HKSAR v. Yeung Wai Yip Sky

DCCC 52/2023

[2024] HKDC 47

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 52 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.Mr Yeung pleaded guilty before me to one charge (Charge 1)  of Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars of Offence are that he, ie Mr Yeung, between 16 and 17 November 2022, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, together with persons unknown, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to Cheung Siu Bun (PW1)  that upon collection of money from PW1, a family member of PW1 would be released from detention, and with intent to defraud, induced PW1 to commit an act, namely providing Mr Yeung with a sum of $100,000 Hong Kong currency which would result in a benefit to persons other than PW1 or prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to PW1.

2.No plea was taken on the alternative charge (Charge 2)  of Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1)  and (3)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.  So, no particulars will be given here.

Facts admitted by Mr Yeung

3.In the evening of 16 November 2022, someone (WP1)  called the wife of PW1 Cheung pretending to be their son.  He said the displayed number was his new phone number.  Mrs Cheung asked PW1 to jot down this number.

4.In the afternoon of 17 November 2022, Mrs Cheung told PW1 that their “son” called again to say that he was being detained by the police and that it was necessary to bring a sum of $100,000 to the Yau Yat Tsuen Post Office (“Post Office”)  for his release.  PW1 then withdrew cash from a bank and placed it inside an envelope.

5.Later the same day, at the Post Office, PW1 received a phone call from an unknown number.  An unknown male (WP2)  spoke and asked for the colour of shirt that PW1 was wearing.  After getting an answer from PW1, WP2 hanged up. Shortly afterwards, Mr Yeung approached PW1 and asked if the latter was the father of the “son”.  PW1 asked him what he wanted.  Mr Yeung walked away.

6.Soon, a police detective DPC24151 (PW2)  approached PW1.  After learning from PW2 that the whole incident was a scam, PW1 agreed to take part in a controlled meeting.

7.Minutes later, PW1 received a phone call from Mr Yeung, asking him to meet outside the entrance of a specific “Wellcome” supermarket in Kowloon Tong.  PW1 went there.  Then, Mr Yeung came close to PW1.  Mr Yeung did not say a word but put his mobile phone on speaker mode.  A voice purporting to be that of PW1’s son told PW1 to give the money to Mr Yeung quickly in exchange for his release.  PW1 handed over the envelope containing cash to Mr Yeung.  Mr Yeung took it and started to walk away.  Another detective DPC13232 immediately intercepted Mr Yeung.  His colleague PW2 arrested Mr Yeung and recovered the envelope containing cash.  Two iPhones, one in black the other in purple, were seized from Mr Yeung.

Criminal record

8.Mr Yeung has 2 previous convictions none similar.

Antecedents

9.Mr Yeung is aged 19 (18 at the time of the offence), educated to F4 level.  He was a warehouse worker at the time of the offence.  Mr Yeung lived with his mother in Tuen Mun before being remanded in custody.

Mitigation

10.Mr Lambert Lee of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Yeung.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

11.Mr Yeung is single.  He lived with his mother after the separation of his parents.  He committed the previous offences due to drug addiction.

12.Owing to the adverse effect of Covid 19, he had difficulties in securing a job.  He lost his mind to commit the present offence under undue influence of others.

13.Mr Yeung pleaded guilty.  Although Mr Yeung committed the offence in concert with others, he was not the mastermind.  His role in committing the offence was to carry out the instructions of other(s)  for a small remuneration; he begs the court to exercise leniency and to provide him an opportunity to reform himself.

14.Mr Yeung is grateful to have been forgiven by his parents during his remand.  He has decided to turn over a new leaf, and be filial to his parents after serving his term of imprisonment.

15.Mr Lee referred to the cases of HKSAR v Tsoi Shu [2005] 1 HKC 51 and HKSAR v Chan Sin Chi Suzuki (transliteration)  (D1), DCCC 995/2017 (in Chinese).

16.Mr Lee has no particular submission to make on the prosecution’s intention to furnish information pursuant to section 27(2)  of Cap 455 with a view to asking for enhanced sentence.

17.Upon receipt of the Joint Report (see below), Mr Lee said that the report is agreed by Mr Yeung; that Mr Yeung’s mother is in court to give him support; and that Mr Yeung promises to turn over a new leaf and promises to be a good son.

Reports

18.Because of Mr Yeung’s age, I ordered the obtaining of two reports, namely the Detention Centre and Training Centre suitability reports.  The Joint Report came back to say that Mr Yeung is medically unfit for detention in a Detention Centre but he is mentally and physically fit for detention in a Training Centre.  From the information available and after a general assessment of Mr Yeung’s behavior and attitude while on remand, the report writer considered him suitable for detention in a Training Centre.

Sentence

19.The offence Mr Yeung committed is a serious offence.  I note here the aggravating factor of joint enterprise applies.

20.Having received the information furnished by the prosecution ie the witness statement of CIP Gigi Lai dated 30 December 2022 (with undated amendments in paras 24 & 25), I agree that general telephone deception is prevalent and on the rise; and that the harm caused to the community by recent occurrences of general telephone deception is substantial.

21.However, I also noted the contents of the Joint Report.

22.I note that Mr Yeung has already been under remanded custody for over a year.

23.Having considered everything in the round, I am satisfied that it is in the interest of the community and that having regard to Mr Yeung’s character and previous conduct, and to the circumstances of the offence, it is expedient for his reformation and for the prevention of crime that he should undergo a period of training in a Training Centre.

(Mr Yeung, please stand)

24.For the above reasons, I sentence Mr Yeung to detention in a Training Centre.