區域法院（刑事）His Honour Judge E Yip21/12/2022[2022] HKDC 1516
DCCC502/2019
A A
B B
DCCC 502/2019
C C
[2022] HKDC 1516
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 502 OF 2019
F F
----------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
HUANG Huei Ting “Defendant”
I ---------------------- I
J Before: His Honour Judge E Yip J
Date: 22 December 2022
K K
Present: Mr Wei Mark Ho Tong and Mr Joseph Tope, counsel-on-fiat,
L L
for HKSAR
M Mr Wong Ching Y, SC, leading Ms Chan Adgie N K and Mr M
Li Kelvin Ka Hei, instructed by C&Y Lawyers, for the
N N
defendant
O Offences: [1], [6] and [13] Making a false statement to an Immigration O
Officer lawfully acting under or in the execution of Part III of
P P
the Immigration Ordinance
Q [4], [7], [9], [14], [15] and [18] Using a copy of a false Q
instrument
R R
[10] Making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining an
S entry permit S
T ------------------------------------- T
REASONS FOR VERDICT
U U
-------------------------------------
V V
A -2- A
B B
CHARGES
C C
1. The Defendant (“D”) faces 10 charges. Charges 1, 6, 10 and
D D
13 are of making a false statement to an Immigration Officer in the due
E E
execution of duty, contrary to section 42(1)(a) of Immigration Ordinance,
F Cap 115. Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15 and 18 are of using a copy of a false F
instrument, contrary to section 74 of Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.
G G
D’S RESPONSE TO PLEA-TAKING
H H
I 2. When pleas are taken from her, she either shakes her head, or I
says she does not understand the charge. I record pleas of not guilty to all
J J
10 charges.
K K
3. The defence say she is not fit to stand trial and there is medical
L evidence to that effect as required by section 75 of Criminal Procedure L
Ordinance, Cap 221. I shall refer to it as the “Fitness Issue”.
M M
N
4. The prosecution and the defence agree that I shall rule on the N
Fitness Issue after the prosecution case. The defence make a no-case
O O
submission. I rule a case to answer on all charges. As a result, I have to
P rule on the Fitness Issue. P
Q FITNESS ISSUE Q
R R
5. According to the two psychiatrists called to give evidence in
S court by the defence, D had been suffering and still suffered from auditory S
hallucination at the time of assessment recently. She could not understand
T T
the proceedings. The prosecution’s two psychiatrists were not called to
U give evidence in court. Their reports indicated that they could not confirm U
V V
A -3- A
B B
whether D was suffering from auditory hallucination. I find the defence
C C
psychiatrists’ evidence cogent. The defence have proved on the balance of
D probabilities that D is unfit to stand trial. According to section 75 of D
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, I shall record a finding that D is under
E E
disability.
F F
6. It is then for the prosecution to prove that D did the act
G charged against her beyond reasonable doubt. G
H H
PROSECUTION CASE
I I
7. Understandably given the situation of D, there are no admitted
J facts. The prosecution call 14 witnesses. Their evidence is not challenged J
K
at all. I find all of them credible and reliable witnesses. K
L 8. The case involves people such as HUANG HUEI TING L
(“HHT”), CHEN YEN-CHIN (“CYC”), CHEN YI-MING (“CYM”), and
M M
LARGE CHARLES GRAMAE (“LCG”) respectively. If an application is
N made by someone who stated, as for example, one’s name as “HHT”, I N
would refer to this person as {HHT} to denote that someone adopting a pen
O O
name {HHT} is making the application. That person may or may not be
P the real HHT. The same logic holds for {CYM}, {CYC}, and {LCG} P
respectively.
Q Q
R
9. Our present case relates to 2 sets of charges, ie, making a false R
statement (Charges 1, 6, 10, and 13) and using a copy of a false instrument
S S
(Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 18).
T T
10. The former set of 4 charges is focused on D’s (Charges 1 and
U 10), or D’s and another person’s (Charges 6 and 13), 4 applications, each U
V V
A -4- A
B B
of which contained a representation to the immigration officer that the
C C
domestic helper would reside and work at the employer’s stated address.
D Investigations revealed that the domestic helper did not work or reside D
there at all.
E E
11. The latter set of 6 charges (Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 18) is
F F
focused on D’s merging the name page of another person’s passbook with
G the balance pages of her passbook to produce a false passbook whose copy G
was submitted in the 6 applications to the Immigration Department.
H H
I 12. In closing submissions, the prosecution and the defence share I
the view that as long as the act was done at D’s direction or with D’s
J J
consent, whether D did, or caused someone to, do the act, it is still within
K the ambit of each of the 10 charges. K
L CHRONOLOGY OF CHARGES L
M M
13. This case relates to 8 applications. It is easier to understand
N when the Charges and their relevant events are arranged in a chronological N
order as follows:
O O
(1) Charge 18 against D (date of application 14 March
P P
2015 by {LCG});
Q Q
(2) Charge 4 against D (date of application 15 July 2015 by
R R
{CYM});
S S
(3) Charges 6 and 7 against D and CYC (date of application
T 15 January 2016 by {CYC}); T
U U
V V
A -5- A
B B
(4) Charge 10 against D (date of application 23 January
C C
2017 by “D”);
D D
(5) Charge 15 against D and CYC (date of application 11
E April 2017 by {CYC}); E
F (6) Charge 9 against D (date of application 18 April 2017 F
by {CYM});
G G
H (7) Charge 1 against D (date of application 10 May 2017 H
by “D”); and
I I
(8) Charges 13 and 14 against D and CYC (date of
J J
application 14 June 2017 by {CYC})
K K
Charge 18 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
L L
14. It is alleged that an application dated 14 March 2015 1 was
M M
received in March 2015 by Immigration Department for the visa of a
N domestic helper SUPRATI (“DH-12”) to enable DH-12 to work and reside N
at {LCG}’s residential address at Lion Rise, Wong Tai Sin (“Address 7”).
O O
The application with the following particulars, among others, was
P P
approved:
Q Q
(a) The application was made in the name of {LCG} as the
R employer of DH-12; R
S (b) {LCG}’s contact phone number was 6402 8747; and S
T T
U 1 U
P29
V V
A -6- A
B B
(c) A copy of LCG’s copy of passbook showed a balance
C C
of $1,960,750 as at 19 January 20152.
D D
15. Investigations revealed as follows:
E E
(a) According to the records of Land Registry, “Address 7”
F was owned by LCG and D; and F
G G
(b) According to the records of the phone company3, the
H subscriber of 6402 8747 was LCG from 15 December H
2011 to 2 March 2016. LCG’s registered address was
I I
Consort Rise, Pok Fu Lam. His billing address was the
J same as D’s residential address at Island Place, North J
Point.
K K
16. The prosecution’s case is that D had used or caused to use the
L L
name page of LCG’s passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s
M HSBC passbook Account No 122-6-050092 to produce a copy of a M
passbook, which is a copy of a false instrument, for an application in the
N N
name of {LCG}.
O O
Charge 4 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
P P
Q
17. It is alleged that an application dated 15 July 2015 4 was Q
received on or about 20 July 2015 by Immigration Department for the visa
R R
of domestic helper LATIF CHOIRUL ZAINI (“DH-4”) to enable DH-4 to
S work and reside at }CYM{’s residential address at Kam Ning Mansion, S
T T
2
P56
3
U P85 U
4
P15
V V
A -7- A
B B
Mid-levels (“Address 3”). The application with the following particulars,
C C
among others, was approved:
D D
(a) The application was made in the name of {CYM} as
E the employer of DH-9; E
F (b) {CYM}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169; F
G G
(c) A copy of CYM’s Hong Kong identity card; and
H H
(d) A copy of CYM’s passbook showed a balance of
I $3,027,869 as at 8 May 2017. I
J 18. Investigations revealed as follows: J
K
(a) “Address 3” was owned by D and a person called Yu K
L
Ying Hui; L
M (b) According to the records of the phone company, the M
subscriber of 6340 0169 was SULISTIANI from 3
N N
April 2010 to 8 October 2017. SULISTIANI’s
O registered and mailing address, an address in Island O
Place, North Point, was where D employed her to reside
P P
and work. According to the records of the Immigration
Q Department, SULISTIANI was a foreign domestic Q
helper permitted to reside and work at this address for
R R
D from 4 October 2014 to 4 October 2015 to 4 October
S S
2017. D became the subscriber to this number with
T
effect from 20 June 2018; and T
U U
V V
A -8- A
B B
(c) According to the bank records, the true balance of
C C
CYM with ICBC from 1 January 2015 to 1 January
D 2018 never showed a balance more than $5,162 5 D
whereas the true balance of D with HSBC Account
E E
No 122-1-040700 was the same as the balance pages
F copied to Immigration Department. The copy of a F
composite passbook submitted in support of the
G G
application was a merger of the name page of CYM’s
H passbook and the balance pages of D’s passbook for H
this account.
I I
J
19. The prosecution’s case is that D had used or caused to use the J
name page of CYM’s passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s
K K
HSBC passbook Account No 122-1-040700 to produce a copy of a
L composite passbook, which is a copy of a false instrument, for an L
application in the name of {CYM}.
M M
Charge 6 against D and CYC (Making a false statement)
N Charge 7 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument) N
O O
6
20. It is alleged that an application dated 15 January 2016 was
P received on or about 28 January 2016 by Immigration Department for the P
visa of a domestic helper SARMAN (“DH-5”) to enable DH-5 to work and
Q Q
reside at{CYC}’s address at Merton, Kennedy Town (“Address 4”). The
R R
application with the following particulars, among others, was approved:
S S
(a) The application was made in the name of {CYC} as the
T T
5
U P59 @ 344 U
6
P21
V V
A -9- A
B B
employer of DH-5;
C C
(b) There was no contact phone number;
D D
(c) A copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card;
E E
F
(d) A copy of Water Bill of CYC for Address 4; and F
G (e) A copy of CYC’s passbook showed a balance of G
$6,236,672 as at 3 December 20157.
H H
21. Investigations revealed as follows:
I I
(a) On 4 December 2017 immigration officers visited
J J
Address 1 and found PW1 GARCIA residing there;
K K
(b) PW1 gives evidence that D had personally signed 2
L L
terms of 2-year tenancy agreements with him for 2015
M to 2019. He had never heard of DH-5. DH-5 had never M
worked or resided there; and
N N
(c) According to the bank records, the true balance of CYC
O O
with HSBC from 1 September 2014 to 8 January 2018
P never showed a balance more than $191,279 8 (this P
being the highest balance ever, on 1 September 2014).
Q Q
Such amount was insufficient to employ one domestic
R R
helper according to the policy as stated in the
S
Guidebook published by Immigration Department. S
According to the bank records, the true balance of D
T T
7
U P27 U
8
P59 @344
V V
A - 10 - A
B B
with HSBC Account No 122-6-050092 was the same as
C C
the balance pages copied to Immigration Department.
D The copy of a composite passbook submitted in support D
of the application was a merger of the name page of
E E
CYC’s passbook and the balance pages of D’s
F passbook for this account. F
G 22. The prosecution’s case of Making a false statement is that it G
was D and CYC who made the application. It contained a statement that
H H
DH-5 was to work and reside at Address 4. It was a false statement because,
I I
when D and CYC made the application, D and CYC had already leased
J
Address 4 to PW1 until 2017. J
K 23. The prosecution’s case of Using a copy of a false instrument K
is that D and CYC had used or caused to use the name page of CYC’s
L L
passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s HSBC passbook Account
M No. 122-1-040700 to produce a copy of a composite passbook, which is a M
copy of a false instrument, for an application in the name of {CYC}.
N N
Charge 10 against D (Making a false statement)
O O
P 24. It is alleged that an application dated 23 January 2017 9 was P
received in or about late January 2017 by Immigration Department for the
Q Q
visa of a domestic helper IDA SURYANI (“DH-5”) to enable DH-7 to
R come to Hong Kong to work and reside at {HHT}’s address at Bonham R
Crest, Mid-levels (“Address 1”). The application with the following
S S
particulars, among others, was approved:
T T
U U
9
P33
V V
A - 11 - A
B B
(a) The application was made in the name of {HHT} as the
C C
employer of DH-7;
D D
(b) {HHT}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169;
E E
(c) A copy of D’s Hong Kong identity card;
F F
(d) A copy of Water Bill of D for Address 1; and
G G
(e) A copy of D’s passbook showed a balance of
H H
$3,175,693 as at 12 December 2016.
I I
25. Investigations revealed as follows:
J J
(a) Address 1 was solely owned by D;
K K
(b) On 4 December 2017 immigration officers visited
L L
Address 1 and found PW13 MCKINNON residing
M there; M
N (c) PW13 gives evidence that D had personally signed a N
tenancy agreement dated 31 August 2016 with him for
O O
2 years until 2018. He had never heard of DH-7. DH-
P 7 had never worked or resided there; and P
Q Q
(d) As regards the phone number 6340 0169, according to
R PW13, at around the time of signing the tenancy R
agreement dated 31 August 2016 of Address 1, D had
S S
personally given this number to him as D’s contact
T phone number. T
U 26. The prosecution’s case is that D had made or caused this U
V V
A - 12 - A
B B
application to be made. It contained a statement that DH-7 was to work
C C
and reside at Address 1. It was a false statement because, when D made
D the application, D had already leased Address 1 to PW13 until 2018. D
E Charge 15 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument) E
F F
27. It is alleged that an application dated 11 April 2017 10 was
G received in or about April 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa of G
a domestic helper SRI SUPARTINI (“DH-10”) to work and reside at
H H
{CYC}’s residential address at Coronation Terrace, Mid-levels. The
I application with the following particulars, among others, was approved: I
J (a) The application was made in the name of {CYC} as the J
K
employer of DH-10; and K
L (b) {CYC}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169. L
M 28. Investigations revealed as follows: M
N (a) As regards the phone number 6340 0169, I refer to N
PW13 MCKINNON’s evidence that D had given it to
O O
him at around 31 August 2016. The details about this
P P
number has been set out hereinbefore; and
Q Q
(b) According to the bank records, the true balance of CYC
R with HSBC from 1 September 2014 to 8 January 2018 R
never showed a balance more than $191,279 11 (this
S S
being the highest balance ever, on 1 September 2014).
T T
10
U P51 U
11
P59 @344
V V
A - 13 - A
B B
Such amount was insufficient to employ one domestic
C C
helper according to the policy as stated in the
D Guidebook published by Immigration Department. D
According to the bank records, the true balance of D
E E
with HSBC Account No 122-1-040700 was the same as
F the balance pages copied to Immigration Department. F
The copy of a composite passbook submitted in support
G G
of the application was a merger of the name page of
H CYC’s passbook and the balance pages of D’s H
passbook for this account.
I I
J
29. The prosecution’s case is that D had J
K 30. used or caused to use the name page of CYC’s passbook to K
merge with the balance pages of D’s HSBC passbook Account No 122-1-
L L
040700 to produce a copy of a composite passbook, which is a copy of a
M false instrument, for an application in the name of {CYC}. M
N Charge 9 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument) N
O O
31. It is alleged that an application dated 18 April 2017 12 was
P received in about late April 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa P
of a domestic helper FEBRINA FRANSISCA (“DH-6”) to enable DH-6 to
Q Q
work and reside at {CYM}’s address at Belcher Hill, Kennedy Town
R (“Address 5”). The application with the following particulars, among R
others, was approved:
S S
T (a) The application was made in the name of {CYM} as T
U U
12
P29
V V
A - 14 - A
B B
the employer of DH-6;
C C
(b) {CYM}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169; and
D D
(c) CYM’s ISBC passbook showed a balance of
E E
$2,156,527 as at 10 March 2017.
F F
32. Investigations revealed as follows:
G G
(a) “Address 5” was owned by Perfect Charter Limited,
H H
whose sole director was D;
I I
(b) As regards the phone number 6340 0169, I refer to
J PW13 MCKINNON’s evidence that D had given it to J
him at around 31 August 2016. The details about this
K K
number has been set out hereinbefore; and
L L
(c) According to the bank records, the true balance of
M M
CYM with ICBC from 1 January 2015 to 1 January
N 2018 never showed a balance more than $5,16213. Such N
amount was insufficient to employ one domestic helper
O O
according to the policy as stated in the Guidebook
P published by Immigration Department. According to P
the bank records, the true balance of D with HSBC
Q Q
Account No 122-1-040700 was the same as the balance
R pages copied to Immigration Department. The copy of R
a composite passbook submitted in support of the
S S
T T
U U
13
P59 @344
V V
A - 15 - A
B B
application was a merger of the name page of CYM’s
C C
passbook and the balance pages of D’s passbook.
D D
33. The prosecution’s case is that D had used or caused to use the
E name page of CYM’s passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s E
HSBC passbook Account No 122-1-040700 to produce a copy of a
F F
composite passbook, which is a copy of a false instrument, for an
G application in the name of {CYM}. G
H H
Charge 1 against D (Making a false statement)
I I
14
34. It is alleged that an application dated 10 May 2017 was
J received in or about May 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa of J
K
a domestic helper Soimun (“DH-1”) to enable DH-1 to work and reside at K
HHT’s address at Bonham Crest, Mid-levels (“Address 1”). The application
L L
with the following particulars, among others, was approved:
M M
(a) The application was made in the name of {HHT} as the
N employer of DH-1; N
O (b) {HHT}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169; O
P
(c) A copy of D’s Hong Kong identity card; P
Q Q
(d) A copy of Water Bill of D for Address 1; and
R R
(e) A copy of HHT’s passbook showed a balance of
S $2,532,687 as at 8 May 2017. S
T T
U U
14
P4
V V
A - 16 - A
B B
35. Investigations revealed as follows:
C C
(a) Address 1 was owned by D;
D D
(b) On 4 December 2017 immigration officers visited
E E
Address 1 and found PW13 MCKINNON residing
F there; F
G G
(c) PW13 gives evidence that D had personally signed a
H tenancy agreement dated 31 August 2016 with him for H
2 years until 2018. He had never heard of DH-1. DH-
I I
1 had never worked or resided there; and
J J
(d) As regards the phone number 6340 0169, I refer to
K PW13 MCKINNON’s evidence that D had given it to K
him at around 31 August 2016. The details about this
L L
number has been set out hereinbefore.
M M
36. The prosecution’s case is that D had made or caused this
N N
application to be made. It contained a statement that DH-1 was to work
O and reside at Address 1. It was a false statement because, when D and O
made the application, D had already leased Address 1 to PW13 until 2017.
P P
Charge 13 against D and CYC (Making a false statement)
Q Charge 14 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument) Q
R R
37. It is alleged that an application dated 14 June 2017 15 was
S received in or about June 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa of S
a domestic helper FITRIANI (“DH-9”) to come to Hong Kong to work and
T T
U U
15
P45
V V
A - 17 - A
B B
reside at {CYC}’s residential address at The Merton (“Address 4”). The
C C
application with the following particulars, among others, was approved:
D D
(a) The application was made in the name of {CYC} as the
E employer of DH-9; E
F (b) {CYC}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169; F
G G
(c) A copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card;
H H
(d) A copy of Water Bill of CYC for Address 4; and
I I
(e) A copy of CYC’s passbook showing a balance of
J $2,532,687 as at 8 May 2017. J
K K
38. Investigations revealed as follows:
L L
(a) On 4 December 2017 immigration officers visited
M Address 4 and found PW1 GARCIA residing there; M
N (b) PW1 gives evidence that D had personally signed 2 N
terms of 2-year tenancy agreements with him for 2015
O O
to 2019. He had never heard of DH-9. DH-9 had never
P worked or resided there; and P
Q Q
(c) According to the bank records, the true balance of CYC
R with HSBC from 1 September 2014 to January 2015 to R
8 January 2018 never showed a balance more than
S S
$191,27916 (this being the highest balance ever, on 1
T September 2014). Such amount was insufficient to T
U U
16
P59 @344
V V
A - 18 - A
B B
employ one domestic helper according to the policy as
C C
stated in the Guidebook published by Immigration
D Department. According to the bank records, the true D
balance of D with HSBC Account No 122-6-050092
E E
was the same as the balance pages copied to
F Immigration Department. The copy of a composite F
passbook submitted in support of the application was a
G G
merger of the name page of CYC’s passbook and the
H balance pages of D’s passbook for this account. H
I I
39. The prosecution’s case of Making a false statement is that it
J
was D and CYC who made the application. It contained a statement that J
DH-9 was to work and reside at Address 4. It was a false statement because,
K K
when D and CYC made the application, D and CYC had already leased
L Address 4 to PW1 until 2019. L
M 40. The prosecution’s case of Using a copy of a false instrument M
is that D and CYC had used or caused to use the name page of CYC’s
N N
passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s HSBC passbook Account
O No 122-6-050092 to produce a copy of a composite passbook, which is a O
copy of a false instrument, for an application in the name of {CYC}.
P P
Q
SOME GENERAL FACTS Q
R 41. According to the records of Immigration Department, CYM R
left Hong Kong on 25 April 2013, and he never returned to Hong Kong as
S S
at 18 November 2022.
T T
42. At all material times, according to the policy announced in the
U U
V V
A - 19 - A
B B
17
Guidebook published by Immigration Department freely available to the
C C
public, an employer shall be eligible to employ one foreign domestic helper
D if the employer has either an income of $15,000 per month or assets such D
as deposit at the bank in the sum of $350,000 within 6 months of the
E E
application. More than one domestic helper may be employed by the
F employer, as long as the financial means is sufficient. F
G 43. According to the records of the Companies Registry, D had G
been the sole director of a limited company, Perfect Charter Limited up to
H H
18
25 August 2021. Since 2010, it held a property, Address 5 . It was never
I I
mortgaged and was sold for $14,680,000 in 2021. Besides, according to
J
the records of the Companies Registry, on 5 November 2018 D became the J
19
sole owner of Address 4 by way of assignment from her joint ownership
K K
with CYC. The purchase price was $12,000,000. In January 2019, it was
L mortgaged to secure all monies. Further, according to PW13 MCKINNON, L
on about 31 August 2016 she herself signed a tenancy agreement with him.
M M
44. The defence case has no witness or evidence to put forward.
N N
MY FINDINGS
O O
P Prosecution witnesses’ evidence accepted P
Q Q
45. The defence do not challenge the prosecution witnesses’
R evidence. I find them all credible and reliable. R
S S
T T
17
P91 and P92
U 18
P74 for Flat D, 17/F, Belcher’s Hill, 9 Rock Hill Street, Kennedy Town U
19
P73 Flat H, 11/F, Block 1, The Merton, 38 New Praya, Kennedy Town
V V
A - 20 - A
B B
D’s relationship with CYM, CYC, and LCG
C C
46. {HHT} claimed to Immigration Department that CYM was
D D
her husband and CYC was their daughter when {HHT} applied for visa to
E E
Hong Kong from Taiwan on 20 April 1993. Among the documents
F submitted, there was her marriage certificate with CYM dated in 1986 20. F
{HHT} also claimed that LCG was {HHT}’s ‘godfather” when {HHT}
G G
applied for certified copies of LCG’s death certificate on 7 June 201821.
H H
47. The contents are hearsay as the identity of the claimant and
I the matter claimed could not be proved to be true. However, no person I
except D could possibly have had any knowledge of such matters and
J J
would have had any purpose in claiming such matters. Under such
K circumstances, I accept the claimed relationships to be true, ie, CYM is D’s K
husband, CYC is their daughter, and LCG is her godfather.
L L
M Who kept whose passbooks M
N N
48. According to the records of the Companies Registry, D had
O
been the sole director of a limited company, Perfect Charter Limited up to O
25 August 2021. Since 2010, it held a property, Address 522. It was never
P P
mortgaged and was sold for $14,680,000 in 2021. Besides, according to
Q the records of the Companies Registry, on 5 November 2018 D became the Q
sole owner of Address 423 by way of assignment from her joint ownership
R R
with CYC. The purchase price was $12,000,000. In January 2019, it was
S mortgaged to secure all monies. Further, according to PW13 MCKINNON, S
T 20 T
P80
21
P83
U 22
P74 for Flat D, 17/F, Belcher’s Hill, 9 Rock Hill Street, Kennedy Town U
23
P73 Flat H, 11/F, Block 1, The Merton, 38 New Praya, Kennedy Town
V V
A - 21 - A
B B
on about 31 August 2016 she herself signed a tenancy agreement with him.
C C
These facts indicate that D was amply capable of managing her valuable
D financial affairs all by herself. There is no evidence or suggestion that D D
would not or could not keep her 2 passbooks by herself at all material times.
E E
I reject the defence submission that her 2 passbooks had to be kept by
F others, such as her husband CYM, her daughter CYC, or her godfather F
LCG. I am satisfied that her 2 passbooks were kept by herself at all
G G
material times.
H H
49. Similarly, there is no evidence or suggestion that CYM, CYC,
I I
and LCG would not or could not keep his/her own passbook by
J
himself/herself at all material times. I am satisfied that each one’s J
passbook was kept by each self at all material times.
K K
D’s contact phone number
L L
M 50. Although it was subscribed in her domestic helper’s name, she M
had given it to PW13 MCKINNON as her contact phone number on or
N N
about 31 August 2016. From that date onwards, she had adopted it as her
O contact phone number. She became its subscriber in 2018. O
P Who signed the application or who falsified a copy of a passbook P
Q Q
51. The defence submit that there was no proof of who signed or
R made the application. I agree but this point is immaterial since our present R
case, as clear from the Prosecution’s Opening, canvasses the scenario
S S
where D did not do the act by herself but caused another person to do the
T act. In this connection, the identity of the person who physically signed or T
made the application or physically produced the copy of a false passbook
U U
is immaterial, as long as the act was done as directed or consented to by D.
V V
A - 22 - A
B B
MY FINDINGS APPLICABLE TO EACH CHARGE
C C
Charge 18 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
D D
E 52. In the application dated 14 March 2015, the domestic helper E
was to work and reside at {LCG}’s address, which transpired to be a
F F
property owned by D and LCG.
G G
53. There was a contact phone number, which transpired to be
H H
subscribed to by LCG.
I I
54. There was a copy of a false passbook produced by merging
J the name page of LCG’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook J
Account No 122-6-050092.
K K
55. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
L L
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with
M M
LCG’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {LCG}’s
N
application. Whether it was D herself who did, or caused someone to, N
produce a copy of a false passbook for {LCG}’s application, it is still
O O
within the ambit of Charge 18. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false
P instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. P
Q Charge 4 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument) Q
R R
56. In the application dated 14 July 2015, according to the
S contract, the domestic helper was to work and reside at {CYM}’s address, S
which transpired to be a property owned by D and a person called Yu Ying
T T
Hui.
U U
57. {CYM} provided a copy of a false passbook produced by
V V
A - 23 - A
B B
merging the name page of CYM’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s
C C
passbook Account No 122-1-040700. CYM’s bank records showed a
D stagnant balance of $5,160 - $5,162 since 1 January 2011 up to 1 January D
2018. The $2 increase was from bank interest. There was no activity in
E E
this account for 7 years.
F F
58. {CYM} also provided a copy of CYM’s Hong Kong identity
G card. G
H H
59. According to movement records of Immigration Department,
I CYM was out of Hong Kong since 29 April 2013 until 18 November 2022, I
the last date of the records.
J J
60. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
K K
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with
L CYM’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s L
application. Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a
M M
copy of a false passbook for {CYM}’s application, it is still within the
N ambit of Charge 4. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument N
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
O O
P Charge 6 against D and CYC (Making a false statement) P
Charge 7 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)
Q Q
61. In the application dated 15 January 2016, {CYC} provided a
R R
copy of a false passbook produced by merging the name page of CYC’s
S passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook Account No 122-6- S
050092.
T T
62. There was a copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card. There
U U
was a copy of CYC’s Water Bill for the address.
V V
A - 24 - A
B B
63. When the application was made, D and CYC had already
C C
leased the property to PW1 GARCIA for 2015 to 2017. It was impossible
D for the domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false D
statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside
E E
at the address.
F F
64. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
G by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with G
CYC’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s
H H
application. Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a
I
copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s application, it is still within the ambit I
J
of Charge 7. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument proved J
beyond reasonable doubt.
K K
65. Whether D herself did, or caused someone to, make {CYC}’s
L L
application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 6. It was a false statement
M by D that the domestic helper would work and reside at the address. I find M
D’s act of making a false statement proved beyond reasonable doubt.
N N
Charge 10 against D (Making a false statement)
O O
P 66. In the application dated 23 January 2017, {HHT} provided P
6340 0169 as the contact phone number. There was a copy of D’s Hong
Q Q
Kong identity card. There was a copy of Water Bill as address proof. The
R property was solely owned by D. There was a copy of D’s passbook. R
S S
67. PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him
T 6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when T
he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement for the property for 2 years
U U
until 2018. He had never heard of DH-7. DH-7 had never worked or
V V
A - 25 - A
B B
resided there.
C C
68. When the application was made, D had already leased the
D D
property to PW13 MCKINNON for 2016 to 2018. It was impossible for
E the domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false E
statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside
F F
at the address.
G G
69. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
H H
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have been provided
I unless D had directed or consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Likewise, I
6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or
J J
consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Whether D herself did, or caused
K someone to, make {HHT}’s application, it is still within the ambit of K
Charge 10. It was a false statement by D that the domestic helper would
L L
work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a false statement
M proved beyond reasonable doubt. M
N Charge 15 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument) N
O O
70. In the application dated 11 April 2017, {CYC} provided 6340
P 0169 as the contact phone number. There was a copy of CYC’s Hong Kong P
identity card.
Q Q
R
71. There was also a copy of CYC’s passbook produced by R
merging the name page of CYC’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s
S S
passbook Account No 122-1-040700.
T T
72. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
U by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with U
V V
A - 26 - A
B B
CYC’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s
C C
application. Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided to
D Immigration Department unless D had directed or consented to it for D
{CYC}’s application. Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to,
E E
produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s application, it is still
F within the ambit of Charge 15. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false F
instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt.
G G
Charge 9 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
H H
I 73. In the application dated 18 April 2017, according to the I
contract signed by {CYM} and the domestic helper, the domestic helper
J J
was to work and reside at {CYM}’s address, which transpired to be a
K property solely owned by D. K
L L
74. {CYM} provided 6340 0169 as the contact phone number.
M M
75. {CYM} also provided a copy of a false passbook produced by
N merging the name page of CYM’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s N
passbook Account No 122-1-040700. CYM’s bank records showed a
O O
stagnant balance of $5,160 - $5,162 since 1 January 2011 up to 1 January
P 2018. The $2 increase was from bank interest. There was no activity in P
this account for 7 years.
Q Q
R
76. According to movement records of Immigration Department, R
CYM was out of Hong Kong since 29 April 2013 until 18 November 2022,
S S
the last date of the records.
T T
77. PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him
U 6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when U
V V
A - 27 - A
B B
he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement dated for 2 years until
C C
2018.
D D
78. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
E by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with E
CYM’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s
F F
application. Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D
G had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s application. Whether D G
herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook
H H
for {CYM}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 9. I find D’s
I I
act of using a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt.
J J
Charge 1 against D (Making a false statement)
K K
79. In the application dated 10 May 2017, {HHT} provided 6340
L L
0169 as the contact phone number. There was a copy of D’s Hong Kong
M identity card. There was a copy of Water Bill of D for the address, which M
transpired to be a property solely owned by D.
N N
80. PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him
O O
6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when
P he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement for 2016 to 2018. He had P
never heard of DH-1. DH-1 had never worked or resided there.
Q Q
R
81. When the application was made, D had already leased the R
property to PW13 MCKINNON for 2016 to 2018. It was impossible for
S S
the domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false
T statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside T
at the address.
U U
V V
A - 28 - A
B B
82. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
C C
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have been provided
D unless D had directed or consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Likewise, D
6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or
E E
consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Whether D herself did, or D
F caused someone to, make {HHT}’s application, it is still within the ambit F
of Charge 1. It was a false statement by D that the domestic helper would
G G
work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a false statement
H proved beyond reasonable doubt. H
I Charge 13 against D and CYC (Making a false statement) I
Charge 14 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)
J J
K 83. In the application dated 14 June 2017, there was a copy of K
CYC’s Hong Kong identity card. There was a copy of Water Bill of CYC
L L
for the address, which transpired to be a property owned by D and CYC.
M M
84. {CYC} provided 6340 0169 as the contact phone number.
N PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him 6340 0169 as the N
contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when he and D
O O
personally signed a tenancy agreement dated for 2 years until 2018. He
P had never heard of DH-1. He had never heard of DH-1. DH-1 had never P
worked or resided there.
Q Q
R 85. {CYC} also provided a copy of a false passbook produced by R
merging the name page of CYC’s passbook and D’s passbook Account
S S
No 122-6-050092.
T T
86. When the application was made, D and CYC had already
U leased the property to PW1 for 2017 to 2019. It was impossible for the U
V V
A - 29 - A
B B
domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false statement
C C
in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside at the
D address. D
E 87. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept E
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have been provided
F F
unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application. Likewise,
G 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or G
consented to it for {CYC}’s application. Whether D herself did, or D
H H
caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s
I
application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 14. I find D’s act of using I
J
a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. J
K 88. Similarly, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D K
had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application. Whether D herself
L L
did, or D caused someone to, make {CYC}’s application, it is still within
M the ambit of Charge 13. It was a false statement by D that the domestic M
helper would work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a
N N
false statement proved beyond reasonable doubt.
O O
CONCLUSION
P P
89. In the aftermath of my finding, by virtue of section 74 of
Q Q
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, that D is under disability, the prosecution
R have proved D did the act charged against her on all 10 charges. I shall R
make orders for D according to section 76 of Criminal Procedure
S S
Ordinance.
T T
U ( E Yip ) U
District Judge
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 502/2019
C C
[2022] HKDC 1516
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 502 OF 2019
F F
----------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
HUANG Huei Ting “Defendant”
I ---------------------- I
J Before: His Honour Judge E Yip J
Date: 22 December 2022
K K
Present: Mr Wei Mark Ho Tong and Mr Joseph Tope, counsel-on-fiat,
L L
for HKSAR
M Mr Wong Ching Y, SC, leading Ms Chan Adgie N K and Mr M
Li Kelvin Ka Hei, instructed by C&Y Lawyers, for the
N N
defendant
O Offences: [1], [6] and [13] Making a false statement to an Immigration O
Officer lawfully acting under or in the execution of Part III of
P P
the Immigration Ordinance
Q [4], [7], [9], [14], [15] and [18] Using a copy of a false Q
instrument
R R
[10] Making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining an
S entry permit S
T ------------------------------------- T
REASONS FOR VERDICT
U U
-------------------------------------
V V
A -2- A
B B
CHARGES
C C
1. The Defendant (“D”) faces 10 charges. Charges 1, 6, 10 and
D D
13 are of making a false statement to an Immigration Officer in the due
E E
execution of duty, contrary to section 42(1)(a) of Immigration Ordinance,
F Cap 115. Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15 and 18 are of using a copy of a false F
instrument, contrary to section 74 of Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.
G G
D’S RESPONSE TO PLEA-TAKING
H H
I 2. When pleas are taken from her, she either shakes her head, or I
says she does not understand the charge. I record pleas of not guilty to all
J J
10 charges.
K K
3. The defence say she is not fit to stand trial and there is medical
L evidence to that effect as required by section 75 of Criminal Procedure L
Ordinance, Cap 221. I shall refer to it as the “Fitness Issue”.
M M
N
4. The prosecution and the defence agree that I shall rule on the N
Fitness Issue after the prosecution case. The defence make a no-case
O O
submission. I rule a case to answer on all charges. As a result, I have to
P rule on the Fitness Issue. P
Q FITNESS ISSUE Q
R R
5. According to the two psychiatrists called to give evidence in
S court by the defence, D had been suffering and still suffered from auditory S
hallucination at the time of assessment recently. She could not understand
T T
the proceedings. The prosecution’s two psychiatrists were not called to
U give evidence in court. Their reports indicated that they could not confirm U
V V
A -3- A
B B
whether D was suffering from auditory hallucination. I find the defence
C C
psychiatrists’ evidence cogent. The defence have proved on the balance of
D probabilities that D is unfit to stand trial. According to section 75 of D
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, I shall record a finding that D is under
E E
disability.
F F
6. It is then for the prosecution to prove that D did the act
G charged against her beyond reasonable doubt. G
H H
PROSECUTION CASE
I I
7. Understandably given the situation of D, there are no admitted
J facts. The prosecution call 14 witnesses. Their evidence is not challenged J
K
at all. I find all of them credible and reliable witnesses. K
L 8. The case involves people such as HUANG HUEI TING L
(“HHT”), CHEN YEN-CHIN (“CYC”), CHEN YI-MING (“CYM”), and
M M
LARGE CHARLES GRAMAE (“LCG”) respectively. If an application is
N made by someone who stated, as for example, one’s name as “HHT”, I N
would refer to this person as {HHT} to denote that someone adopting a pen
O O
name {HHT} is making the application. That person may or may not be
P the real HHT. The same logic holds for {CYM}, {CYC}, and {LCG} P
respectively.
Q Q
R
9. Our present case relates to 2 sets of charges, ie, making a false R
statement (Charges 1, 6, 10, and 13) and using a copy of a false instrument
S S
(Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 18).
T T
10. The former set of 4 charges is focused on D’s (Charges 1 and
U 10), or D’s and another person’s (Charges 6 and 13), 4 applications, each U
V V
A -4- A
B B
of which contained a representation to the immigration officer that the
C C
domestic helper would reside and work at the employer’s stated address.
D Investigations revealed that the domestic helper did not work or reside D
there at all.
E E
11. The latter set of 6 charges (Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 18) is
F F
focused on D’s merging the name page of another person’s passbook with
G the balance pages of her passbook to produce a false passbook whose copy G
was submitted in the 6 applications to the Immigration Department.
H H
I 12. In closing submissions, the prosecution and the defence share I
the view that as long as the act was done at D’s direction or with D’s
J J
consent, whether D did, or caused someone to, do the act, it is still within
K the ambit of each of the 10 charges. K
L CHRONOLOGY OF CHARGES L
M M
13. This case relates to 8 applications. It is easier to understand
N when the Charges and their relevant events are arranged in a chronological N
order as follows:
O O
(1) Charge 18 against D (date of application 14 March
P P
2015 by {LCG});
Q Q
(2) Charge 4 against D (date of application 15 July 2015 by
R R
{CYM});
S S
(3) Charges 6 and 7 against D and CYC (date of application
T 15 January 2016 by {CYC}); T
U U
V V
A -5- A
B B
(4) Charge 10 against D (date of application 23 January
C C
2017 by “D”);
D D
(5) Charge 15 against D and CYC (date of application 11
E April 2017 by {CYC}); E
F (6) Charge 9 against D (date of application 18 April 2017 F
by {CYM});
G G
H (7) Charge 1 against D (date of application 10 May 2017 H
by “D”); and
I I
(8) Charges 13 and 14 against D and CYC (date of
J J
application 14 June 2017 by {CYC})
K K
Charge 18 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
L L
14. It is alleged that an application dated 14 March 2015 1 was
M M
received in March 2015 by Immigration Department for the visa of a
N domestic helper SUPRATI (“DH-12”) to enable DH-12 to work and reside N
at {LCG}’s residential address at Lion Rise, Wong Tai Sin (“Address 7”).
O O
The application with the following particulars, among others, was
P P
approved:
Q Q
(a) The application was made in the name of {LCG} as the
R employer of DH-12; R
S (b) {LCG}’s contact phone number was 6402 8747; and S
T T
U 1 U
P29
V V
A -6- A
B B
(c) A copy of LCG’s copy of passbook showed a balance
C C
of $1,960,750 as at 19 January 20152.
D D
15. Investigations revealed as follows:
E E
(a) According to the records of Land Registry, “Address 7”
F was owned by LCG and D; and F
G G
(b) According to the records of the phone company3, the
H subscriber of 6402 8747 was LCG from 15 December H
2011 to 2 March 2016. LCG’s registered address was
I I
Consort Rise, Pok Fu Lam. His billing address was the
J same as D’s residential address at Island Place, North J
Point.
K K
16. The prosecution’s case is that D had used or caused to use the
L L
name page of LCG’s passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s
M HSBC passbook Account No 122-6-050092 to produce a copy of a M
passbook, which is a copy of a false instrument, for an application in the
N N
name of {LCG}.
O O
Charge 4 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
P P
Q
17. It is alleged that an application dated 15 July 2015 4 was Q
received on or about 20 July 2015 by Immigration Department for the visa
R R
of domestic helper LATIF CHOIRUL ZAINI (“DH-4”) to enable DH-4 to
S work and reside at }CYM{’s residential address at Kam Ning Mansion, S
T T
2
P56
3
U P85 U
4
P15
V V
A -7- A
B B
Mid-levels (“Address 3”). The application with the following particulars,
C C
among others, was approved:
D D
(a) The application was made in the name of {CYM} as
E the employer of DH-9; E
F (b) {CYM}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169; F
G G
(c) A copy of CYM’s Hong Kong identity card; and
H H
(d) A copy of CYM’s passbook showed a balance of
I $3,027,869 as at 8 May 2017. I
J 18. Investigations revealed as follows: J
K
(a) “Address 3” was owned by D and a person called Yu K
L
Ying Hui; L
M (b) According to the records of the phone company, the M
subscriber of 6340 0169 was SULISTIANI from 3
N N
April 2010 to 8 October 2017. SULISTIANI’s
O registered and mailing address, an address in Island O
Place, North Point, was where D employed her to reside
P P
and work. According to the records of the Immigration
Q Department, SULISTIANI was a foreign domestic Q
helper permitted to reside and work at this address for
R R
D from 4 October 2014 to 4 October 2015 to 4 October
S S
2017. D became the subscriber to this number with
T
effect from 20 June 2018; and T
U U
V V
A -8- A
B B
(c) According to the bank records, the true balance of
C C
CYM with ICBC from 1 January 2015 to 1 January
D 2018 never showed a balance more than $5,162 5 D
whereas the true balance of D with HSBC Account
E E
No 122-1-040700 was the same as the balance pages
F copied to Immigration Department. The copy of a F
composite passbook submitted in support of the
G G
application was a merger of the name page of CYM’s
H passbook and the balance pages of D’s passbook for H
this account.
I I
J
19. The prosecution’s case is that D had used or caused to use the J
name page of CYM’s passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s
K K
HSBC passbook Account No 122-1-040700 to produce a copy of a
L composite passbook, which is a copy of a false instrument, for an L
application in the name of {CYM}.
M M
Charge 6 against D and CYC (Making a false statement)
N Charge 7 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument) N
O O
6
20. It is alleged that an application dated 15 January 2016 was
P received on or about 28 January 2016 by Immigration Department for the P
visa of a domestic helper SARMAN (“DH-5”) to enable DH-5 to work and
Q Q
reside at{CYC}’s address at Merton, Kennedy Town (“Address 4”). The
R R
application with the following particulars, among others, was approved:
S S
(a) The application was made in the name of {CYC} as the
T T
5
U P59 @ 344 U
6
P21
V V
A -9- A
B B
employer of DH-5;
C C
(b) There was no contact phone number;
D D
(c) A copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card;
E E
F
(d) A copy of Water Bill of CYC for Address 4; and F
G (e) A copy of CYC’s passbook showed a balance of G
$6,236,672 as at 3 December 20157.
H H
21. Investigations revealed as follows:
I I
(a) On 4 December 2017 immigration officers visited
J J
Address 1 and found PW1 GARCIA residing there;
K K
(b) PW1 gives evidence that D had personally signed 2
L L
terms of 2-year tenancy agreements with him for 2015
M to 2019. He had never heard of DH-5. DH-5 had never M
worked or resided there; and
N N
(c) According to the bank records, the true balance of CYC
O O
with HSBC from 1 September 2014 to 8 January 2018
P never showed a balance more than $191,279 8 (this P
being the highest balance ever, on 1 September 2014).
Q Q
Such amount was insufficient to employ one domestic
R R
helper according to the policy as stated in the
S
Guidebook published by Immigration Department. S
According to the bank records, the true balance of D
T T
7
U P27 U
8
P59 @344
V V
A - 10 - A
B B
with HSBC Account No 122-6-050092 was the same as
C C
the balance pages copied to Immigration Department.
D The copy of a composite passbook submitted in support D
of the application was a merger of the name page of
E E
CYC’s passbook and the balance pages of D’s
F passbook for this account. F
G 22. The prosecution’s case of Making a false statement is that it G
was D and CYC who made the application. It contained a statement that
H H
DH-5 was to work and reside at Address 4. It was a false statement because,
I I
when D and CYC made the application, D and CYC had already leased
J
Address 4 to PW1 until 2017. J
K 23. The prosecution’s case of Using a copy of a false instrument K
is that D and CYC had used or caused to use the name page of CYC’s
L L
passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s HSBC passbook Account
M No. 122-1-040700 to produce a copy of a composite passbook, which is a M
copy of a false instrument, for an application in the name of {CYC}.
N N
Charge 10 against D (Making a false statement)
O O
P 24. It is alleged that an application dated 23 January 2017 9 was P
received in or about late January 2017 by Immigration Department for the
Q Q
visa of a domestic helper IDA SURYANI (“DH-5”) to enable DH-7 to
R come to Hong Kong to work and reside at {HHT}’s address at Bonham R
Crest, Mid-levels (“Address 1”). The application with the following
S S
particulars, among others, was approved:
T T
U U
9
P33
V V
A - 11 - A
B B
(a) The application was made in the name of {HHT} as the
C C
employer of DH-7;
D D
(b) {HHT}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169;
E E
(c) A copy of D’s Hong Kong identity card;
F F
(d) A copy of Water Bill of D for Address 1; and
G G
(e) A copy of D’s passbook showed a balance of
H H
$3,175,693 as at 12 December 2016.
I I
25. Investigations revealed as follows:
J J
(a) Address 1 was solely owned by D;
K K
(b) On 4 December 2017 immigration officers visited
L L
Address 1 and found PW13 MCKINNON residing
M there; M
N (c) PW13 gives evidence that D had personally signed a N
tenancy agreement dated 31 August 2016 with him for
O O
2 years until 2018. He had never heard of DH-7. DH-
P 7 had never worked or resided there; and P
Q Q
(d) As regards the phone number 6340 0169, according to
R PW13, at around the time of signing the tenancy R
agreement dated 31 August 2016 of Address 1, D had
S S
personally given this number to him as D’s contact
T phone number. T
U 26. The prosecution’s case is that D had made or caused this U
V V
A - 12 - A
B B
application to be made. It contained a statement that DH-7 was to work
C C
and reside at Address 1. It was a false statement because, when D made
D the application, D had already leased Address 1 to PW13 until 2018. D
E Charge 15 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument) E
F F
27. It is alleged that an application dated 11 April 2017 10 was
G received in or about April 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa of G
a domestic helper SRI SUPARTINI (“DH-10”) to work and reside at
H H
{CYC}’s residential address at Coronation Terrace, Mid-levels. The
I application with the following particulars, among others, was approved: I
J (a) The application was made in the name of {CYC} as the J
K
employer of DH-10; and K
L (b) {CYC}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169. L
M 28. Investigations revealed as follows: M
N (a) As regards the phone number 6340 0169, I refer to N
PW13 MCKINNON’s evidence that D had given it to
O O
him at around 31 August 2016. The details about this
P P
number has been set out hereinbefore; and
Q Q
(b) According to the bank records, the true balance of CYC
R with HSBC from 1 September 2014 to 8 January 2018 R
never showed a balance more than $191,279 11 (this
S S
being the highest balance ever, on 1 September 2014).
T T
10
U P51 U
11
P59 @344
V V
A - 13 - A
B B
Such amount was insufficient to employ one domestic
C C
helper according to the policy as stated in the
D Guidebook published by Immigration Department. D
According to the bank records, the true balance of D
E E
with HSBC Account No 122-1-040700 was the same as
F the balance pages copied to Immigration Department. F
The copy of a composite passbook submitted in support
G G
of the application was a merger of the name page of
H CYC’s passbook and the balance pages of D’s H
passbook for this account.
I I
J
29. The prosecution’s case is that D had J
K 30. used or caused to use the name page of CYC’s passbook to K
merge with the balance pages of D’s HSBC passbook Account No 122-1-
L L
040700 to produce a copy of a composite passbook, which is a copy of a
M false instrument, for an application in the name of {CYC}. M
N Charge 9 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument) N
O O
31. It is alleged that an application dated 18 April 2017 12 was
P received in about late April 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa P
of a domestic helper FEBRINA FRANSISCA (“DH-6”) to enable DH-6 to
Q Q
work and reside at {CYM}’s address at Belcher Hill, Kennedy Town
R (“Address 5”). The application with the following particulars, among R
others, was approved:
S S
T (a) The application was made in the name of {CYM} as T
U U
12
P29
V V
A - 14 - A
B B
the employer of DH-6;
C C
(b) {CYM}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169; and
D D
(c) CYM’s ISBC passbook showed a balance of
E E
$2,156,527 as at 10 March 2017.
F F
32. Investigations revealed as follows:
G G
(a) “Address 5” was owned by Perfect Charter Limited,
H H
whose sole director was D;
I I
(b) As regards the phone number 6340 0169, I refer to
J PW13 MCKINNON’s evidence that D had given it to J
him at around 31 August 2016. The details about this
K K
number has been set out hereinbefore; and
L L
(c) According to the bank records, the true balance of
M M
CYM with ICBC from 1 January 2015 to 1 January
N 2018 never showed a balance more than $5,16213. Such N
amount was insufficient to employ one domestic helper
O O
according to the policy as stated in the Guidebook
P published by Immigration Department. According to P
the bank records, the true balance of D with HSBC
Q Q
Account No 122-1-040700 was the same as the balance
R pages copied to Immigration Department. The copy of R
a composite passbook submitted in support of the
S S
T T
U U
13
P59 @344
V V
A - 15 - A
B B
application was a merger of the name page of CYM’s
C C
passbook and the balance pages of D’s passbook.
D D
33. The prosecution’s case is that D had used or caused to use the
E name page of CYM’s passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s E
HSBC passbook Account No 122-1-040700 to produce a copy of a
F F
composite passbook, which is a copy of a false instrument, for an
G application in the name of {CYM}. G
H H
Charge 1 against D (Making a false statement)
I I
14
34. It is alleged that an application dated 10 May 2017 was
J received in or about May 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa of J
K
a domestic helper Soimun (“DH-1”) to enable DH-1 to work and reside at K
HHT’s address at Bonham Crest, Mid-levels (“Address 1”). The application
L L
with the following particulars, among others, was approved:
M M
(a) The application was made in the name of {HHT} as the
N employer of DH-1; N
O (b) {HHT}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169; O
P
(c) A copy of D’s Hong Kong identity card; P
Q Q
(d) A copy of Water Bill of D for Address 1; and
R R
(e) A copy of HHT’s passbook showed a balance of
S $2,532,687 as at 8 May 2017. S
T T
U U
14
P4
V V
A - 16 - A
B B
35. Investigations revealed as follows:
C C
(a) Address 1 was owned by D;
D D
(b) On 4 December 2017 immigration officers visited
E E
Address 1 and found PW13 MCKINNON residing
F there; F
G G
(c) PW13 gives evidence that D had personally signed a
H tenancy agreement dated 31 August 2016 with him for H
2 years until 2018. He had never heard of DH-1. DH-
I I
1 had never worked or resided there; and
J J
(d) As regards the phone number 6340 0169, I refer to
K PW13 MCKINNON’s evidence that D had given it to K
him at around 31 August 2016. The details about this
L L
number has been set out hereinbefore.
M M
36. The prosecution’s case is that D had made or caused this
N N
application to be made. It contained a statement that DH-1 was to work
O and reside at Address 1. It was a false statement because, when D and O
made the application, D had already leased Address 1 to PW13 until 2017.
P P
Charge 13 against D and CYC (Making a false statement)
Q Charge 14 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument) Q
R R
37. It is alleged that an application dated 14 June 2017 15 was
S received in or about June 2017 by Immigration Department for the visa of S
a domestic helper FITRIANI (“DH-9”) to come to Hong Kong to work and
T T
U U
15
P45
V V
A - 17 - A
B B
reside at {CYC}’s residential address at The Merton (“Address 4”). The
C C
application with the following particulars, among others, was approved:
D D
(a) The application was made in the name of {CYC} as the
E employer of DH-9; E
F (b) {CYC}’s contact phone number was 6340 0169; F
G G
(c) A copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card;
H H
(d) A copy of Water Bill of CYC for Address 4; and
I I
(e) A copy of CYC’s passbook showing a balance of
J $2,532,687 as at 8 May 2017. J
K K
38. Investigations revealed as follows:
L L
(a) On 4 December 2017 immigration officers visited
M Address 4 and found PW1 GARCIA residing there; M
N (b) PW1 gives evidence that D had personally signed 2 N
terms of 2-year tenancy agreements with him for 2015
O O
to 2019. He had never heard of DH-9. DH-9 had never
P worked or resided there; and P
Q Q
(c) According to the bank records, the true balance of CYC
R with HSBC from 1 September 2014 to January 2015 to R
8 January 2018 never showed a balance more than
S S
$191,27916 (this being the highest balance ever, on 1
T September 2014). Such amount was insufficient to T
U U
16
P59 @344
V V
A - 18 - A
B B
employ one domestic helper according to the policy as
C C
stated in the Guidebook published by Immigration
D Department. According to the bank records, the true D
balance of D with HSBC Account No 122-6-050092
E E
was the same as the balance pages copied to
F Immigration Department. The copy of a composite F
passbook submitted in support of the application was a
G G
merger of the name page of CYC’s passbook and the
H balance pages of D’s passbook for this account. H
I I
39. The prosecution’s case of Making a false statement is that it
J
was D and CYC who made the application. It contained a statement that J
DH-9 was to work and reside at Address 4. It was a false statement because,
K K
when D and CYC made the application, D and CYC had already leased
L Address 4 to PW1 until 2019. L
M 40. The prosecution’s case of Using a copy of a false instrument M
is that D and CYC had used or caused to use the name page of CYC’s
N N
passbook to merge with the balance pages of D’s HSBC passbook Account
O No 122-6-050092 to produce a copy of a composite passbook, which is a O
copy of a false instrument, for an application in the name of {CYC}.
P P
Q
SOME GENERAL FACTS Q
R 41. According to the records of Immigration Department, CYM R
left Hong Kong on 25 April 2013, and he never returned to Hong Kong as
S S
at 18 November 2022.
T T
42. At all material times, according to the policy announced in the
U U
V V
A - 19 - A
B B
17
Guidebook published by Immigration Department freely available to the
C C
public, an employer shall be eligible to employ one foreign domestic helper
D if the employer has either an income of $15,000 per month or assets such D
as deposit at the bank in the sum of $350,000 within 6 months of the
E E
application. More than one domestic helper may be employed by the
F employer, as long as the financial means is sufficient. F
G 43. According to the records of the Companies Registry, D had G
been the sole director of a limited company, Perfect Charter Limited up to
H H
18
25 August 2021. Since 2010, it held a property, Address 5 . It was never
I I
mortgaged and was sold for $14,680,000 in 2021. Besides, according to
J
the records of the Companies Registry, on 5 November 2018 D became the J
19
sole owner of Address 4 by way of assignment from her joint ownership
K K
with CYC. The purchase price was $12,000,000. In January 2019, it was
L mortgaged to secure all monies. Further, according to PW13 MCKINNON, L
on about 31 August 2016 she herself signed a tenancy agreement with him.
M M
44. The defence case has no witness or evidence to put forward.
N N
MY FINDINGS
O O
P Prosecution witnesses’ evidence accepted P
Q Q
45. The defence do not challenge the prosecution witnesses’
R evidence. I find them all credible and reliable. R
S S
T T
17
P91 and P92
U 18
P74 for Flat D, 17/F, Belcher’s Hill, 9 Rock Hill Street, Kennedy Town U
19
P73 Flat H, 11/F, Block 1, The Merton, 38 New Praya, Kennedy Town
V V
A - 20 - A
B B
D’s relationship with CYM, CYC, and LCG
C C
46. {HHT} claimed to Immigration Department that CYM was
D D
her husband and CYC was their daughter when {HHT} applied for visa to
E E
Hong Kong from Taiwan on 20 April 1993. Among the documents
F submitted, there was her marriage certificate with CYM dated in 1986 20. F
{HHT} also claimed that LCG was {HHT}’s ‘godfather” when {HHT}
G G
applied for certified copies of LCG’s death certificate on 7 June 201821.
H H
47. The contents are hearsay as the identity of the claimant and
I the matter claimed could not be proved to be true. However, no person I
except D could possibly have had any knowledge of such matters and
J J
would have had any purpose in claiming such matters. Under such
K circumstances, I accept the claimed relationships to be true, ie, CYM is D’s K
husband, CYC is their daughter, and LCG is her godfather.
L L
M Who kept whose passbooks M
N N
48. According to the records of the Companies Registry, D had
O
been the sole director of a limited company, Perfect Charter Limited up to O
25 August 2021. Since 2010, it held a property, Address 522. It was never
P P
mortgaged and was sold for $14,680,000 in 2021. Besides, according to
Q the records of the Companies Registry, on 5 November 2018 D became the Q
sole owner of Address 423 by way of assignment from her joint ownership
R R
with CYC. The purchase price was $12,000,000. In January 2019, it was
S mortgaged to secure all monies. Further, according to PW13 MCKINNON, S
T 20 T
P80
21
P83
U 22
P74 for Flat D, 17/F, Belcher’s Hill, 9 Rock Hill Street, Kennedy Town U
23
P73 Flat H, 11/F, Block 1, The Merton, 38 New Praya, Kennedy Town
V V
A - 21 - A
B B
on about 31 August 2016 she herself signed a tenancy agreement with him.
C C
These facts indicate that D was amply capable of managing her valuable
D financial affairs all by herself. There is no evidence or suggestion that D D
would not or could not keep her 2 passbooks by herself at all material times.
E E
I reject the defence submission that her 2 passbooks had to be kept by
F others, such as her husband CYM, her daughter CYC, or her godfather F
LCG. I am satisfied that her 2 passbooks were kept by herself at all
G G
material times.
H H
49. Similarly, there is no evidence or suggestion that CYM, CYC,
I I
and LCG would not or could not keep his/her own passbook by
J
himself/herself at all material times. I am satisfied that each one’s J
passbook was kept by each self at all material times.
K K
D’s contact phone number
L L
M 50. Although it was subscribed in her domestic helper’s name, she M
had given it to PW13 MCKINNON as her contact phone number on or
N N
about 31 August 2016. From that date onwards, she had adopted it as her
O contact phone number. She became its subscriber in 2018. O
P Who signed the application or who falsified a copy of a passbook P
Q Q
51. The defence submit that there was no proof of who signed or
R made the application. I agree but this point is immaterial since our present R
case, as clear from the Prosecution’s Opening, canvasses the scenario
S S
where D did not do the act by herself but caused another person to do the
T act. In this connection, the identity of the person who physically signed or T
made the application or physically produced the copy of a false passbook
U U
is immaterial, as long as the act was done as directed or consented to by D.
V V
A - 22 - A
B B
MY FINDINGS APPLICABLE TO EACH CHARGE
C C
Charge 18 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
D D
E 52. In the application dated 14 March 2015, the domestic helper E
was to work and reside at {LCG}’s address, which transpired to be a
F F
property owned by D and LCG.
G G
53. There was a contact phone number, which transpired to be
H H
subscribed to by LCG.
I I
54. There was a copy of a false passbook produced by merging
J the name page of LCG’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook J
Account No 122-6-050092.
K K
55. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
L L
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with
M M
LCG’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {LCG}’s
N
application. Whether it was D herself who did, or caused someone to, N
produce a copy of a false passbook for {LCG}’s application, it is still
O O
within the ambit of Charge 18. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false
P instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. P
Q Charge 4 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument) Q
R R
56. In the application dated 14 July 2015, according to the
S contract, the domestic helper was to work and reside at {CYM}’s address, S
which transpired to be a property owned by D and a person called Yu Ying
T T
Hui.
U U
57. {CYM} provided a copy of a false passbook produced by
V V
A - 23 - A
B B
merging the name page of CYM’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s
C C
passbook Account No 122-1-040700. CYM’s bank records showed a
D stagnant balance of $5,160 - $5,162 since 1 January 2011 up to 1 January D
2018. The $2 increase was from bank interest. There was no activity in
E E
this account for 7 years.
F F
58. {CYM} also provided a copy of CYM’s Hong Kong identity
G card. G
H H
59. According to movement records of Immigration Department,
I CYM was out of Hong Kong since 29 April 2013 until 18 November 2022, I
the last date of the records.
J J
60. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
K K
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with
L CYM’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s L
application. Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a
M M
copy of a false passbook for {CYM}’s application, it is still within the
N ambit of Charge 4. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument N
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
O O
P Charge 6 against D and CYC (Making a false statement) P
Charge 7 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)
Q Q
61. In the application dated 15 January 2016, {CYC} provided a
R R
copy of a false passbook produced by merging the name page of CYC’s
S passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook Account No 122-6- S
050092.
T T
62. There was a copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card. There
U U
was a copy of CYC’s Water Bill for the address.
V V
A - 24 - A
B B
63. When the application was made, D and CYC had already
C C
leased the property to PW1 GARCIA for 2015 to 2017. It was impossible
D for the domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false D
statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside
E E
at the address.
F F
64. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
G by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with G
CYC’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s
H H
application. Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a
I
copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s application, it is still within the ambit I
J
of Charge 7. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument proved J
beyond reasonable doubt.
K K
65. Whether D herself did, or caused someone to, make {CYC}’s
L L
application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 6. It was a false statement
M by D that the domestic helper would work and reside at the address. I find M
D’s act of making a false statement proved beyond reasonable doubt.
N N
Charge 10 against D (Making a false statement)
O O
P 66. In the application dated 23 January 2017, {HHT} provided P
6340 0169 as the contact phone number. There was a copy of D’s Hong
Q Q
Kong identity card. There was a copy of Water Bill as address proof. The
R property was solely owned by D. There was a copy of D’s passbook. R
S S
67. PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him
T 6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when T
he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement for the property for 2 years
U U
until 2018. He had never heard of DH-7. DH-7 had never worked or
V V
A - 25 - A
B B
resided there.
C C
68. When the application was made, D had already leased the
D D
property to PW13 MCKINNON for 2016 to 2018. It was impossible for
E the domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false E
statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside
F F
at the address.
G G
69. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
H H
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have been provided
I unless D had directed or consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Likewise, I
6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or
J J
consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Whether D herself did, or caused
K someone to, make {HHT}’s application, it is still within the ambit of K
Charge 10. It was a false statement by D that the domestic helper would
L L
work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a false statement
M proved beyond reasonable doubt. M
N Charge 15 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument) N
O O
70. In the application dated 11 April 2017, {CYC} provided 6340
P 0169 as the contact phone number. There was a copy of CYC’s Hong Kong P
identity card.
Q Q
R
71. There was also a copy of CYC’s passbook produced by R
merging the name page of CYC’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s
S S
passbook Account No 122-1-040700.
T T
72. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
U by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with U
V V
A - 26 - A
B B
CYC’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s
C C
application. Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided to
D Immigration Department unless D had directed or consented to it for D
{CYC}’s application. Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to,
E E
produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s application, it is still
F within the ambit of Charge 15. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false F
instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt.
G G
Charge 9 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
H H
I 73. In the application dated 18 April 2017, according to the I
contract signed by {CYM} and the domestic helper, the domestic helper
J J
was to work and reside at {CYM}’s address, which transpired to be a
K property solely owned by D. K
L L
74. {CYM} provided 6340 0169 as the contact phone number.
M M
75. {CYM} also provided a copy of a false passbook produced by
N merging the name page of CYM’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s N
passbook Account No 122-1-040700. CYM’s bank records showed a
O O
stagnant balance of $5,160 - $5,162 since 1 January 2011 up to 1 January
P 2018. The $2 increase was from bank interest. There was no activity in P
this account for 7 years.
Q Q
R
76. According to movement records of Immigration Department, R
CYM was out of Hong Kong since 29 April 2013 until 18 November 2022,
S S
the last date of the records.
T T
77. PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him
U 6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when U
V V
A - 27 - A
B B
he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement dated for 2 years until
C C
2018.
D D
78. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
E by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with E
CYM’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s
F F
application. Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D
G had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s application. Whether D G
herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook
H H
for {CYM}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 9. I find D’s
I I
act of using a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt.
J J
Charge 1 against D (Making a false statement)
K K
79. In the application dated 10 May 2017, {HHT} provided 6340
L L
0169 as the contact phone number. There was a copy of D’s Hong Kong
M identity card. There was a copy of Water Bill of D for the address, which M
transpired to be a property solely owned by D.
N N
80. PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him
O O
6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when
P he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement for 2016 to 2018. He had P
never heard of DH-1. DH-1 had never worked or resided there.
Q Q
R
81. When the application was made, D had already leased the R
property to PW13 MCKINNON for 2016 to 2018. It was impossible for
S S
the domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false
T statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside T
at the address.
U U
V V
A - 28 - A
B B
82. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
C C
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have been provided
D unless D had directed or consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Likewise, D
6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or
E E
consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Whether D herself did, or D
F caused someone to, make {HHT}’s application, it is still within the ambit F
of Charge 1. It was a false statement by D that the domestic helper would
G G
work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a false statement
H proved beyond reasonable doubt. H
I Charge 13 against D and CYC (Making a false statement) I
Charge 14 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)
J J
K 83. In the application dated 14 June 2017, there was a copy of K
CYC’s Hong Kong identity card. There was a copy of Water Bill of CYC
L L
for the address, which transpired to be a property owned by D and CYC.
M M
84. {CYC} provided 6340 0169 as the contact phone number.
N PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him 6340 0169 as the N
contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when he and D
O O
personally signed a tenancy agreement dated for 2 years until 2018. He
P had never heard of DH-1. He had never heard of DH-1. DH-1 had never P
worked or resided there.
Q Q
R 85. {CYC} also provided a copy of a false passbook produced by R
merging the name page of CYC’s passbook and D’s passbook Account
S S
No 122-6-050092.
T T
86. When the application was made, D and CYC had already
U leased the property to PW1 for 2017 to 2019. It was impossible for the U
V V
A - 29 - A
B B
domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false statement
C C
in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside at the
D address. D
E 87. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept E
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have been provided
F F
unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application. Likewise,
G 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or G
consented to it for {CYC}’s application. Whether D herself did, or D
H H
caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s
I
application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 14. I find D’s act of using I
J
a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. J
K 88. Similarly, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D K
had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application. Whether D herself
L L
did, or D caused someone to, make {CYC}’s application, it is still within
M the ambit of Charge 13. It was a false statement by D that the domestic M
helper would work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a
N N
false statement proved beyond reasonable doubt.
O O
CONCLUSION
P P
89. In the aftermath of my finding, by virtue of section 74 of
Q Q
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, that D is under disability, the prosecution
R have proved D did the act charged against her on all 10 charges. I shall R
make orders for D according to section 76 of Criminal Procedure
S S
Ordinance.
T T
U ( E Yip ) U
District Judge
V V