HKSAR v. Zhang Wentao

DCCC 1082/2017

[2018] HKDC 564

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1082 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of blackmail.

2.The facts arise out of a meeting between the defendant and PW1.  Matters originated on 5 September 2017 when the victim and the defendant came into communication through a mobile phone app called WeChat.  They were discussing a commercial matter in that he posed as a person who was interested in the insurance plans that were proposed by PW1. Their discussions continued until 8 September 2017, when the defendant told PW1 on WeChat that he was prepared to invest in insurance plans that she was proposing.

3.PW1 went to Shenzhen and met the defendant in a hotel.  They discussed the plans about insurance, and the defendant agreed to invest in two plans.  They then had intercourse in the room in the hotel that they were negotiating in, and the defendant videoed this on his Smartphone.

4.Following this meeting, nothing was forthcoming from the defendant about the insurance policies.  However, on 9 September 2017 in the afternoon, the defendant sent PW1 four video clips, and these were sent again on WeChat, and the video clips concerned their activities in the hotel room on 8 September 2017, and the defendant was prepared to delete those clips if PW1 paid him 20,000 Renminbi, and if PW1 did not pay, then he was going to publish the clips on the internet.

5.Obviously PW1 was distressed and scared by this, and agreed to pay the 20,000 Renminbi to the defendant.

6.On the next day - that is, 10 September - a meeting was set up at Shatin Town Hall where the money was to be paid.  Fortunately, before that, PW1 had reported the matter to the police, and they had prepared matters so that the defendant could be apprehended.  A make-up bag was prepared with some items that were masquerading as the 20,000 Renminbi. 

7.When they met, the defendant had the Smartphones in his hand and asked for money in returning for deleting the video clips.  There was some discussion about this.  Eventually, PW1 passed the false money in the make-up bag to him, and then the police arrested the defendant.

8.Under caution at the scene, the defendant immediately admitted these matters, and in a following interview he made a more full set of admissions to the offences of blackmail.

9.As far as the defendant is concerned, he is aged 28.  He is a two-way entry permit holder, but would otherwise be a resident of the People’s Republic of China.  He is, I understand, married, with a family.  He has a clear record in Hong Kong.

10.As far as his mitigation is concerned, he accepts the facts that have been put forward by the prosecution.  He was working in mainland China before his arrest earning a sum of some 3,000 Renminbi a month; married, with a wife and son, and his son is only 4 years old.  His family, or his father, is presently looking after his wife and the 4-year-old son.

11.The defendant is quite concise for the reason as to why he committed the offence.  He said he did it out of greed.  He did not seriously think of the consequences and acted recklessly.  So he takes full, as it were, ownership of the offence, and concedes his full responsibility for these matters and also acknowledges the pain and distress that it has brought both to his family and also to the victim in this case.

12.As far as the sentence is concerned, the defendant faces two offences of blackmail.  The maximum sentence for this offence is 14 years’ imprisonment.  There is no guideline sentence for the offence of blackmail, the reason being because the ways in which offences of blackmail can be committed are very varied, but starting points for sentence can range up to 3 years’ imprisonment or 4 years’ imprisonment where there is a triad element in the case.  Factors that will affect that sentence will be the nature of the demand, the kind of menaces that are used to enforce that demand, the quantity of money involved, the length of time that the blackmail is in operation, and whether there is any loss to the victim.

13.As far as this case is concerned, clearly this kind of threatening of exposure is very distressing to the victims.  The offence itself displays a mean and cynical approach to these matters.

14.Fortunately the victim suffered no loss and she would have been under this threat for a relatively short time as she reported matters to the police quickly.  There is no triad element.  It was a one-off type of transaction and the defendant was acting alone.  Although the video clips did exist, they were never transmitted to any other person.

15.I have been referred to a case by the Court of Appeal by way of comparison by the defence, and that is HKSAR v Cheung Kwun Yin Cr App R 164/2007.  I do not necessarily find that particularly helpful, as the facts of this case are somewhat different.

16.Taking all the factors that perhaps are relevant in this case into consideration, clearly the defendant’s clear record and his remorse, on each charge I will take a starting point for sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment.  I will reduce that to 16 months’ imprisonment, having regard to the defendant’s plea of guilty.

17.I see this as effectively one single transaction, so I will order that the sentences be served concurrently.

18.That will be a total of 16 months’ imprisonment.