HKSAR v. Chao Ka Lok

DCCC 1365/2025

[2026] HKDC 793

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1365 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to three offences of fraud involving the purported sale of counterfeit items on the internet retail site called Carousell and the defendant’s role in this appears to be the person who delivered the goods to the victims and his admissions would appear he was paid $400 each time he did that.

2.The 1^st offence occurred on 29 March 2025 and involved a sum of some $6,500.  The victim, who is described as PW4, contacted the seller via Carousell to purchase an iPad Pro M4 11 inch Space Black listed for $6,699.  The agreed price was finally $6,500.  On 31 March, the defendant delivered what purported to be the iPad in question and it was found later that the iPad was described as being counterfeit by an examiner from Apple store.

3.The 2^nd charge involved a further sale, what was a black iPhone 16 Pro Max.  It occurred around 31 March 2025 when the victim, PW5, contacted the seller via Carousell.  The price was agreed for the iPhone of $10,000.  The defendant was seen to deliver the iPhone to the victim and that iPhone was also internally identified as Model A1522 which corresponded in fact to an iPhone 6 Plus for a genuine iPhone, so the item was not the one initially described or purchased by the victim.

4.Finally, the defendant was arrested as a result of a controlled operation where police were patrolling online the site known as Carousell and the interest was voiced by the police officer, who is PW2, to purchase an iPhone 16 Pro Max.  This was eventually delivered by the defendant.   Again, the item delivered by the defendant were identified as being counterfeit by the Apple store examiner.

5.Defendant was arrested as a result of his involvement in the controlled operation and under caution he said that a person called “Jacky” gave him fake iPhones for trading with others and he would receive $400 for each transaction.  He wanted to earn some quick money.  Marked money and the mobile phones were also seized from the defendant.  The defendant elucidated on that in a further record of interview and various incriminating conversations were also found on the defendant’s mobile phone.

6.Clearly the facts set out by the prosecution clearly show the defendant’s involvement in the three frauds that he is charged with and I convicted him accordingly.

7.The defendant’s background showed him to be currently aged 31 years, educated up to Form 4 level.  He has previous convictions for offences involving dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence and attempting to do the same offence.  He was sentenced for those on 26 August 2024 to a total of 32 months’ imprisonment.  He was discharged from prison in respect of those items on 26 November 2024 and then arrested for these matters in early April of 2025 appearing in court on 5 April 2025 after his arrest on 2 April 2025.  So these offences were committed not long after his release from custody for the sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment. So the defendant is a repeat offender in that respect.

8.As far as his mitigation is concerned, he has admitted all the facts and pleaded guilty at an early opportunity.  He is single but he does have a four-year-old daughter with an ex-girlfriend.  There is a child protection order in respect of the daughter and she lives in a residential childcare centre but is allowed to live with her maternal grandmother on one Thursday a week.  The defendant’s long-term intention is to take custody of the daughter if possible.

9.I am told the defendant has been a chef specialising in Japanese cuisine for around 11 years, so he has a means of which to earn a living once released from custody.  Defendant says he is remorseful and pleads leniency.  He said he has had time to remorsefully reflect on his misdeeds and especially the life of his daughter.  He wanted release so he can make an application to Social Welfare Services to have his daughter live with him and his parents.  His parents are supportive of this, I am told.  They plan on hiring a domestic helper to assist in that endeavour. 

10.Defendant in mitigation also prays in aid that based on the summary of facts that have been agreed, defendant is clearly not the mastermind of this offence, he is described in the mitigation as a “small potato”.  He was simply promised $400 for every phone that he sold and delivered.  The defendant is an essential part of the whole fraud and did benefit from that.  Also of course the kind of fraud is practiced by an online site is common these days and warnings are issued to the public not to involve themselves in these kind of frauds. 

11.I am referred to the case of HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai at CACC100/2014 for the general approach to sentencing in these kind of offences.  This involves an offence in respect of selling admission tickets for Ocean Park where there were 36 victims and a total loss of some $63,180, where a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment after trial was considered as the appropriate starting point for this kind of fraud.  The reasons given were this:  The fraud was practiced on the general public and any member of the public has the risk of falling into this kind of fraud and the numbers of victims can be high.  This kind of offence has serious negative effects on the growing trend of online trading activities making the public wary of those activities and affecting people who are operating in good faith in those activities, and thirdly, that such kind of frauds were easy to imitate and easy to put into practice and a deterrent sentence would be required to prevent the floodgates of crime being opened.  Finally, that this form of online trading does not involve face-to-face transactions so identities can be disguised and the detection of these crimes can be very difficult. Furthermore, any loss by the victims are usually difficult to recover.

12.It is considered in those circumstances the court will impose a heavier sentence that might normally be imposed for a fraud based on the simple financial loss of the victim.  They are similar to street deceptions and phone deceptions in terms of their seriousness.  The court is required to protect the public from harm in these offences.  In that case, the starting point for sentence, as I have already said, was taken as 30 months’ imprisonment.  

13.I have been referred to other cases involving other sums of money.  Of course, each case will be decided on its own facts and the mitigation appropriate to each defendant.

14.In this case, I am aware that the overall total amount of money is around $24,500 that has been taken from the victims and the monies in respect of the 3^rd  charge was the controlled operation, well of course recovered that sum of $8,200.  So the loss to the public has not been large nor have the number of offences involved or victims been large in this case.

15.The fraud itself can be described as unsophisticated aside from the other aggravating factors which I have already set out.  The offences are also committed over a fairly short period of time between 31 March and 2 April 2025.

16.Well having regard to all these factors that I am taking into account, I have determined that a starting point of each of these offences should be one of 18 months’ imprisonment, which I will reduce to 12 months’ imprisonment having regard to the defendant’s plea of guilty. These are of course multiple offences committed over a fairly short period of time, so I have to consider to what extent the offences should be served consecutively or concurrently.

17.I have determined that the 1^st and 2^nd offences should be served concurrently one to another but the sentence on the 3^rd offence should be partly served consecutively.  I will order that 6 months of the 3^rd offence be served consecutively to that of the 1^st and 2^nd offences, giving an overall total for these three offences of 18 months’ imprisonment which supposes a starting point for sentence on all three offences of just over 24 months’ imprisonment and that will be the order of the court.