區域法院（刑事）His Honour Judge E Yip10/1/2023[2023] HKDC 67
DCCC502/2019
A A
B B
DCCC 502/2019
C C
[2023] HKDC 67
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: 11 January 2023
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 SENTENCE
U U
-------------------------------------
V V
A -2- A
B B
CHARGES
C C
D
1. The Defendant (“D”) faces 10 charges. Charges 1, 6, 10 and 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
H D’S RESPONSE TO PLEA-TAKING H
I I
2. When pleas are taken from her, she either shakes her head, or
J says she does not understand the charge. I record pleas of not guilty to all J
10 charges.
K K
L L
3. The defence say she is not fit to stand trial and there is medical
M evidence to that effect as required by section 75 of Criminal Procedure M
Ordinance, Cap 221. I shall refer to it as the “Fitness Issue”.
N N
O O
4. I find that the defence have proved on the balance of
P probabilities that D is unfit to stand trial. According to section 75 of P
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, I shall record a finding that D is under
Q Q
disability.
R R
5. It is then for the prosecution to prove that D did the act
S S
charged against her beyond reasonable doubt. Eventually the prosecution
T are able to prove so in respect of all charges. T
U U
V V
A -3- A
B B
PROSECUTION CASE AS PROVED
C C
D
6. The case involves people such as HUANG HUEI TING D
(“HHT”), CHEN YEN-CHIN (“CYC”), CHEN YI-MING (“CYM”), and
E E
LARGE CHARLES GRAMAE (“LCG”) respectively. If an application is
F made by someone who stated, as for example, one’s name as “HHT”, I F
would refer to this person as {HHT} to denote that someone adopting a pen
G G
name {HHT} is making the application. That person may or may not be
H the real HHT. The same logic holds for {CYM}, {CYC}, and {LCG} H
respectively.
I I
J J
7. Our present case relates to 2 sets of charges, ie, making a false
K statement (Charges 1, 6, 10, and 13) and using a copy of a false instrument K
(Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 18).
L L
M 8. The former set of 4 charges is focused on D’s (Charges 1 and M
10), or D’s and another person’s (Charges 6 and 13), 4 applications, each
N N
of which contained a representation to the immigration officer that the
O domestic helper would reside and work at the employer’s stated address. O
P
Investigations revealed that the domestic helper did not work or reside P
there at all.
Q Q
R 9. The latter set of 6 charges (Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 18) is R
focused on D’s merging the name page of another person’s passbook with
S S
the balance pages of her passbook to produce a false passbook whose copy
T was submitted in the 6 applications to the Immigration Department. T
U U
V V
A -4- A
B B
CHRONOLOGY OF CHARGES
C C
D
10. This case relates to 8 applications. It is easier to understand D
when the Charges and their relevant events are arranged in a chronological
E E
order as follows:
F F
(1) Charge 18 against D (date of application 14 March
G G
2015 by {LCG});
H H
I (2) Charge 4 against D (date of application 15 July 2015 by I
{CYM});
J J
K (3) Charges 6 and 7 against D and CYC (date of application K
L
15 January 2016 by {CYC}); L
M M
(4) Charge 10 against D (date of application 23 January
N 2017 by “D”); N
O O
(5) Charge 15 against D and CYC (date of application 11
P P
April 2017 by {CYC});
Q Q
(6) Charge 9 against D (date of application 18 April 2017
R R
by {CYM});
S S
T (7) Charge 1 against D (date of application 10 May 2017 T
by “D”); and
U U
V V
A -5- A
B B
(8) Charges 13 and 14 against D and CYC (date of
C C
application 14 June 2017 by {CYC})
D D
MY FINDINGS
E E
F D’s relationship with CYM, CYC, and LCG F
G G
11. The application I accept that CYM is D’s husband, CYC is
H H
their daughter, and LCG is her godfather.
I I
Who kept whose passbooks
J J
K 12. D was amply capable of managing her valuable financial K
affairs all by herself. I am satisfied that her 2 passbooks were kept by
L L
herself at all material times.
M M
N 13. Similarly, I am satisfied that whether it was CYM, CYC, or N
LCG, each one’s passbook was kept by each self at all material times.
O O
P D’s contact phone number P
Q Q
14. Although it was subscribed in her domestic helper’s name, she
R had given it to PW13 MCKINNON as her contact phone number on or R
about 31 August 2016. From that date onwards, she had adopted it as her
S S
contact phone number. She became its subscriber in 2018.
T T
U Who signed the application or who falsified a copy of a passbook U
V V
A -6- A
B B
15. The identity of the person who physically signed or made the
C C
application or physically produced the copy of a false passbook is
D immaterial, as long as the act was done as directed or consented to by D. D
E E
MY FINDINGS APPLICABLE TO EACH CHARGE
F F
Charge 18 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
G G
H 16. In the application dated 14 March 2015, the domestic helper H
was to work and reside at {LCG}’s address, which transpired to be a
I I
property owned by D and LCG.
J J
K 17. There was a contact phone number, which transpired to be K
subscribed to by LCG.
L L
M 18. There was a copy of a false passbook produced by merging M
the name page of LCG’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook
N N
Account No 122-6-050092.
O O
P 19. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept P
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with
Q Q
LCG’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {LCG}’s
R application. Whether it was D herself who did, or caused someone to, R
produce a copy of a false passbook for {LCG}’s application, it is still
S S
within the ambit of Charge 18. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false
T instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. T
U U
V V
A -7- A
B B
Charge 4 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
C C
D
20. In the application dated 14 July 2015, according to the D
contract, the domestic helper was to work and reside at {CYM}’s address,
E E
which transpired to be a property owned by D and a person called Yu Ying
F Hui. F
G G
21. {CYM} provided a copy of a false passbook produced by
H merging the name page of CYM’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s H
passbook Account No 122-1-040700. CYM’s bank records showed a
I I
stagnant balance of $5,160 - $5,162 since 1 January 2011 up to 1 January
J J
2018. The $2 increase was from bank interest. There was no activity in
K this account for 7 years. K
L L
22. {CYM} also provided a copy of CYM’s Hong Kong identity
M card. M
N N
23. According to movement records of Immigration Department,
O O
CYM was out of Hong Kong since 29 April 2013 until 18 November 2022,
P the last date of the records. P
Q Q
24. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
R
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with R
S
CYM’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s S
application. Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a
T T
copy of a false passbook for {CYM}’s application, it is still within the
U ambit of Charge 4. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument U
V V
A -8- A
B B
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
C C
D Charge 6 against D and CYC (Making a false statement) D
Charge 7 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)
E E
F F
25. In the application dated 15 January 2016, {CYC} provided a
G copy of a false passbook produced by merging the name page of CYC’s G
passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook Account No 122-6-
H H
050092.
I I
J
26. There was a copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card. There J
was a copy of CYC’s Water Bill for the address.
K K
L 27. When the application was made, D and CYC had already L
leased the property to PW1 GARCIA for 2015 to 2017. It was impossible
M M
for the domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false
N statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside N
at the address.
O O
P P
28. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
Q by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with Q
CYC’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s
R R
application. Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a
S copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s application, it is still within the ambit S
of Charge 7. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument proved
T T
beyond reasonable doubt.
U U
V V
A -9- A
B B
29. Whether D herself did, or caused someone to, make {CYC}’s
C C
application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 6. It was a false statement
D by D that the domestic helper would work and reside at the address. I find D
D’s act of making a false statement proved beyond reasonable doubt.
E E
F Charge 10 against D (Making a false statement) F
G G
30. In the application dated 23 January 2017, {HHT} provided
H 6340 0169 as the contact phone number. There was a copy of D’s Hong H
Kong identity card. There was a copy of Water Bill as address proof. The
I I
property was solely owned by D. There was a copy of D’s passbook.
J J
K 31. PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him K
6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when
L L
he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement for the property for 2 years
M until 2018. He had never heard of DH-7. DH-7 had never worked or M
resided there.
N N
O O
32. When the application was made, D had already leased the
P property to PW13 MCKINNON for 2016 to 2018. It was impossible for P
the domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false
Q Q
statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside
R at the address. R
S S
33. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
T T
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have been provided
U unless D had directed or consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Likewise, U
V V
A - 10 - A
B B
6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or
C C
consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Whether D herself did, or caused
D someone to, make {HHT}’s application, it is still within the ambit of D
Charge 10. It was a false statement by D that the domestic helper would
E E
work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a false statement
F proved beyond reasonable doubt. F
G G
Charge 15 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)
H H
34. In the application dated 11 April 2017, {CYC} provided 6340
I I
0169 as the contact phone number. There was a copy of CYC’s Hong Kong
J J
identity card.
K K
35. There was also a copy of CYC’s passbook produced by
L L
merging the name page of CYC’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s
M passbook Account No 122-1-040700. M
N N
36. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
O O
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with
P CYC’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s P
application. Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided to
Q Q
Immigration Department unless D had directed or consented to it for
R {CYC}’s application. Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, R
produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s application, it is still
S S
within the ambit of Charge 15. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false
T instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. T
U U
V V
A - 11 - A
B B
Charge 9 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
C C
D
37. In the application dated 18 April 2017, according to the D
contract signed by {CYM} and the domestic helper, the domestic helper
E E
was to work and reside at {CYM}’s address, which transpired to be a
F property solely owned by D. F
G G
38. {CYM} provided 6340 0169 as the contact phone number.
H H
I 39. {CYM} also provided a copy of a false passbook produced by I
merging the name page of CYM’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s
J J
passbook Account No 122-1-040700. CYM’s bank records showed a
K stagnant balance of $5,160 - $5,162 since 1 January 2011 up to 1 January K
2018. The $2 increase was from bank interest. There was no activity in
L L
this account for 7 years.
M M
N 40. According to movement records of Immigration Department, N
CYM was out of Hong Kong since 29 April 2013 until 18 November 2022,
O O
the last date of the records.
P P
41. PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him
Q Q
6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when
R R
he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement dated for 2 years until
S
2018. S
T T
42. 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 - 12 - A
B B
CYM’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s
C C
application. Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D
D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s application. Whether D D
herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook
E E
for {CYM}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 9. I find D’s
F act of using a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. F
G G
Charge 1 against D (Making a false statement)
H H
43. In the application dated 10 May 2017, {HHT} provided 6340
I I
0169 as the contact phone number. There was a copy of D’s Hong Kong
J J
identity card. There was a copy of Water Bill of D for the address, which
K transpired to be a property solely owned by D. K
L L
44. PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him
M 6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when M
he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement for 2016 to 2018. He had
N N
never heard of DH-1. DH-1 had never worked or resided there.
O O
P 45. When the application was made, D had already leased the P
property to PW13 MCKINNON for 2016 to 2018. It was impossible for
Q Q
the domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false
R statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside R
at the address.
S S
T T
46. 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 been provided U
V V
A - 13 - A
B B
unless D had directed or consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Likewise,
C C
6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or
D consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Whether D herself did, or D D
caused someone to, make {HHT}’s application, it is still within the ambit
E E
of Charge 1. It was a false statement by D that the domestic helper would
F work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a false statement F
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
G G
H H
Charge 13 against D and CYC (Making a false statement)
I Charge 14 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument) I
J J
47. 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 K
for the address, which transpired to be a property owned by D and CYC.
L L
M M
48. {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 R
49. {CYC} also provided a copy of a false passbook produced by
S merging the name page of CYC’s passbook and D’s passbook Account S
No 122-6-050092.
T T
U U
50. When the application was made, D and CYC had already
V V
A - 14 - A
B B
leased the property to PW1 for 2017 to 2019. It was impossible for the
C C
domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false statement
D in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside at the D
address.
E E
F 51. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept F
G
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have been provided G
unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application. Likewise,
H H
6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or
I consented to it for {CYC}’s application. Whether D herself did, or D I
caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s
J J
application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 14. I find D’s act of using
K a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. K
L L
52. Similarly, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D
M
had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application. Whether D herself M
N
did, or D caused someone to, make {CYC}’s application, it is still within N
the ambit of Charge 13. It was a false statement by D that the domestic
O O
helper would work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a
P false statement proved beyond reasonable doubt. P
Q Q
CONCLUSION
R R
53. In the aftermath of my finding, by virtue of section 74 of
S S
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, that D is under disability, the prosecution
T have proved D did the act charged against her on all 10 charges. I shall T
make orders for D according to section 76 of Criminal Procedure
U U
Ordinance.
V V
A - 15 - A
B B
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE SENTENCING
C C
D
54. As a hospital order is usually appropriate only for a defendant D
who acted violently as charged, a guardianship order or a supervision and
E E
treatment order is a more viable option. Apart from 2 psychiatrists’ reports,
F I have also called for a social enquiry report from the Director of Social F
Welfare Department.
G G
H 55. The aforesaid reports have taken into account D’s past and H
present mental and social condition. Whilst she still suffers from bipolar
I I
affective disorder, she has good family support principally from her
J J
daughter who lives in the same estate and decides to spend full time looking
K after her in future, and her response to psychiatric treatment has been K
regularly satisfactory. She agrees to have her mental condition continually
L L
monitored by out-patient psychiatric treatment.
M M
56. Coupled with her ability for daily self-care, and even for her
N N
grandchildren at times, a guardianship order or a supervision and treatment
O order is deemed unnecessary for her. O
P P
57. It is not known why D did the acts. There is no apparent loss
Q Q
or damage to anyone, except the workload of investigation and prosecution
R arising from such lacunae in the approval process that her acts had R
highlighted.
S S
T T
58. The only sentencing option is an absolute discharge 1. I so
U U
1
Section 76(2)(b)(iii) of Criminal Procedure Ordinance
V V
A - 16 - A
B B
order in respect of all charges.
C C
D D
( E Yip )
E E
District Judge
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 502/2019
C C
[2023] HKDC 67
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: 11 January 2023
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 SENTENCE
U U
-------------------------------------
V V
A -2- A
B B
CHARGES
C C
D
1. The Defendant (“D”) faces 10 charges. Charges 1, 6, 10 and 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
H D’S RESPONSE TO PLEA-TAKING H
I I
2. When pleas are taken from her, she either shakes her head, or
J says she does not understand the charge. I record pleas of not guilty to all J
10 charges.
K K
L L
3. The defence say she is not fit to stand trial and there is medical
M evidence to that effect as required by section 75 of Criminal Procedure M
Ordinance, Cap 221. I shall refer to it as the “Fitness Issue”.
N N
O O
4. I find that the defence have proved on the balance of
P probabilities that D is unfit to stand trial. According to section 75 of P
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, I shall record a finding that D is under
Q Q
disability.
R R
5. It is then for the prosecution to prove that D did the act
S S
charged against her beyond reasonable doubt. Eventually the prosecution
T are able to prove so in respect of all charges. T
U U
V V
A -3- A
B B
PROSECUTION CASE AS PROVED
C C
D
6. The case involves people such as HUANG HUEI TING D
(“HHT”), CHEN YEN-CHIN (“CYC”), CHEN YI-MING (“CYM”), and
E E
LARGE CHARLES GRAMAE (“LCG”) respectively. If an application is
F made by someone who stated, as for example, one’s name as “HHT”, I F
would refer to this person as {HHT} to denote that someone adopting a pen
G G
name {HHT} is making the application. That person may or may not be
H the real HHT. The same logic holds for {CYM}, {CYC}, and {LCG} H
respectively.
I I
J J
7. Our present case relates to 2 sets of charges, ie, making a false
K statement (Charges 1, 6, 10, and 13) and using a copy of a false instrument K
(Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 18).
L L
M 8. The former set of 4 charges is focused on D’s (Charges 1 and M
10), or D’s and another person’s (Charges 6 and 13), 4 applications, each
N N
of which contained a representation to the immigration officer that the
O domestic helper would reside and work at the employer’s stated address. O
P
Investigations revealed that the domestic helper did not work or reside P
there at all.
Q Q
R 9. The latter set of 6 charges (Charges 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 18) is R
focused on D’s merging the name page of another person’s passbook with
S S
the balance pages of her passbook to produce a false passbook whose copy
T was submitted in the 6 applications to the Immigration Department. T
U U
V V
A -4- A
B B
CHRONOLOGY OF CHARGES
C C
D
10. This case relates to 8 applications. It is easier to understand D
when the Charges and their relevant events are arranged in a chronological
E E
order as follows:
F F
(1) Charge 18 against D (date of application 14 March
G G
2015 by {LCG});
H H
I (2) Charge 4 against D (date of application 15 July 2015 by I
{CYM});
J J
K (3) Charges 6 and 7 against D and CYC (date of application K
L
15 January 2016 by {CYC}); L
M M
(4) Charge 10 against D (date of application 23 January
N 2017 by “D”); N
O O
(5) Charge 15 against D and CYC (date of application 11
P P
April 2017 by {CYC});
Q Q
(6) Charge 9 against D (date of application 18 April 2017
R R
by {CYM});
S S
T (7) Charge 1 against D (date of application 10 May 2017 T
by “D”); and
U U
V V
A -5- A
B B
(8) Charges 13 and 14 against D and CYC (date of
C C
application 14 June 2017 by {CYC})
D D
MY FINDINGS
E E
F D’s relationship with CYM, CYC, and LCG F
G G
11. The application I accept that CYM is D’s husband, CYC is
H H
their daughter, and LCG is her godfather.
I I
Who kept whose passbooks
J J
K 12. D was amply capable of managing her valuable financial K
affairs all by herself. I am satisfied that her 2 passbooks were kept by
L L
herself at all material times.
M M
N 13. Similarly, I am satisfied that whether it was CYM, CYC, or N
LCG, each one’s passbook was kept by each self at all material times.
O O
P D’s contact phone number P
Q Q
14. Although it was subscribed in her domestic helper’s name, she
R had given it to PW13 MCKINNON as her contact phone number on or R
about 31 August 2016. From that date onwards, she had adopted it as her
S S
contact phone number. She became its subscriber in 2018.
T T
U Who signed the application or who falsified a copy of a passbook U
V V
A -6- A
B B
15. The identity of the person who physically signed or made the
C C
application or physically produced the copy of a false passbook is
D immaterial, as long as the act was done as directed or consented to by D. D
E E
MY FINDINGS APPLICABLE TO EACH CHARGE
F F
Charge 18 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
G G
H 16. In the application dated 14 March 2015, the domestic helper H
was to work and reside at {LCG}’s address, which transpired to be a
I I
property owned by D and LCG.
J J
K 17. There was a contact phone number, which transpired to be K
subscribed to by LCG.
L L
M 18. There was a copy of a false passbook produced by merging M
the name page of LCG’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook
N N
Account No 122-6-050092.
O O
P 19. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept P
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with
Q Q
LCG’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {LCG}’s
R application. Whether it was D herself who did, or caused someone to, R
produce a copy of a false passbook for {LCG}’s application, it is still
S S
within the ambit of Charge 18. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false
T instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. T
U U
V V
A -7- A
B B
Charge 4 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
C C
D
20. In the application dated 14 July 2015, according to the D
contract, the domestic helper was to work and reside at {CYM}’s address,
E E
which transpired to be a property owned by D and a person called Yu Ying
F Hui. F
G G
21. {CYM} provided a copy of a false passbook produced by
H merging the name page of CYM’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s H
passbook Account No 122-1-040700. CYM’s bank records showed a
I I
stagnant balance of $5,160 - $5,162 since 1 January 2011 up to 1 January
J J
2018. The $2 increase was from bank interest. There was no activity in
K this account for 7 years. K
L L
22. {CYM} also provided a copy of CYM’s Hong Kong identity
M card. M
N N
23. According to movement records of Immigration Department,
O O
CYM was out of Hong Kong since 29 April 2013 until 18 November 2022,
P the last date of the records. P
Q Q
24. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
R
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with R
S
CYM’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s S
application. Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a
T T
copy of a false passbook for {CYM}’s application, it is still within the
U ambit of Charge 4. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument U
V V
A -8- A
B B
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
C C
D Charge 6 against D and CYC (Making a false statement) D
Charge 7 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)
E E
F F
25. In the application dated 15 January 2016, {CYC} provided a
G copy of a false passbook produced by merging the name page of CYC’s G
passbook with the balance pages of D’s passbook Account No 122-6-
H H
050092.
I I
J
26. There was a copy of CYC’s Hong Kong identity card. There J
was a copy of CYC’s Water Bill for the address.
K K
L 27. When the application was made, D and CYC had already L
leased the property to PW1 GARCIA for 2015 to 2017. It was impossible
M M
for the domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false
N statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside N
at the address.
O O
P P
28. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
Q by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with Q
CYC’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s
R R
application. Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a
S copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s application, it is still within the ambit S
of Charge 7. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false instrument proved
T T
beyond reasonable doubt.
U U
V V
A -9- A
B B
29. Whether D herself did, or caused someone to, make {CYC}’s
C C
application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 6. It was a false statement
D by D that the domestic helper would work and reside at the address. I find D
D’s act of making a false statement proved beyond reasonable doubt.
E E
F Charge 10 against D (Making a false statement) F
G G
30. In the application dated 23 January 2017, {HHT} provided
H 6340 0169 as the contact phone number. There was a copy of D’s Hong H
Kong identity card. There was a copy of Water Bill as address proof. The
I I
property was solely owned by D. There was a copy of D’s passbook.
J J
K 31. PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him K
6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when
L L
he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement for the property for 2 years
M until 2018. He had never heard of DH-7. DH-7 had never worked or M
resided there.
N N
O O
32. When the application was made, D had already leased the
P property to PW13 MCKINNON for 2016 to 2018. It was impossible for P
the domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false
Q Q
statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside
R at the address. R
S S
33. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
T T
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have been provided
U unless D had directed or consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Likewise, U
V V
A - 10 - A
B B
6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or
C C
consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Whether D herself did, or caused
D someone to, make {HHT}’s application, it is still within the ambit of D
Charge 10. It was a false statement by D that the domestic helper would
E E
work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a false statement
F proved beyond reasonable doubt. F
G G
Charge 15 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument)
H H
34. In the application dated 11 April 2017, {CYC} provided 6340
I I
0169 as the contact phone number. There was a copy of CYC’s Hong Kong
J J
identity card.
K K
35. There was also a copy of CYC’s passbook produced by
L L
merging the name page of CYC’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s
M passbook Account No 122-1-040700. M
N N
36. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept
O O
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have merged with
P CYC’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s P
application. Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided to
Q Q
Immigration Department unless D had directed or consented to it for
R {CYC}’s application. Whether D herself did, or D caused someone to, R
produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s application, it is still
S S
within the ambit of Charge 15. I find D’s act of using a copy of a false
T instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. T
U U
V V
A - 11 - A
B B
Charge 9 against D (Using a copy of a false instrument)
C C
D
37. In the application dated 18 April 2017, according to the D
contract signed by {CYM} and the domestic helper, the domestic helper
E E
was to work and reside at {CYM}’s address, which transpired to be a
F property solely owned by D. F
G G
38. {CYM} provided 6340 0169 as the contact phone number.
H H
I 39. {CYM} also provided a copy of a false passbook produced by I
merging the name page of CYM’s passbook with the balance pages of D’s
J J
passbook Account No 122-1-040700. CYM’s bank records showed a
K stagnant balance of $5,160 - $5,162 since 1 January 2011 up to 1 January K
2018. The $2 increase was from bank interest. There was no activity in
L L
this account for 7 years.
M M
N 40. According to movement records of Immigration Department, N
CYM was out of Hong Kong since 29 April 2013 until 18 November 2022,
O O
the last date of the records.
P P
41. PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him
Q Q
6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when
R R
he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement dated for 2 years until
S
2018. S
T T
42. 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 - 12 - A
B B
CYM’s passbook unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s
C C
application. Likewise, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D
D had directed or consented to it for {CYM}’s application. Whether D D
herself did, or D caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook
E E
for {CYM}’s application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 9. I find D’s
F act of using a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. F
G G
Charge 1 against D (Making a false statement)
H H
43. In the application dated 10 May 2017, {HHT} provided 6340
I I
0169 as the contact phone number. There was a copy of D’s Hong Kong
J J
identity card. There was a copy of Water Bill of D for the address, which
K transpired to be a property solely owned by D. K
L L
44. PW13 MCKINNON confirms that D personally gave him
M 6340 0169 as the contact phone number on or about 31 August 2016 when M
he and D personally signed a tenancy agreement for 2016 to 2018. He had
N N
never heard of DH-1. DH-1 had never worked or resided there.
O O
P 45. When the application was made, D had already leased the P
property to PW13 MCKINNON for 2016 to 2018. It was impossible for
Q Q
the domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false
R statement in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside R
at the address.
S S
T T
46. 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 been provided U
V V
A - 13 - A
B B
unless D had directed or consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Likewise,
C C
6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or
D consented to it for {HHT}’s application. Whether D herself did, or D D
caused someone to, make {HHT}’s application, it is still within the ambit
E E
of Charge 1. It was a false statement by D that the domestic helper would
F work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a false statement F
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
G G
H H
Charge 13 against D and CYC (Making a false statement)
I Charge 14 against D and CYC (Using a copy of a false instrument) I
J J
47. 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 K
for the address, which transpired to be a property owned by D and CYC.
L L
M M
48. {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 R
49. {CYC} also provided a copy of a false passbook produced by
S merging the name page of CYC’s passbook and D’s passbook Account S
No 122-6-050092.
T T
U U
50. When the application was made, D and CYC had already
V V
A - 14 - A
B B
leased the property to PW1 for 2017 to 2019. It was impossible for the
C C
domestic helper to work and reside at the address. It was a false statement
D in the application that the domestic helper would work and reside at the D
address.
E E
F 51. As aforesaid, I am of the view that D’s passbooks were kept F
G
by herself at all material times. D’s passbook could not have been provided G
unless D had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application. Likewise,
H H
6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D had directed or
I consented to it for {CYC}’s application. Whether D herself did, or D I
caused someone to, produce a copy of a false passbook for {CYC}’s
J J
application, it is still within the ambit of Charge 14. I find D’s act of using
K a copy of a false instrument proved beyond reasonable doubt. K
L L
52. Similarly, 6340 0169 would not have been provided unless D
M
had directed or consented to it for {CYC}’s application. Whether D herself M
N
did, or D caused someone to, make {CYC}’s application, it is still within N
the ambit of Charge 13. It was a false statement by D that the domestic
O O
helper would work and reside at the address. I find D’s act of making a
P false statement proved beyond reasonable doubt. P
Q Q
CONCLUSION
R R
53. In the aftermath of my finding, by virtue of section 74 of
S S
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, that D is under disability, the prosecution
T have proved D did the act charged against her on all 10 charges. I shall T
make orders for D according to section 76 of Criminal Procedure
U U
Ordinance.
V V
A - 15 - A
B B
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE SENTENCING
C C
D
54. As a hospital order is usually appropriate only for a defendant D
who acted violently as charged, a guardianship order or a supervision and
E E
treatment order is a more viable option. Apart from 2 psychiatrists’ reports,
F I have also called for a social enquiry report from the Director of Social F
Welfare Department.
G G
H 55. The aforesaid reports have taken into account D’s past and H
present mental and social condition. Whilst she still suffers from bipolar
I I
affective disorder, she has good family support principally from her
J J
daughter who lives in the same estate and decides to spend full time looking
K after her in future, and her response to psychiatric treatment has been K
regularly satisfactory. She agrees to have her mental condition continually
L L
monitored by out-patient psychiatric treatment.
M M
56. Coupled with her ability for daily self-care, and even for her
N N
grandchildren at times, a guardianship order or a supervision and treatment
O order is deemed unnecessary for her. O
P P
57. It is not known why D did the acts. There is no apparent loss
Q Q
or damage to anyone, except the workload of investigation and prosecution
R arising from such lacunae in the approval process that her acts had R
highlighted.
S S
T T
58. The only sentencing option is an absolute discharge 1. I so
U U
1
Section 76(2)(b)(iii) of Criminal Procedure Ordinance
V V
A - 16 - A
B B
order in respect of all charges.
C C
D D
( E Yip )
E E
District Judge
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V