- 70 -
307. For the role D41 participated in the Scheme, we were of the view that 7 years (84 months) would be adopted as the notional starting point. Three months would be given for his ignorance of the law. As D41 was convicted after trial, no further discount would be given.
308. In conclusion, for the offence D41 stands convicted, he is sentenced to 6 years and 9 months’ (81 months) imprisonment.
D42 Lam King-nam
309. D42 is now aged 36, a businessman. He is married with 3 young children. He has a clear record.
310. It was submitted that D42 should be placed in the “other participants” category as he had provided two non-prejudicial statements to the police. Counsel for D42 also requested this Court to consider community service order.
311. We were of the view that the offence of which D42 was convicted was very serious in nature. Community service was inappropriate in such case. The non-prejudicial statements given by D42 were of little usefulness in this case. The statements merely described D42’s involvement in the Scheme. His evidence in court also added nothing to the prosecution case. We had, in fact, hardly referred to his evidence in our Reasons for Verdict. As such, we declined to call for a community service order suitability report.
312. It was also submitted that D42’s role in the Scheme was minimal. He was not the initiator of the Scheme. He also did not attend any of the coordination meetings. He only submitted his nomination
