HKSAR v. LING VERONICA

HKSAR v. LING VERONICA

The Court held the original concurrent/aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate for carefully planned commercial mortgage frauds involving breach of trust; it set higher starting points, applied the totality principle and appropriate discounts to substitute an aggregate sentence of four years with specified concurrent and consecutive terms.

Citation
HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
Parties
Applicant/prosecution: HKSAR; Respondent/accused: Ling Veronica
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 June 1998
Case Number
CAAR1/1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Review / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Applicant succeeds; original sentences quashed and new sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal
Legal Topics
Forgery, Procuring Entries by Deception, Possession of Forged Documents, Breach of Trust, Totality Principle, Plea Discount, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentencing
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Fraud Forgery Sentencing Appeal Procuring Entries by Deception Possession of Forged Documents Breach of Trust +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Applicant/prosecution

Ling Veronica

Respondent/accused

Procedural Posture

Application for Review / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Application of the totality principle to multiple related offences
  3. 3 Proper starting point for sentences for commercial fraud and forgery

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the original concurrent/aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate for carefully planned commercial mortgage frauds involving breach of trust; it set higher starting points, applied the totality principle and appropriate discounts to substitute an aggregate sentence of four years with specified concurrent and consecutive terms.

Court Disposition

Applicant succeeds; original sentences quashed and new sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal

Orders

  • Original sentences quashed
  • Impose 2 years imprisonment on charges 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, to run concurrently with each other