HKSAR v. Abeed Ur Rehman

DCCC 397/2019

[2020] HKDC 903

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 397 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.There were two defendants in this case, both jointly charged with conspiracy to blackmail, contrary to section 23(1) and (3) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. The 1st defendant pleaded guilty and the 2nd defendant was acquitted after trial. The 1st defendant’s mitigation and sentence was adjourned to today.

2.The particulars of the offence are that they, between 29 December 2018 and 22 January 2019, conspired together and with an unknown person alias Tai Lung, with a view to gain for themselves or another or with intent to cause loss to another, to make an unwarranted demand of monthly payments of $6,000 from company X with menaces.

3.Company X was a bar located in Lan Kwai Fong, Central.  There was an attempt over the phone to extort money from company X.  So a police report was made.  The police initiated an undercover operation with a woman detective police constable working undercover in the bar as a manager.  She posed as a manager between 29 December 2018 and 22 January 2019. 

4.On 31 December 2018 at about 8.30 pm, this woman detective police constable, PW1, spoke for the first time with a man called Tai Lung over the phone.  Tai Lung said the bar can be watched over by Sun Yee On, a well-known triad society.  PW1 told him she was the manager and said the bar had been running for over 10 years and never had this situation arise.  It had recently been renovated and changed its name.  Tai Lung told her that if any premises had been recently renovated, they would come to cause some chaos.  He said how much they paid did not matter but what mattered was their sincerity.  The bar would be watched over by him.  He told her that the whole Central area worked like this. 

5.PW1 offered to pay him a red lai see packet at Chinese New Year instead of monthly payments but Tai Lung refused and demanded protection money of $8,000 every month.

6.PW1 had another conversation with Tai Lung on 3 January 2019 where there was a negotiation and an agreement to pay him $6,000 every month as protection money.  He told her that he would let her know later the place and method for collecting the monthly fee.  He also told her that once the bar paid this protection money, if anybody came to demand protection money, then the staff could tell them that this bar was watched over by Lung Gor.  He said the bar could treat the monthly payments as a security fee for his services. 

7.There were a number of further communications between PW1 and Tai Lung to arrange payment and a face-to-face meeting but he did not show up at the meeting.  On 15 January 2019, a man named Ah Wai called PW1 and said he was responsible for collecting protection money from PW1 at the request of Tai Lung and that he, Ah Wai, would protect the bar once money was paid. 

8.A meeting was arranged at the bar on 18 January 2019 but neither Ah Wai nor Tai Lung turned up.  A further meeting was arranged for 22 January 2019 at 2 pm and the 1st and 2nd defendant arrived at the bar.  The 1st defendant went in and told PW1 that he was Ah Wai.  He told her that protection money was to be paid to Tai Lung and the bar would be watched over by him.  The 1st defendant said he was assigned to collect money on Tai Lung’s behalf and he was responsible for this bar.  If anyone created trouble in the bar, then the bar staff should contact the 1st defendant to deal with it.  He confirmed that $6,000 protection money was required every month. 

9.PW1 took out $6,000 in marked money and handed it to the 1st defendant.  He told her that this payment represented February’s protection money and that he would later contact PW1 to arrange the subsequent monthly payment collections.  Once he had taken the money, other police officers entered the bar and arrested the 1st defendant.  His mobile phone was seized and it was confirmed that his mobile had previously been used to contact PW1 on several occasions. 

10.The arrival of the 1st defendant and his subsequent dealings with PW1 inside the bar were captured on CCTV footage.  After his arrest and under caution, he admitted that that mobile phone was his and no one else except him would use it.  There were no other admissions made. 

Mitigation

11.The 1st defendant is now 19 years old and not a man with a clear record.  He has two previous convictions and has served sentences in a detention centre for theft in 2016 and training centre for handling stolen goods in 2017.  I have heard full mitigation on his behalf and his best mitigation is his plea of guilty. 

12.Ms Ng has said all she can say on his behalf.  I thank her for her succinct written submissions and reference to relevant authorities.  This defendant is single and lives with his family in Hong Kong.  He has four other siblings.  His younger sister is getting married in February 2021 and the whole family planned to return to Pakistan this December for a long period of time.  Prior to his arrest, he was working as a kitchen worker in a pizza restaurant in Sai Kung, earning $15,000 per month. 

13.He has written a letter of mitigation, expressing his remorse and regret.  He has been in remand since his arrest and says he has learnt his lesson.  He is sorry to have disappointed and worried his family who visit him as often as they can.  His mother is already in Pakistan and she is very worried and sad for him.  He promises to never reoffend and turn over a new leaf. 

Reasons for Sentence

14.There are no tariff guidelines for blackmail but there are features in these facts that I consider aggravating.  There has been a demand with triad affiliation for a protection fee.  There has been a demand for regular monthly payments.  It was not a one-off demand.  The amount each month is not insignificant. 

15.It was the 1st defendant who went to collect the protection fee and represented himself as the triad protector of the bar going forward.  He says he was acting on instructions and admits it was a conspiracy with Tai Lung to blackmail with menaces.  He took another man with him to the meeting at the bar, the 2nd defendant.  It does not matter that he himself made no mention of his own or any triad affiliation at this meeting when he was arrested.  As part of the conspiracy, a co-conspirator had demanded money and mentioned the triad society at the same time as offering protection if money was paid.  Therein lies the seriousness of the offence.  Courts must demonstrate that this type of activity will not be tolerated.

16.The facts show that the 1st defendant was not a local bully boy extracting a few hundred dollars from shopkeepers but part of a conspiracy to blackmail a bar with menaces that could be interpreted as meaning there may be violence if the demand for a protection fee was not met. 

17.I have taken into account the facts of the case and the factors I find relevant to sentence as well as the defendant’s background and mitigation.  I find the facts of this blackmail case warrant a starting point of 3 years and 6 months. 

18.The defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and will benefit from a one-third discount.  After that discount is applied, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.  I see no other reason to consider any other reduction in sentence. 

19.Accordingly, the 1st defendant in this case is sentenced to 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.