HKSAR v. Li Weichang

DCCC 530/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 530 OF 2015

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges, the first being conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, 2nd charge being resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty.

2.The facts are as follows.  The victim is a 60-year-old female.  In April this year, she received a telephone call at home.  At the other end of the line was a man shouting for help.  Then she heard another male threaten her and asked for $250,000 as a ransom or the other male would die.  She thought that the man shouting for help was her son-in-law.  I can imagine her fear upon receiving such a call.  She asked for time to get some money together. 

3.Luckily, she then discovered that the man on the end of the phone shouting for help was not her son-in-law, and she was in fact a victim of a telephone scam.  She called the police who then with her assistance set up a sting operation.  She negotiated a reduced ransom of $80,000 for the release of that man.  Not long after, the police accompanied her to the drop-off point and ambushed the defendant who approached her and asked for the money.  The defendant was then approached by a police officer. He, however, then pushed away the officer’s hand and tried to escape.  Luckily, he did not run very far and fell over.  He continued to struggle and resist the officer but was successfully subdued.

4.The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty today.  I have been told he has a clear record in Hong Kong. However, that does not mean much when he is not a Hong Kong resident.  The defendant is a mainland Chinese resident who entered Hong Kong on a seven-day visa.    

5.The police found no proof that he was the mastermind or the man on the end of the telephone scam.  The evidence points to him being the legman sent to collect the money from the victim.

6.The defendant is 22 years old and single.  He was unemployed at the time of the offence and therefore tempted by an offer of $3,000 as a reward for collecting money from the victim. 

7.I have received a letter from the defendant expressing remorse, apologising to the victim and asking for leniency. Mr Lam has said all he can on behalf of the defendant in mitigation.  

8.The prosecution applies to enhance the defendant’s sentence for Charge 1 pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.  The prosecution relies on section 27(2)(c), the prevalence of this specified offence, and subsection (d), the nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of this specified offence.    

9.The prosecution has submitted a statement by Detective Chief Inspector Lam Cheuk-ho which supports the grounds the prosecution relies on.  The defence do not challenge this application, accepting that there are grounds to enhance the sentence for Charge 1.

10.As far as sentencing is concerned, I take into account that this is a single offence, the amount of money scammed, the modus operandi of the scam, the defendant’s role and the authority of HKSAR v Wu Jianbing CACC 32/2011.  In that authority, a 3-year starting point was found appropriate for similar offences, for similar facts as those established here.

11.After careful consideration of the relevant factors and mitigation put forward, for Charge 1, I take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months.  He has pleaded guilty.  He is entitled to a discount of one-third for your plea.  That reduces the sentence to 1 year and 8 months.

12.I am satisfied the application by the prosecution to enhance this sentence is appropriate.  I accept the opinions set out in Detective Chief Inspector Lam’s statement.  I enhance that 1-year-and-8-month sentence by just under one-third and add 6 months to that sentence.  After enhancement, Charge 1, he is sentenced to 2 years and 2 months’ sentence.

13.For Charge 2, I take a starting point of 6 months and reduce that by 2 months for your plea.  That is a sentence of 4 months for Charge 2.  I take into account the totality principle, and I order 1 month of that 4 months to be served consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance of 3 months to be served concurrently.  

14.Therefore, the total overall sentence for both charges is 2 years and 3 months.  Understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Yes.