HKSAR v. YE FUREN
- Citation
- HKSAR v. YE FUREN
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 29 June 2010
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal Against Sentence (reasons for Judgment)
- Case number
- HCMA1008/2009
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 29 June 2010
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal Against Sentence (reasons for Judgment)
- Case number
- HCMA1008/2009
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant not only possessed but actually used the forged identity card to open a bank account and to present it later, thereby committing obtaining services by deception; this conduct justified a 15 months custodial sentence (12 months for possession plus an additional 3 months for actual use).
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal against sentence dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
RespondentYE FUREN
Appellant Counsel: Ms Eva ChaAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Months: 15
- Additional Months for Use: 3
- Mere Possession Months: 12
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal Against Sentence (reasons for Judgment)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the magistrate erred in imposing 15 months imprisonment in the absence of evidence that the forged ID would be used to extend stay or obtain employment
- 02
Whether actual use of a forged identity card (opening a bank account and presenting it later) constitutes the further offence of obtaining services by deception and aggravates sentence compared with mere possession
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued the sentence was excessive because there was no evidence the forged identity card would be used to extend stay or to seek employment in Hong Kong and relied on HKSAR v Li Chang Li HCMA 935/2004.
- Respondent
- Respondent pointed to actual use of the forged identity card: the appellant opened a bank account with it and later produced it at the bank, constituting the offence of obtaining services by deception and justifying the 15 months sentence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Reasons of Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Chan in HCMA 1008/2009
Actual use of a forged identity card can constitute the offence of obtaining services by deception and is more serious than mere possession.
- 02
Reasons of Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Chan in HCMA 1008/2009
Mere possession of a forged identity card attracts substantial custodial sentence; additional criminal conduct arising from use attracts further punishment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant not only possessed but actually used the forged identity card to open a bank account and to present it later, thereby committing obtaining services by deception; this conduct justified a 15 months custodial sentence (12 months for possession plus an additional 3 months for actual use).
Obiter and limits
- Absence of evidence that the forged ID would be used to extend stay or seek employment did not negate the aggravation arising from actual use.
- Reliance on HKSAR v Li Chang Li did not entitle the appellant to a reduced sentence given the demonstrable further offending.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal against sentence dismissed
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 29 June 2010
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 29 June 2010
bjbj HCMA 1008/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1008 OF 2009 (ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 5540 of 2009) ____
BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and YE FUREN Appellant ____ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Chan in Court Date of Hearing: 10 June 2010 Date of Judgment: 10 June 2010 Date of Reasons for Judgment: 29 June 2010 ______
R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T ______ This is an appeal against sentence. The Appellant was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment after he had pleaded guilty to one count of using a forged identity card . The facts are simple. The Appellant (a mainlander) used a forged ID card which he bought in Shenzhen to open a bank account in Hong Kong. One month later, he returned to the bank and inquired about password for his bank card. He was asked to produce his forged ID card again. Feeling suspicious, the bank staff reported the matter to the police. The grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows: that in the absence of any evidence pointing to the use of the forged ID card either to extend his stay or to seek employment in Hong Kong, the Magistrate was wrong to impose a 15 months imprisonment term. Counsel for the Appellant relies on HKSAR v Li Chang Li, HCMA 935/2004. It is correct that in the present case there is no evidence to suggest the Appellant would use the forged ID card for the two abovementioned purposes. However, there is evidence to the actual use of the forged ID card. The Appellant not only used it on the day of his arrest but also a month ago to open a bank account. He therefore committed the offence of obtaining services by deception . If mere possession of forged ID card merits a sentence of 12 months imprisonment, the actual use of the forged ID card and the commission of further offence, in my opinion, attract another 3 months imprisonment. The appeal against sentence is dismissed accordingly. (Andrew Chan) Deputy High Court Judge Ms Eva Cha 1udk 1udk hE h2t` h2t` hE h2t`
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V [Content_Types].xml Iw}, $yi} _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml w toc'v )I`n 3Vq%'#q x}r :\TZaG I u3 L+M2 e\O* $*c? )6-r IqbJ#x ,AGm T[XF64 E)`# R>QD =(K& =al- 4vfa 0%M0 theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> _'{! Z:uB\ gHG\ u^x\ _'{! Z:uB L ~Z user Normal.dotm setup Microsoft Office Word Judiciary Hong Kong SAR Title Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.