判刑理由書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判刑理由書為準。
The judgment states that from February to March 2020, four Defendants conspired to defraud three Tsim Sha Tsui Rolex dealers by using a stolen cheque book and forged bank deposit receipts to induce the shops to hand over luxury watches. Defendant 1, recruited by Defendant 2 and instructed by an unseen “Ken,” impersonated a purported customer’s assistant to collect watches from three shops after receiving screenshots of false HSBC and Hang Seng deposit slips accompanied by forged Hong Kong identity card images. Each attempt was foiled when shop operators discovered the payments were cheques drawn on the stolen cheque book, bearing Defendant 2’s thumbprints, which later dishonoured. During a controlled delivery at Mongkok MTR Station, Defendant 1 passed an empty watch box to Defendant 2; both were arrested, and Defendant 3, who had been monitoring the operation under instructions from Defendant 4, was detained nearby. A search of Defendant 4’s hotel room uncovered 0.45 g of methamphetamine and inhalation apparatus, leading to charges of drug possession. All four pleaded guilty to various charges, and the prosecution stayed certain counts against Defendants 3 and 4.
The court applied the guidelines in HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing for non-Barrick conspiracy to defraud cases, using starting points based on the sums involved ($548,000; $279,000; $280,000) and adjusting for lack of actual financial loss and defendant roles.
The court weighed the scale of the fraud, each Defendant’s role and culpability, prior convictions, timely guilty pleas, rehabilitation prospects for the two youth Defendants, and public interest in deterrence. Defendant 3’s and Defendant 4’s re-offending after release and lengthy records aggravated their sentences, while Defendants 1 and 2, both under 21 with learning difficulties and stable employment, were deemed suitable for community-based orders.
The court emphasized rehabilitation over imprisonment for young offenders, recognizing cooperative pleas and personal circumstances, while imposing custodial sentences on repeat adult offenders to reflect the seriousness of the conspiracy and uphold community protection.
Defendant 1 (aged 16 at offence) is sentenced to 160 hours of community service for each of the three conspiracy charges. Defendant 2 (aged 19 at offence) is sentenced to 200 hours of community service for each of those three charges. Defendant 3 is sentenced to a global term of 24 months’ imprisonment for the three conspiracy counts. Defendant 4 is sentenced to a global term of 22 months’ imprisonment, comprising 18 months for conspiracy to defraud and concurrent 8 and 3 month terms (reduced to 8 and 3 months, respectively) for drug possession and possession of inhalation apparatus, running largely consecutively to reflect totality.
查看完整判刑理由書