HKSAR v. Chen Zihao

DCCC 1309/2024

[2025] HKDC 2030

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1309OF 2024

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The Defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of conspiracy to defraud.

The summary of facts

2.Madam Lau, aged 87 (“PW1”), lived with her domestic helper (“PW2”) in a flat in North Point (“the Flat”). She received a call on 26^th March 2024 from a male (“Male 1”) pretending to be her grandson and they spoke over the phone.

3.The next day, at about 10:00 am, PW1 received a call again from Male 1 who claimed that he had been arrested by the police and needed HK$150,000 as bail money. Male 1 said he would arrange his friend Lau Tung to go to collect the money. PW1 then informed Male 1 her residential address.

4.Around 10:30 am on the same day, defendant arrived at the flat and claimed to be PW1’s grandson and said some documents required PW1’s signature. PW2 opened the door and the defendant collected HK$150,000 from PW1 and then left. During the incident, PW2 took photos of the defendant with her mobile phone.

5.PW1 realized it was a scam after discussing with her family, case was reported.

6.The police arrested the defendant on 6^th June, 2024.

7.In his record of interview, the defendant stated:

(a) On 26 March 2024, defendant’s friend referred him to a job for earning quick cash by collecting proceeds of fraud, with a payment of HK$1,000, to which he agreed. An unknown person then contacted the defendant on WhatsApp (“Male 2”) and briefed him about the arrangement for collection of money. The defendant had deleted all their messages;

(b) At around 9:30 am on 27 March 2024, as instructed by Male 2, the defendant and his friend went to Mong Kok to collect an iPhone and a HK$500 transportation fee from an unknown male;

(c) Around 11 am, the defendant received a call from the iPhone, in which Male 2 instructed him to collect money at North Point. He then went to North Point by taxi. There, Male 2 told him over the phone that he was tasked to collect HK$150,000 and needed to impersonate a person’s name;

(d) He went up to the 15^th Floor of the building alone. Upon arrival at the Flat, he introduced himself using a name that he could no longer recall. PW1 then handed over a bag containing HK$150,000 to him;

(e) After collecting the money, the defendant and his friend went to Central Pier by taxi as instructed. The defendant handed the money to an unknown male inside a toilet;

(f) He later received HK$2,000 as remuneration, out of which he gave HK$500 to his friend; and

(g) He identified himself in the CCTV footage captures.

Mitigation and sentence

8.The defendant is now 19 years of age, he came to Hong Kong from the Mainland when he was 10.  He used to live with his parents, but at present they are divorcing and he now lives with his father.  He works as a plumber earning HK$11,000 a month.  He has a clear record.

9.Counsel stressed that the defendant had fully cooperated with the police and made frank and full confession.

10.The defendant admits he was being extremely foolish as he was enticed by a reward of HK$1,500 and agreed to collect HK$150,000 from an old lady knowing full well that it was a classic deception case.  Counsel submits that the defendant is extremely remorseful, despite his limited financial resources, he is willing to offer HK$10,000 as compensation to the old lady, the sum that he can offer is only a fraction of the money deceived, but that is all the saving that he has.

11.The prosecution has applied enhancement of the sentence under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance.  The defence has no objection to the application, and having perused the statement prepared by Chief Inspector Cheng setting out the statistics concerning telephone deception cases and the accumulated monetary loss,  I am satisfied the prosecution has proved to the requisite standard and enhancement of the sentence is justified.

12.Before passing sentence, given the young age of the defendant, imprisonment should be the last resort. Having considered the seriousness of the offence, I therefore called for a Detention Center report and a Training Center report.

13.Both Detention Center and Training Center were not recommended, as it appeared the defendant had been abusing drugs.  As I had indicated, prison sentence should be the last resort since the defendant is still under the age of 21, therefore, I further called for a DATC report before sentencing.

14.Unsurprisingly, the medical officer is of the opinion that the defendant is a drug addict and is suitable for admission.

15.I have not overlooked the fact that the current offence is of a very serious nature. For adult offenders, they are looking at prison sentence in terms of years and an enhancement that follows.

16.Having said that, on the one hand, would DATC be a sentence that is far too inadequate to reflect the gravity of the offence?  On the other hand, I have to bear in mind the element of rehabilitation of a young offender.

17.The defendant is a young boy with a clear record, it is important to bring him back to the right track as he still has years ahead of his life, is it worth by giving him a chance to rehabilitate himself rather than sending him straight away to prison?

18.I am certain he is remorseful as indicated by his plea of guilty and the compensation that has been paid into court, though only a small amount. Fortunately, the amount involved in this case is relatively not large compared to other deception cases. Taking all factors into account, in particular, his young age and his clear record, I am satisfied DATC is a suitable sentence.  And I so order and conviction is recorded.  Lastly, a compensation order in the sum of HK$10,000 be paid to the victim out of the money already paid into court by the defendant.