826
LEGAL DEPT 852-5-8690236
500 P03/14
Attorney General
AND
Applicant
A
Mohamed Hashim Shamsudin
Respondent
B
(Court of Appeal)
(Application for Review No. 3 of 1987)
Cons, V.-P., Silke, and Kempster, JJ.A.
C
7th and 23rd April 1987.
Criminal law and procedure-ser tence-conspiracy to defraud-accepting an advantage— enormous frauds, appropriate sentences for---discount on sentence-public interest in encouraging guilty pleas to be balanced against need to deter crime.
The respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of "conspiracy to defraud" contrary to common law and two counts of accepting an advantage, contrary to s. 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201). He was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment for each conspiracy and three and a half years' imprisonment for each offence of accepting an advantage. All four sentences were to be concurrent.
The first conspiracy involved an agreement to defraud a finance company and a bank of US$97 million. The second conspiracy involved US$40 million. The advantages accepted by the respondent were HK$13,726,680 and HK$2 million. The respondent was the executive director of the bank and a director of the finance company.
At the time when the offences of conspiracy took place, the maximum penalty for conspiracy to defraud was seven years' imprisonment and a fine of $50,000. The maximum sentence for accepting an advantage was seven years' imprisonment and a fine of $500,000. In addition, there was a mandatory provision for orders for the repayment by the accepter of the advantage of the whole or part of the advantages received (s. 12(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance).
Thus the respondeat had been lable to the possibility of 28 years' imprisonment, to fines of $1.1 million and to orders for repayment to the bank of $15,726,680.
The Attorney General sought a review of sentence.
Held:
1. The respondent's agreement to submit to an order to return to Hong Kong and plead guilty to four charges on the Attorney General's undertaking not to pursue 38 other charges (some in the alternative), thus saving expense and time in court, could not be Ignored. It was difficult to infer remorse from such a calculated exercise, though it might leave some room for further discount on sentence. (See p. 830E-G.) The sums of money involved in the crimes were enormous. All four offences came within the category of the worst type of its kind and merited sentences at or near the maximum. If a really serious offence were not adequately recognised, sentencing
2.
D
E
F
Q
H
I
J