance, the entry for 17 September 2017, in P59 at page 918, is $50,000 E larger than the entry one could find for that date in PW18’s bank passbook, F F P61 at page 994. G G 132. A little like PW17, in fact PW18 said that, to her H H understanding in order to be eligible for hiring a domestic helper, an I employer had to show to the Immigration Department that he either had a I monthly income of $15,000 or a bank deposit of $360,000. J J K 133. The third and last time PW18 met Susan was when she was K picking up the helper, Siana. Susan was also there and they spent about a L L quarter of an hour together on that occasion. M M 134. PW18 attended a photo ID parade on 12 April 2019. She N N picked out the defendant’s photo as Susan Wong, and in court she pointed O the defendant out as the person whom she had been dealing with at the O agency. P P Q 135. The only point taken by Mr Allan in his cross-examination of Q PW18 appears to establish that after the defendant made the photocopy of R R P61, PW18 did not know what had happened to the copy. PW18 accepted S that. She also accepted that she did not know why there was the difference. S She accepted, when asked by Mr Allan, that she did not think at the time T T that there was any suspicion. However, when it was put by Mr Allan to U U V V  - 48 - A A B B her that she did not see anyone doing the change of the contents of the C photocopy passbook, PW18 said, and I quote, “Right. But I could have C guessed.” D D E 136. One last thing to add before I shall turn to the court’s E assessment of the above evidence. Among the things found by the F F Immigration Department in the defendant’s office were (a) P58 which is G an identical copy of P57, namely the BOC deposit confirmation said to be G false; and (b) P60, which is a combination of P59, ie the BOC passbook in H H the name of PW18 submitted to the Immigration Department, and P61, ie I PW18’s own passbook with the same account number. I J J 137. After the prosecution closed its case, and notwithstanding a K half-time submission by Mr Allan in respect of Charges 7 to 11, (made on K the basis that there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant had used L L the false instrument in question), the defendant was found to have a case M to answer on all charges. M N N 138. The defendant, after taking advice from Mr Allan, elected to O remain silent, which is of course perfectly within her rights. O P P Assessment of evidence Q Q 139. As can be seen from what I have set out above, the only R R witnesses whose credibility and reliability are in issue are PW1, PW3, PW5 S and PW7. No issue is taken with PW2, PW4, PW6 and PW8. In fact, the S evidence of these witnesses are admitted into evidence under section 65B T T of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. Although PW2 was called, his U U V V  - 49 - A A B B evidence was not in any way challenged. His oral evidence is in effect C more for background. C D D 140. The same applies to PW15 to PW18. Even though they were E called to testify, the only criticisms raised in cross-examination are: (a) as E against PW15, that she may not be entirely trustworthy in light of the letter, F F ie Exhibit D2, which she had signed, given that she never intended actually G to leave Hong Kong with the helper; and (b) as against PW17, that she had G a past conviction in 1996. Now, in my view, neither of these matters have H H any relevance at all to the present assessment. They do not in any way I reflect on the two witnesses’ credibility or reliability. I J J 141. On that basis, and having looked at the evidence in its entirety, K I am satisfied that PW2, PW4, PW6, PW8, PW15 to PW18 are honest, K credible and reliable witnesses. L L M 142. I turn now to the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW5 and PW7. Let M me start here by saying that I have warned myself, in view of the fact that N N these witnesses are all in fact named accomplices for the offence of O conspiracy to defraud, that the court has to assess their evidence with O caution. P P Q 143. Now, as I have mentioned when reciting the evidence of these Q four witnesses, there are common features in the cross-examination taken R R by the defence. The first one being the differences between what was said S in their statements and the oral testimony they gave in court. This included, S and I intend to name only one or two as examples, the number of times the T T PWs had met with the defendant; the date, or month, or year of these U U V V  - 50 - A A B B meetings; the time of the day when the meetings took place; or for that C purpose the number of payments made, and the sum for each, by the PWs C to the defendant. D D E 144. The second common feature is the lack of details in the PWs’ E statements. This included time and date of the meeting; the details, or lack F F of it, of the defendant’s physical appearance; whether the signatures on the G visa application forms were put there by the PWs or not; and by whom or G how each payment was made by the respective PW to the defendant. H H I 145. The third feature is what I would call inherent incredibility. I To use PW3’s case as an example, it is the defendant’s suggestion that if J J PW3 had indeed taken out a loan in order to pay the defendant the balance K of $15,000, she should have been able to produce the loan agreement. And K likewise, if the PWs had indeed been given a receipt by the defendant, they L L should have kept the receipt and have it produced, instead of losing at some M point of time. M N N 146. There are of course other points which the defence has made O either in cross-examination or in their final submission. I do not think, O however, that it is necessary for me to repeat them all here. Suffice for me P P to say that, having considered all the points made by the defence very Q carefully, I concluded that they do not in any way impinge upon the Q credibility of any of the four witnesses in question. I found them all to be R R credible witnesses. S S 147. Given the lapse of time since the date of the offence, T T differences of the sort which we have seen are only to be expected. As can U U V V  - 51 - A A B B be seen from the evidence of PW15 to PW18, whose credibility and C reliability are not in issue, they were having difficulty in remembering C some of the details about the meetings they had with the defendant. D D E 148. As to the lack of details in the witness statements, all that I E will say is that there is really no substance in the criticism. How much F F detail is to be included in a witness statement is a matter more for the G statement taker. If the statement taker had asked for them, I would not be G surprised if more details would have been included. H H I 149. The same applies, in my view, to the points taken about a I witness not being able to produce a particular receipt or the loan agreement. J J One must remember that the payments took place quite some years ago and K as the deal had been completed, and the payment settled, I cannot see why K the witness must hang on to them in the long years in between. And that L L is particularly so when one is talking about overseas domestic helper, who M normally have a very limited amount of space for their living quarters in M Hong Kong. That bits of paper like that would get lost very easily in the N N course of time is, I would have thought, nothing less than common O experience for all of us. O P P 150. All in all, none of the points taken by the defence in either the Q cross-examination or the final submission have caused me to doubt the Q honesty or truthfulness of any of these four witnesses. R R S 151. In the case of PW3, PW5 and PW7, I have also come to the S conclusion that their evidence is wholly reliable, and that includes the T T identification made by them, both at the ID parade and in court. Having U U V V  - 52 - A A B B reminded myself of the Turnbull features set out in Archbold Hong Kong C (2020), paragraph 14-2, I am satisfied that the quality of identification each C made is excellent and can be relied on. Although in law no corroboration D D is needed, my view on the reliability of the identification made by these E witnesses is reinforced by the fact that every PW who had dealing with the E defendant identified her as either Susan, or Susan Wong, or Mrs Wong, of F F J’S Employment Agency in Tung Yick Plaza or Building. G G 152. As for PW1, however, bearing in mind the confusion in her H H evidence about when it was that she first saw the defendant (was it in 2013 I or was it in 2015), there is a lurking doubt in my mind as to whether she I could have been mistaken on this after all. Given that there were, on her J J evidence, two different occasions when she had entered into an agreement K with the defendant on the making of an application to the Immigration, it K would not, in my view, be safe for the court to rely on her evidence as proof L L of Charge 1, even though she was a honest witness. M M 153. As to the defendant, she has chosen not to testify, as is, of N N course as I have said earlier, her right. All that I will say is that no adverse O inference of any kind is to be drawn against her for that. That apart, being O a lady of clear record, I have also reminded myself that she is less likely to P P commit an offence than on average. Q Q 154. Now, let me say a quick word also on the issues taken by Mr R R Allan as to both the photo ID and the identification made by the witnesses S in court. In Mr Allan’s submission, following the defendant’s repeated S refusal to take part in a formal ID parade, the immigration officer should T T have conducted a face-to-face confrontation by the witness rather than a U U V V  - 53 - A A B B photo ID parade in which the witness was asked to look at, and I quote C from Mr Allan’s submission, “mug shots which shows the suspect in the C worst possible light”. I disagree. D D E 155. To start with, this court is not aware of any rule, or practice, E or direction saying that the investigation officer should have conducted a F F face-to-face confrontation should the arrested person refuse to take part in G a formal ID parade. The passage quoted by Mr Allan does not support that G proposition at all. In my view, that would be much less favourable to the H H defendant here when compared to the photo ID parades which we have I seen. And I pause here to add that it is in fact an admitted fact that the I photo ID parades were all properly and fairly held. J J K 156. Turning to the photo ID parade. Insofar as the quality of the K photos included in the album is concerned, I do not think they show the L L suspect in the worst possible light as suggested by Mr Allan. Apart from M being black and white, and maybe a little sombre to look at, the photos in M the album, including that of the defendant, looks no different from what a N N passport photo would otherwise look like. The feeling I had is that most O of us would have appeared like that in our Hong Kong ID cards as well. O P P 157. As to Mr Allan’s repeated objections to the PWs being asked Q if he or she could recognise Susan in court, and if so, point her out, I simply Q do not see any ground for Mr Allan’s objection at all. Bearing in mind that R R in the case of each of these PWs, there is a previous identification made by S him or her of the defendant in the photo ID parade, there is, in my view, S nothing wrong in him or her being asked if he or she could still recognise T T the person he or she had picked out in the ID parade, and if so, and if that U U V V  - 54 - A A B B person is in court, point her out: paragraph 14-20 of Archbold Hong Kong C (2020). That is not, in my view, what one would normally call a “dock C ID”, for the prosecution witness in question is not being asked to make an D D ID for the first time in court. If anything, the ID made by the PWs here is E akin to a case of true recognition. They recognised the defendant after E meetings, and in some cases, long meetings they had with her. F F G Charges proved G H H 158. When looking at the evidence which I have accepted, I remind I myself of the burden and standard of proof in a criminal case; I also remind I myself that each charge has to be considered separately. In respect of J J Charge 1, given that I have doubts as to whether PW1 could have been K mistaken as to the occasion she actually met the defendant, there must be K a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case and the benefit of that L L obviously goes to the defendant. M M 159. As to Charges 2, 4 and 6, it is admitted that a visa application N N was made to the Director of Immigration in each case for the helper, O namely PW3, PW5 and PW7 respectively, to enter and remain in Hong O Kong as a foreign domestic helper for PW4, PW6 and PW8 respectively. P P Q 160. On the evidence of PW3 to PW8, there can be no dispute that Q in each case (a) a false and dishonest representation was made to the R R Director that the helper, namely PW3, PW5 and PW7, were employed by S the employers stated in the application, ie PW4, PW6 and PW8, S respectively; (b) with the intention to induce the Director to approve the T T helper’s entry, employment visa, which they would not otherwise have U U V V  - 55 - A A B B approved; and (c) in so approving, they would have been acting contrary C to their public duty. C D D 161. The only question left is whether PW3, PW5 and PW7 had E agreed with anyone for the making of the application, which included the E dishonest and false representation to the Director, and if so, who that was. F F Having accepted the evidence of PW3, PW5 and PW7 and having G examined their ID evidence in particular with care, there can only be one G answer to that. And that is that each of these witnesses had entered into an H H agreement with the defendant to defraud the Director of Immigration and I his officers by dishonestly and falsely making the representation named in I the charge. J J K 162. My view is reinforced by the fact that the defendant’s name K and ID card number appears in the acknowledgement of receipt, P14 at L L page 211, and a letter of authorisation cum acknowledgement of receipt, M P15 at page 231. M N N 163. There may or may not be in fact an unknown person. In the O case of Charge 2, there does not seem to anyone else who was involved in O the agreement, except perhaps the staff at the bank. In the case of Charge P P 4, there was a woman who picked up PW5 at the Macau Ferry Pier. She Q may or may not be a knowing party to the agreement. As to Charge 6, PW7 Q got her visa from, and paid the balance of payment to, a female colleague R R of the defendant. But then again, she may or may not be a knowing party S to the agreement. However, it matters not as in each case an agreement S had been entered into by two persons, namely the defendant and the T T respective PW, and that is all that is required by law. U U V V  - 56 - A A B B C 164. The last thing I think I should add insofar as these four charges C are concerned is that when called upon by me to explain why the provisions D D in the Criminal Jurisdiction Ordinance are relevant, Miss Sujanani E confirmed that in light of the evidence brought out in court, there is no E longer a need for the court to be bothered with that. F F G 165. Moving to the case for Charges 7-11. Now, the first point I G should address here is that under section 69(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, an H H instrument is false only if it falls within one of the paragraphs, namely (i) I to (viii) thereunder. On being asked by me, I was told by the prosecution I that the prosecution’s case is that the instrument falls within paragraph J J (vii), namely, that it was made in circumstances in which it was not in fact K made. As stated in paragraph 7 of Miss Sujanani’s written submissions, K the prosecution’s case is that the pre-existed set of circumstances of the L L banking documents in issue is that on the transaction dates as described in M the bank statements, the account holders, being the PWs, should have in M their bank accounts the amount of money so printed. N N O 166. As I have indicated in court, I have no difficulty with that O when dealing with Charges 8 to 11. In respect of Charge 7, however, the P P prosecution’s contention as stated above may not work. For the account Q holder was not PW15, but her mother, Madam Wong Ching Yee. Since Q Madam Wong had not been called, the court cannot simply rely on the R R contents in Exhibit P53 to see whether she had the amount of money S printed thereon as that would be in breach of the rule against hearsay. S T T U U V V  - 57 - A A B B 167. Be that as it may, there is, in my view, a different set of C circumstances which must also have existed and without which the C instrument would have been false. In my opinion, what is also required is D D that the instrument must be a true photocopy of a genuine Chong Hing E passbook in the name Wong Ching Yee. If the instrument is a product of E a cut and paste exercise, or the product of a cunning manipulation on a F F computer, as opposed to a straightforward and true copy of Madam Wong’s G Chong Hing passbook, then it is clearly an instrument made in G circumstances in which it was not in fact made. H H I 168. That said, let me now turn back to the evidence of the charges. I Based on the Admitted Facts and what I have just said about the statutory J J definition, it is abundantly clear that the instruments referred to in the five K charges, instruments which were submitted to the Immigration Department K with the visa application on behalf of PW15 to PW18, are false within the L L meaning of the term under section 69(a)(vii) of the Crimes Ordinance. It M is also clear in my view that whoever submitting these would have had the M requisite double intention in the circumstances, namely intention to: (a) N N induce the officers of the Immigration Department to accept it as genuine; O and (b) by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to their own O or any other person’s prejudice. P P Q 169. Also, as stated in the Admitted Facts for each of the charges, Q the Immigration Department approved a visa in the belief that the R R information provided to it or with the application were true and accurate. S S 170. I do not think it can possibly be disputed in this case that T T whoever, using the instrument in question, meaning submitting them to the U U V V  - 58 - A A B B Immigration Department, must have known or believed them to be false. C The only real question left therefore, as Mr Allan has accepted, is whether C on the evidence the court can be satisfied so that it is sure that it was the D D defendant who used the instruments. E E 171. Now, it is true that there is no direct evidence on what had F F been done to the photocopies made by the defendant of the original G passbook, or, for that purpose, the printout given to her by PW17. There G is also no direct evidence on who made the changes or the swapping. But H H in my view, this matters not. What is clear is that after the original (and I genuine) passbooks were given to the defendant by PW15, PW16 and I PW18 for photocopying, and in the case of Charge 10, after the printout J J was given to the defendant to keep by PW17, an instrument which appeared K to be a copy of these passbooks, (in PW15’s case her mother’s passbook, K and in PW17’s case, a copy of a deposit confirmation in her name), were L L included as supporting documents for the visa application made on behalf M of PW15 to PW18. M N N 172. It is noteworthy also that on each of the visa applications, O namely P52, P54, P55 and P59, the address of J’S Employment Agency, O of which the defendant was the sole director, was put down as the P P correspondence address. Q Q 173. Taking into account the above matters and the circumstances R R as described by PW15 to PW18 in relation to the making of the applications S to the Immigration Department, and in the absence of evidence to the S contrary, I am satisfied that the only reasonable inference to be drawn is T T that the false instruments were used by the defendant in the visa U U V V  - 59 - A A B B applications submitted to the Immigration Department on behalf of each of C these witnesses. C D D 174. On the basis of what I have said, the court is satisfied beyond E a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the offences under E Charges 2, 4, 6 to 11, and she is accordingly convicted of these charges. F F And by reason of what I have said, the defendant is found not guilty of G Charge 1. G H H I I J J ( Newman Wong ) Deputy District Judge K K L L M M N N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T U U V V