Offences of using a false instrument
Offences of possessing a false instrument
Under section 75(1) CO, any person who  possesses a false instrument and  induces somebody to accept it as genuine,  resulting in the representor acting or not acting in a way in prejudice to others, shall be liable for maximum imprisonment for 14 years.
Also, under section 75(2) CO, any person who simply possesses a false instrument shall be liable for maximum imprisonment for 3 years.
The form of the instrument is immaterial to the offence. In R v Lan Tat Kwong, the defendant photocopied the false invoice and used it to obtain money from a company. The defendant was convicted and he appealed against the conviction. In dismissing the case, the appellate court asserted that
‘to be a false document this document must tell an untruth about itself, not an untruth about some other document of which it purports to be no more than a copy.’
The Court considered that the appellant ‘copied and pasted’ the false materials and photocopied the document to obtain money from the company. The document was clearly a false one and photocopying the document was just a method to commit the offence.
In this case, it can be seen that a false instrument can be in a wide rages of forms, with reference to section 69 CO. Only the false nature of the instrument is material to the offence.
|HKSAR v Ra Hyun Bin & Ors
|The defendants jointly used a false Standby Letter of Credit with an intent to obtain money from the bank
||3 years’ to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for all defendants|
|HKSAR v Song Chang Moo
|The defendant conspired with other defendants to obtain money from the bank with the forged two bank drafts and a letter of confirmation
||3 years’ imprisonment
|HKSAR v Woo Mei Bo, Mable||The defendant presented the copy of a false bank statement and induced others to believe that the instrument was genuine and act in a prejudiced way
||6 years’ imprisonment|