CA
Attorney General v. Mohamed Hashim Shamsudin (Cons, V.-P.)
827
Applicant
A
3.
Respondent
B
B
C
C
D
D
n advantage-
blic interest in
4.
5.
6.
1" contrary to
the Prevention
EE
imprisonment ce of accepting
and a bank of
7.
lages accepted
F
F
ident was the
mnalty for
TI
aximum
le 01 $500,000.
by the epter
G
G
the A
חר
nment, to fines
H
H
Kong and plead
pursue 38 other
I
I
irt, could not be
rcise, though it
E-G.)
· offences came
s at or near the J
sed, sentencing
www
8.
judges dealing with less serious crimes might well have difficulty in giving appropriate effect to a scale of punishment laid down by statute. (See pp. 830G-J and 831A–B.) The first two counts were separate and distinct the sentences ought to be consecutive. Likewise, the two other counts Ild not relate to one transaction, though the two advan- lages were derived from the sime source, so that the sentences thereon should also have been consecutive. It would be naive to think, however, that the frauds were not committed as the result of or in the hope of corrupt payments. Some degree of concur- rency, therefore, was justified between the two sets of sentences. (See p. 831C-F.) The period of twelve months spent by the respondent in custody in England was properly to be taken into account when considering a discount on sentence. (See pp. 831F-J and 832 A-D.)
It was in the public Interest to give substantial discounts in order to encourage those who had engaged in large scale, complex and sophisticated commercial crime to plead guilty rather than contest the case to a necessarily protracted and expensive end. That interest must be balanced against another public Interest, that of deterrence. (See p. 832E-G. Sentences could not be brought below a level which would afford some deterrent against crime and, where substantial fraud or corrup- tion was concerned, preserve the integrity of Hong Kong's commercial reputation. It had not been suggested that the respondent, a qualified chartered accountant, was unaware that what be was doing was wrong. The highest standards of integrity were required of anyone coming to Hong Kong to carry on a business or practise a profession, as in the case of the bolders of public office, civil servants and the police. The court would not accept bare allegations made against others by the respondent, lo an attempt to cast the blaine upon them. (See pp. 832G-J and 833A.) The appropriate sentence on each count would be five years' imprisonment, consecutively as between counts one and two and again consecutively as between counts three and four. The two sets of sentences should, however, run concurrently for a period of five years. The resulting figure of fifteen years was just and appropriate but lo order to reflect the one year spent in custody In England, the overlap could be increased to six years. A further substantial reduction would be made to reflect the unusual nature of the jurisdiction to review sentence. (See p. 833B-D.)
In view of the paucity of evidence as to the respondent's means, it was appropriate to make only nominal orders under a. 12(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. (See p. 833D-F.)
9. The application for review was granted, the orders made below were set aside and orders were made in their stead that the respondent be imprisoned for four years on each count, the terms on counts one and two to run consecutively and those on counts three and four to run consecutively. The consecutive terms on counts three and four were to commence two years after the commencement of the consecutive terms on counts one and two, making a total period of imprisonment of ten years. In addition, the respondent was ordered to pay to the bank the sum of $1,000 in respect of each of counts three and four.
Orders accordingly.
t: 0
JJ. Sulan and G. Grant, Crown Counsel, for the applicant.
G. Carman, 2Q.C. and I. Polson, instructed by Melville Boase and Co., for the respondent.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.