Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

HKSAR v. YE FUREN

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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

Respondent

YE FUREN

Appellant Counsel: Ms Eva Cha

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Months: 15
  • Additional Months for Use: 3
  • Mere Possession Months: 12

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal Against Sentence (reasons for Judgment)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 29 June 2010

HKSAR v. YE FUREN

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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

HKSAR v Li Chang Li, HCMA 935/2004

Case cited

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.