區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge W. H. Ko21/9/2025[2025] HKDC 1615
DCCC2/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 2/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1615 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 2 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I WAN KWUN HO I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge W. H. Ko K
Date: 22 September 2025
L L
Present: Mr Chan Joe W.Y., Counsel-on-fiat instructed by Department
M of Justice for HKSAR M
Mr Mohammed J. Shah, instructed by Au & Associate, for the
N N
Defendant
O Offence: Fraud (欺詐罪) O
P P
--------------------------------------
Q Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R
-------------------------------------- R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to one charge of Fraud, contrary
C to s.16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 of the Laws of Hong Kong. C
D D
2. The particulars of the charge states that between 19 day
E September 2022 and 18 June 2023, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, E
the Defendant by deceit representing to the staff of a wine trading company
F F
(herein referred as the Company) that a total of HK$4,417,950.90 was paid
G into the account of the Company, with intent to defraud, induce staff of the G
company to part with 2075 bottles of wine, which resulted in Defendant‘s
H H
benefit, or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to that company.
I I
Facts
J J
3. Between the dates as stated in the particulars of the charge,
K Defendant by using his full name and a name called “Wendy Kwok” placed K
101 orders with the company via WhatsApp for purchasing 2075 bottles of
L L
wine, the total value being HK$4,417.950.90. In the course of those
M purchases, the Defendant sent 95 screenshots of his purported FPS M
remittance records to the Company to induce the Company to believe the
N N
purchase price of those 101 orders had been transferred into the Company’s
O HSBC bank account. As a result, the Company arranged Defendant to O
collect the 101 orders from the wine cellar of the Company situated in
P P
Central.
Q Q
4. It was subsequently discovered on 20 June 2023, upon
R R
conducting an audit check, that the Defendant’s purported FPS remittances
S were non-existent and the 95 records that Defendant sent to the Company S
were all false. Case was reported to the police one day later.
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. On 24 June 2023, Defendant placed another order, under the
C name of Wendy Kwok via WhatsApp with the Company for purchasing 65 C
bottle of wine. After placing the order, Defendant sent a screenshot of his
D D
purported FPS remittance record to the Company. The Company
E confirmed that no money was received from Defendant as alleged in the E
remittance. Police was contacted and an arrangement for the Defendant to
F F
collect his order were made.
G G
6. Defendant was arrested on the same day, i.e. 24 June 2023,
H H
when he attended the Companies’ wine cellar in Central to collect his order.
I 3 video-recorded interviews were conducted with Defendant and he stated I
under caution that :
J J
K (a) He lent around 1,000,000 RMB to his friend Sze Hin Lui, who K
lived overseas, between 2016 to 2018;
L L
M (b) Starting from September 2022, Sze started to order wine from M
the Company. Sze would send him screenshots of the
N N
remittance records and Defendant would use them to collect
O Sze’s order from the Company. Upon collecting he would O
pass those wines to various person in Hong Kong according
P P
to Sze’s instructions;
Q Q
(c) He discovered that Sze was defrauding the Company in
R R
October or December 2022 as he noticed that the remittance
S amount as shown on the screenshots was substantially higher S
than the remittance limit. Nevertheless, he continued to help
T T
Sze as he wanted his loan to be repaid by Sze as soon as
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
possible. At the end, Sze had repaid HK$380,000. Defendant
C knew that he was greedy and he realised he was wrong; C
D D
(d) His mother’s name was Wendy Kwok and he had no idea why
E Sze used her name to place orders. His mother had no E
involvement in the fraud;
F F
G (e) The false remittance records found on his mobile phone were G
all sent to him by Sze and he believed Sze used some sort of
H H
software to make those records; and
I I
(f) Between September 2022 and June 2023 he had collected
J J
around 100 orders for Sze from the Company wine cellar in
K Central. K
L L
7. Defendant’s mobile phone was examined and there existed
M WhatsApp chat records between him and the Company. The records M
showed that Defendant had placed 101 orders with the Company and sent
N N
95 false FPS remittance screenshots to them. It was further discovered
O from the trash album of the Defendant’s phone a total of 17FPS remittance O
screenshots, 6 of them were genuine and each of them showed that
P P
Defendant transferred HK$11 into a bank account that had a similar
Q account number to the Companies’ HSBC account. The rest of the Q
screenshots were false.
R R
S 8. Further examination of Defendant’s mobile phone revealed S
WeChat chat records between him and a user called “雨花石”. On 27 May
T T
2023, Defendant sent a FPS remittance screenshot to that user via WeChat
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
and asked him/her to alter the remittance amount from HK$11 to
C HK$117,334.50. That user asked Defendant to pay 60 RMB and he agreed. C
On the same day, that user sent an altered FPS remittance screenshot to
D D
Defendant upon his instructions. The WhatsApp records found in
E Defendant’s mobile phone confirmed that Defendant sent the said altered E
remittance screenshot to the Company on 27 May 2023. Then on 28 May
F F
2023, Defendant again requested that user via WeChat to alter another
G remittance record screenshot from HK$11 to HK$41,220.40 for him. He G
then sent the altered FPS remittance screenshot to the Company on the
H H
same day.
I I
Personal background and mitigation
J J
9. Defendant was unrepresented when plea was taken before me.
K He indicated he would instruct counsel to advance the mitigations on his K
behalf. I then adjourned the case to accommodate his counsel’s diary and
L L
called a background report for consideration before sentencing.
M Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Shah, who appeared at the adjourned hearing, M
confirmed Defendant’s guilty plea.
N N
O 10. Defendant is 29 years old and he has a pair of twin daughters O
at the age of 5. He and his twin daughters are living with his father and
P P
mother. His father is suffering from hammolytic anemia and salmonella
Q septicaemia and required constant medications, whereas his mother has Q
depression with anxiety symptoms and recent examinations revealed
R R
degenerative changes in vertical and lumbar spine. The twin daughters both
S have issues of speech delay. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
11. Defendant completed his secondary education in Hong Kong
C and went to USA in 2016 for tertiary education. During the time of his C
study in USA, he engaged in cryptocurrency trading and reselling of luxury
D D
products and he claimed that his earning was approximately HK$2,000,000
E to HK$3,000,000 per year at that time. He returned to Hong Kong, without E
obtaining any accreditation, in around 2020 and set up a seafood and fruit
F F
company, earning approximately HK$50,000 to HK$100,000 per month.
G At the same time, he started to develop a relationship with Ms. Su, a G
married customer of his mother in the mainland and Ms. Su gave birth to a
H H
pair of twin girls in August 2020. However, the relationship turned sour
I due to Defendant’s financial arrangement with his uncle and business. I
Eventually Ms. Su left the care and custody of the twins to the Defendant
J J
and returned to China to reunite with her husband in 2023.
K K
12. Defendant has a clear record.
L L
13. Mr. Shah submitted that the fraud is not sophisticated as all
M M
the FPS remittances left a paper trial back to the Defendant himself. The
N N
offence does not involve any element of breach of trust. Further it was
O
submitted that the Company carried a lax attitude in verifying the O
authenticity and accuracy of the FPS remittances, which as a result gave
P P
further opportunities for the Defendant to perpetuate his crime.
Q Q
14. Mr. Shah stressed that Defendant was not the mastermind as
R R
the fraudulent scheme was introduced to him by Sze. He only wanted Sze
S to return the money to him. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
15. Mr. Shah referred this court to a number of District court cases,
C namely, HKSAR v. Peter Raymond Baird DCCC 242/2011, HKSAR v. Chiu C
Raymond Kar Lok DCCC 122/2014, HKSAR v. Foo Shyang Yeong [2020]
D D
HKDC 844 and HKSAR v. Ngan Kwok-Kwan DCCC 881/2011 for
E sentencing of fraud charges. E
F F
16. As to the discount of guilty plea, Mr. Shah accepted that
G Defendant was not entitled to a full one third discount of his plea. G
H H
17. Defendant’s parents, aunts, cousins, pastor and his fellow
I church members had provided letters to the court. In gist, they described I
Defendant as a filial son and a responsible and caring father. They all asked
J J
for the court leniency in sentencing the Defendant.
K K
Reasons for sentence
L L
18. There are no sentencing guidelines for offences of fraud. The
M maximum sentence is 14 years’ imprisonment. M
N N
19. This is not a breach of trust case, nor the Defendant was
O shown to be in a position of trust. O
P P
20. Although the Defendant did not place the purchase orders via
Q internet platforms, the transactions were completed by using instant Q
messaging software. In Secretary for Justice v. Chung Pui-kit Billy [2023]
R R
HKCA 496, the Court of Appeal emphasised that internet fraud has become
S a serious problem because of its magnitude and prevalence, and the court S
should deter offender of internet fraud and other persons from committing
T T
similar offences and protect the community from this criminal conduct.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 21. The Defendant used 95 false FPS remittance records to C
defraud the Company. The offence spanned for a period of nearly 9 months.
D D
The WeChat records in his mobile phone clearly showed that he gave
E specific instructions to a person to create those false FPS remittance E
records for him to deceive the Company. I rejected his explanations that
F F
all those records were provided by Sze to him.
G G
22. Regarding the reasons for the commission of the offence, as
H H
revealed in the background report, Defendant claimed that Ms. Su, whom
I he met after he returned to Hong Kong, transferred 1 million RMB to Sze I
for the purchase of luxury items but he failed to do so. He worked with
J J
Sze in order for Sze to return money to Ms. Su. His explanation was in
K stark contrast with what he said under caution that he personally lent 1 K
million RMB to Sze in 2016 to 2018. I had grave reservation whether the
L L
alleged loan of 1 million RMB or even Sze truly existed.
M M
23. I accepted that the fraud was not sophisticated but there
N
existed a certain degree of planning. Defendant’s role cannot be N
O
considered as minimal. O
P P
24. In relation to the authorities referred to by Defendant’s
Q counsel : Q
R R
(i) In Peter Raymond Baird, the Defendant, by his company,
S agreed to buy a consignment of diamonds from the victim. S
The contract sum would be secured by a standby letter of
T T
credit issued in the name of the Defendant’s other company,
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
P, and US$700,000 for the standby letter of credit would be
C deposited by the victim into P account as an escrow agreement, C
which would be held for 14 days. Defendant knew that P
D D
would not procure a standby letter of credit. P withdrew over
E US$600,000 from the fund. Defendant managed to induce the E
victim not to take any action within the 14 days to recover the
F F
deposit in escrow. Eventually no money could be removed
G by the victim. The Defendant was convicted after trial and G
the trial judge took starting point of 3 years and 6 months’
H H
imprisonment.
I I
(ii) In Chui Raymond, the Defendant was charged with 5 counts
J J
of Fraud. He induced HSBC by using false documents to
K grant loans totalling HK$7.675 million over a period of about K
2 weeks. The ultimate loss of HSBC was HK$5.675 million
L L
because the defendant had HK$2 million in HSBC as security
M against his loan. The judge took a starting point of 3 years M
and 3 months’ imprisonment for each charge and reduced to
N N
3 years as the Defendant had a clear record.
O O
(iii) In Foo Shyang Yeong, the Defendant pleaded guilty to a
P P
charge of fraud for the purported sale of goods resulting a loss
Q to the victim purchaser for nearly US$600,000. The court Q
took a starting of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
R R
S (iv) In Ngan Kwok-Kwan, the Defendant pleaded guilty to one S
count of fraud for the purported sale of 10,000 tons of nickel
T T
ore to the victim company. The victim agreed to settle the
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
payment by remittance on sight of a certificate of shipment
C which the defendant forged. The victim suffered a loss of C
around HK$4.5 million. The court took a starting point of 3
D D
years and 9 months’ imprisonment and reduced that to 42
E months to reflect the Defendant’s clear record. E
F F
25. Taking into account all the circumstances of the present
G offence, the Defendant’s personal background including his clear record G
and the mitigations advanced, I am satisfied that a starting point of 3 years
H H
and 8 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.
I I
26. Defendant indicated his plea by letter 2 days before the trial
J J
date. In HKSAR v. NGO Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal
K stated that for cases tried in District Court, subject to the overriding K
discretion of the judge in sentencing, a defendant who gives the court or
L L
the prosecution an indication of a plea of not guilty at the Plea Day after
M which the trial dates are fixed, who then indicated to the court or the M
prosecution before the first day of trial that he wishes to plead guilty, is to
N N
be afforded a discount between 25% and 20% of that taken as the starting
O point for sentence. In determining the appropriate discount to be afforded O
to the defendant in those circumstances, the judge will have regard to the
P P
time at which the indication was given and to all the other relevant
Q circumstances. Q
R R
27. Defendant was legally represented in the District Court before
S the case was fixed for trial. He then acted in person all along. Though he S
only indicated his guilty plea at a very late stage of the proceedings, I am
T T
prepared to give him 25% discount for his guilty plea.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
C 28. Thus the Defendant is sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment. C
D D
E E
F F
G ( W. H. Ko ) G
Deputy District Judge
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 2/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1615 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 2 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I WAN KWUN HO I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge W. H. Ko K
Date: 22 September 2025
L L
Present: Mr Chan Joe W.Y., Counsel-on-fiat instructed by Department
M of Justice for HKSAR M
Mr Mohammed J. Shah, instructed by Au & Associate, for the
N N
Defendant
O Offence: Fraud (欺詐罪) O
P P
--------------------------------------
Q Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R
-------------------------------------- R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to one charge of Fraud, contrary
C to s.16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 of the Laws of Hong Kong. C
D D
2. The particulars of the charge states that between 19 day
E September 2022 and 18 June 2023, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, E
the Defendant by deceit representing to the staff of a wine trading company
F F
(herein referred as the Company) that a total of HK$4,417,950.90 was paid
G into the account of the Company, with intent to defraud, induce staff of the G
company to part with 2075 bottles of wine, which resulted in Defendant‘s
H H
benefit, or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to that company.
I I
Facts
J J
3. Between the dates as stated in the particulars of the charge,
K Defendant by using his full name and a name called “Wendy Kwok” placed K
101 orders with the company via WhatsApp for purchasing 2075 bottles of
L L
wine, the total value being HK$4,417.950.90. In the course of those
M purchases, the Defendant sent 95 screenshots of his purported FPS M
remittance records to the Company to induce the Company to believe the
N N
purchase price of those 101 orders had been transferred into the Company’s
O HSBC bank account. As a result, the Company arranged Defendant to O
collect the 101 orders from the wine cellar of the Company situated in
P P
Central.
Q Q
4. It was subsequently discovered on 20 June 2023, upon
R R
conducting an audit check, that the Defendant’s purported FPS remittances
S were non-existent and the 95 records that Defendant sent to the Company S
were all false. Case was reported to the police one day later.
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. On 24 June 2023, Defendant placed another order, under the
C name of Wendy Kwok via WhatsApp with the Company for purchasing 65 C
bottle of wine. After placing the order, Defendant sent a screenshot of his
D D
purported FPS remittance record to the Company. The Company
E confirmed that no money was received from Defendant as alleged in the E
remittance. Police was contacted and an arrangement for the Defendant to
F F
collect his order were made.
G G
6. Defendant was arrested on the same day, i.e. 24 June 2023,
H H
when he attended the Companies’ wine cellar in Central to collect his order.
I 3 video-recorded interviews were conducted with Defendant and he stated I
under caution that :
J J
K (a) He lent around 1,000,000 RMB to his friend Sze Hin Lui, who K
lived overseas, between 2016 to 2018;
L L
M (b) Starting from September 2022, Sze started to order wine from M
the Company. Sze would send him screenshots of the
N N
remittance records and Defendant would use them to collect
O Sze’s order from the Company. Upon collecting he would O
pass those wines to various person in Hong Kong according
P P
to Sze’s instructions;
Q Q
(c) He discovered that Sze was defrauding the Company in
R R
October or December 2022 as he noticed that the remittance
S amount as shown on the screenshots was substantially higher S
than the remittance limit. Nevertheless, he continued to help
T T
Sze as he wanted his loan to be repaid by Sze as soon as
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
possible. At the end, Sze had repaid HK$380,000. Defendant
C knew that he was greedy and he realised he was wrong; C
D D
(d) His mother’s name was Wendy Kwok and he had no idea why
E Sze used her name to place orders. His mother had no E
involvement in the fraud;
F F
G (e) The false remittance records found on his mobile phone were G
all sent to him by Sze and he believed Sze used some sort of
H H
software to make those records; and
I I
(f) Between September 2022 and June 2023 he had collected
J J
around 100 orders for Sze from the Company wine cellar in
K Central. K
L L
7. Defendant’s mobile phone was examined and there existed
M WhatsApp chat records between him and the Company. The records M
showed that Defendant had placed 101 orders with the Company and sent
N N
95 false FPS remittance screenshots to them. It was further discovered
O from the trash album of the Defendant’s phone a total of 17FPS remittance O
screenshots, 6 of them were genuine and each of them showed that
P P
Defendant transferred HK$11 into a bank account that had a similar
Q account number to the Companies’ HSBC account. The rest of the Q
screenshots were false.
R R
S 8. Further examination of Defendant’s mobile phone revealed S
WeChat chat records between him and a user called “雨花石”. On 27 May
T T
2023, Defendant sent a FPS remittance screenshot to that user via WeChat
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
and asked him/her to alter the remittance amount from HK$11 to
C HK$117,334.50. That user asked Defendant to pay 60 RMB and he agreed. C
On the same day, that user sent an altered FPS remittance screenshot to
D D
Defendant upon his instructions. The WhatsApp records found in
E Defendant’s mobile phone confirmed that Defendant sent the said altered E
remittance screenshot to the Company on 27 May 2023. Then on 28 May
F F
2023, Defendant again requested that user via WeChat to alter another
G remittance record screenshot from HK$11 to HK$41,220.40 for him. He G
then sent the altered FPS remittance screenshot to the Company on the
H H
same day.
I I
Personal background and mitigation
J J
9. Defendant was unrepresented when plea was taken before me.
K He indicated he would instruct counsel to advance the mitigations on his K
behalf. I then adjourned the case to accommodate his counsel’s diary and
L L
called a background report for consideration before sentencing.
M Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Shah, who appeared at the adjourned hearing, M
confirmed Defendant’s guilty plea.
N N
O 10. Defendant is 29 years old and he has a pair of twin daughters O
at the age of 5. He and his twin daughters are living with his father and
P P
mother. His father is suffering from hammolytic anemia and salmonella
Q septicaemia and required constant medications, whereas his mother has Q
depression with anxiety symptoms and recent examinations revealed
R R
degenerative changes in vertical and lumbar spine. The twin daughters both
S have issues of speech delay. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
11. Defendant completed his secondary education in Hong Kong
C and went to USA in 2016 for tertiary education. During the time of his C
study in USA, he engaged in cryptocurrency trading and reselling of luxury
D D
products and he claimed that his earning was approximately HK$2,000,000
E to HK$3,000,000 per year at that time. He returned to Hong Kong, without E
obtaining any accreditation, in around 2020 and set up a seafood and fruit
F F
company, earning approximately HK$50,000 to HK$100,000 per month.
G At the same time, he started to develop a relationship with Ms. Su, a G
married customer of his mother in the mainland and Ms. Su gave birth to a
H H
pair of twin girls in August 2020. However, the relationship turned sour
I due to Defendant’s financial arrangement with his uncle and business. I
Eventually Ms. Su left the care and custody of the twins to the Defendant
J J
and returned to China to reunite with her husband in 2023.
K K
12. Defendant has a clear record.
L L
13. Mr. Shah submitted that the fraud is not sophisticated as all
M M
the FPS remittances left a paper trial back to the Defendant himself. The
N N
offence does not involve any element of breach of trust. Further it was
O
submitted that the Company carried a lax attitude in verifying the O
authenticity and accuracy of the FPS remittances, which as a result gave
P P
further opportunities for the Defendant to perpetuate his crime.
Q Q
14. Mr. Shah stressed that Defendant was not the mastermind as
R R
the fraudulent scheme was introduced to him by Sze. He only wanted Sze
S to return the money to him. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
15. Mr. Shah referred this court to a number of District court cases,
C namely, HKSAR v. Peter Raymond Baird DCCC 242/2011, HKSAR v. Chiu C
Raymond Kar Lok DCCC 122/2014, HKSAR v. Foo Shyang Yeong [2020]
D D
HKDC 844 and HKSAR v. Ngan Kwok-Kwan DCCC 881/2011 for
E sentencing of fraud charges. E
F F
16. As to the discount of guilty plea, Mr. Shah accepted that
G Defendant was not entitled to a full one third discount of his plea. G
H H
17. Defendant’s parents, aunts, cousins, pastor and his fellow
I church members had provided letters to the court. In gist, they described I
Defendant as a filial son and a responsible and caring father. They all asked
J J
for the court leniency in sentencing the Defendant.
K K
Reasons for sentence
L L
18. There are no sentencing guidelines for offences of fraud. The
M maximum sentence is 14 years’ imprisonment. M
N N
19. This is not a breach of trust case, nor the Defendant was
O shown to be in a position of trust. O
P P
20. Although the Defendant did not place the purchase orders via
Q internet platforms, the transactions were completed by using instant Q
messaging software. In Secretary for Justice v. Chung Pui-kit Billy [2023]
R R
HKCA 496, the Court of Appeal emphasised that internet fraud has become
S a serious problem because of its magnitude and prevalence, and the court S
should deter offender of internet fraud and other persons from committing
T T
similar offences and protect the community from this criminal conduct.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 21. The Defendant used 95 false FPS remittance records to C
defraud the Company. The offence spanned for a period of nearly 9 months.
D D
The WeChat records in his mobile phone clearly showed that he gave
E specific instructions to a person to create those false FPS remittance E
records for him to deceive the Company. I rejected his explanations that
F F
all those records were provided by Sze to him.
G G
22. Regarding the reasons for the commission of the offence, as
H H
revealed in the background report, Defendant claimed that Ms. Su, whom
I he met after he returned to Hong Kong, transferred 1 million RMB to Sze I
for the purchase of luxury items but he failed to do so. He worked with
J J
Sze in order for Sze to return money to Ms. Su. His explanation was in
K stark contrast with what he said under caution that he personally lent 1 K
million RMB to Sze in 2016 to 2018. I had grave reservation whether the
L L
alleged loan of 1 million RMB or even Sze truly existed.
M M
23. I accepted that the fraud was not sophisticated but there
N
existed a certain degree of planning. Defendant’s role cannot be N
O
considered as minimal. O
P P
24. In relation to the authorities referred to by Defendant’s
Q counsel : Q
R R
(i) In Peter Raymond Baird, the Defendant, by his company,
S agreed to buy a consignment of diamonds from the victim. S
The contract sum would be secured by a standby letter of
T T
credit issued in the name of the Defendant’s other company,
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
P, and US$700,000 for the standby letter of credit would be
C deposited by the victim into P account as an escrow agreement, C
which would be held for 14 days. Defendant knew that P
D D
would not procure a standby letter of credit. P withdrew over
E US$600,000 from the fund. Defendant managed to induce the E
victim not to take any action within the 14 days to recover the
F F
deposit in escrow. Eventually no money could be removed
G by the victim. The Defendant was convicted after trial and G
the trial judge took starting point of 3 years and 6 months’
H H
imprisonment.
I I
(ii) In Chui Raymond, the Defendant was charged with 5 counts
J J
of Fraud. He induced HSBC by using false documents to
K grant loans totalling HK$7.675 million over a period of about K
2 weeks. The ultimate loss of HSBC was HK$5.675 million
L L
because the defendant had HK$2 million in HSBC as security
M against his loan. The judge took a starting point of 3 years M
and 3 months’ imprisonment for each charge and reduced to
N N
3 years as the Defendant had a clear record.
O O
(iii) In Foo Shyang Yeong, the Defendant pleaded guilty to a
P P
charge of fraud for the purported sale of goods resulting a loss
Q to the victim purchaser for nearly US$600,000. The court Q
took a starting of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
R R
S (iv) In Ngan Kwok-Kwan, the Defendant pleaded guilty to one S
count of fraud for the purported sale of 10,000 tons of nickel
T T
ore to the victim company. The victim agreed to settle the
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
payment by remittance on sight of a certificate of shipment
C which the defendant forged. The victim suffered a loss of C
around HK$4.5 million. The court took a starting point of 3
D D
years and 9 months’ imprisonment and reduced that to 42
E months to reflect the Defendant’s clear record. E
F F
25. Taking into account all the circumstances of the present
G offence, the Defendant’s personal background including his clear record G
and the mitigations advanced, I am satisfied that a starting point of 3 years
H H
and 8 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.
I I
26. Defendant indicated his plea by letter 2 days before the trial
J J
date. In HKSAR v. NGO Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal
K stated that for cases tried in District Court, subject to the overriding K
discretion of the judge in sentencing, a defendant who gives the court or
L L
the prosecution an indication of a plea of not guilty at the Plea Day after
M which the trial dates are fixed, who then indicated to the court or the M
prosecution before the first day of trial that he wishes to plead guilty, is to
N N
be afforded a discount between 25% and 20% of that taken as the starting
O point for sentence. In determining the appropriate discount to be afforded O
to the defendant in those circumstances, the judge will have regard to the
P P
time at which the indication was given and to all the other relevant
Q circumstances. Q
R R
27. Defendant was legally represented in the District Court before
S the case was fixed for trial. He then acted in person all along. Though he S
only indicated his guilty plea at a very late stage of the proceedings, I am
T T
prepared to give him 25% discount for his guilty plea.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
C 28. Thus the Defendant is sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment. C
D D
E E
F F
G ( W. H. Ko ) G
Deputy District Judge
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