HKSAR v. Cheng Hok Man

HCCC 240/2024

[2026] HKCFI 3457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 240 OF 2024

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty to altogether four counts. The 1st count is for attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug in Tai Kok Tsui together with Nguyen Quang-dong. And the dangerous drug was namely 199.51 kilogrammes of solid containing 166.21 kilogrammes of ketamine.

The 2nd charge is in relation to another count of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug, and that was with a person called Suen Ching-chung in a drug which is 49.93 kilogrammes of a solid containing 41.79 kilogrammes of ketamine.

As far as the 3rd charge is concerned, he is charged with trafficking in a dangerous drug. And the drug is 351 grammes of a mixture containing 301 grammes of heroin hydrochloride found in the defendant’s home in Sham Shui Po. The 3rd charge was found in the defendant’s home in Ki Lung Street, Sham Shui Po.

And then the 4th charge, possession of dangerous drugs was found in his home with his mother. And the drugs in

question are 0.74 grammes of a powder containing 0.62 grammes of ketamine, 0.63 grammes of cannabis in herbal form, and 10 tablets and 0.41 grammes of tablet fragments containing 0.012 grammes of methamphetamine and traces of a powder containing methamphetamine.

The facts are that on the 6 May, a very keen and eagle-eyed customs officer inspected a consignment of goods which had arrived from the Netherlands, consisting of 12 carton boxes. And the consignee of the consignment was “Fushengfeng Trade Co., Ltd.”, and the nature of the goods was listed as “Tools drilling”.

The customs officers found that upon x-ray that eight of the carton boxes were suspicious. And on subsequent examination, the drugs, which is the subject matter of Counts 1 and 2 were found in separate plastic bags. The estimated street value of the ketamine, the total amount of ketamine found in the consignment was $94,567,740. The four remaining carton boxes that was part of the consignment only contained tools, and no drugs were found in them.

So the customs officers then mounted a controlled delivery operation, and it was not very well handled. However, what was clear was that the customs officers then replaced the drugs in the eight boxes with dummy articles, for example, like rice, so that the weight would match, and then the controlled delivery was done.

And through various communication with the delivery company, subsequently contact was made with the defendant. And so, the delivery was arranged to be made on the 16 May. And subsequently, the customs officer who pretended to be a delivery man, then managed to contact the defendant, and subsequently, the delivery was arranged for 12 noon that day. And subsequently, because many calls were made between the customs officer who acted as the delivery person and the defendant about the place where the delivery should be made, and the time, etc.

Eventually, the customs officer received a phone call from a person called Nguyen Quang-dong, and he asked him where the delivery consignment was to be collected, and the customs officer replied that he was at the ground floor lobby of a building called Wah Yuen Building. And then subsequently, this person, Nguyen, approached the customs officer and signed the invoice to confirm the collection of the goods. And because Nguyen did not have an identity card, he then telephoned the defendant who instructed the customs officer to hand over the goods to this person, Nguyen.

Then the customs officer was requested to move the goods nearer the ground floor lift lobby. And then subsequently,

Nguyen then led the defendant to the ground floor lobby of the Wah Yuen Building. And then Nguyen helped the defendant to carry two carton boxes from the consignment onto the defendant’s car. And then the defendant drove away. And the defendant then drove to Ki Lung Street in Sham Shui Po, where he then met up with the person called Suen, who boarded his car. Subsequently, they both alighted from the car and Suen helped the defendant move one box up to 106 Ki Lung Street. And then when the defendant and Suen were moving the second box into No. 106 Ki Lung Street, they were then intercepted.

And the defendant, upon arrest, under verbal caution, said that he was asked by a person called Ah Wai to collect the boxes. And he used his car to deliver them from Wah Yuen. And he claimed he did not receive any reward for it.

And then the defendant was subsequently brought up to Unit 1B in 106 Ki Lung Street. And the defendant did not deny that that was his unit. And in the unit were found carton boxes on the floor, which was the first box that had been moved up by him and Suen. And also found inside the unit were the heroin, which is the subject matter of the 3rd charge. And it was in a form of a block. And also found on the premises was an electronic scale, some plastic Ziplock bags, and some plastic gloves.

The estimated street value of the heroin found in Unit 1B was in the region of about $329,940.

And the defendant was cautioned and he saidthe box which was found inside Unit 1B was the first box that had been carried from his car and said he did not know what was inside. And he said that the heroin that was found belonged to him and it was wrapped up so he did not know the contents. And the defendant also said that the electronic scale, plastic gloves and resealable plastic bags were his but he did not know what they were.

Subsequently, the defendant was brought back to his home in Cheung Sha Wan for a house search. And on a house search, in his bedroom were found the drugs which is the subject matter of the 4th charge.

And he was subsequently interviewed on a video and he said that he had gone to Wah Yuen on the 16 May to collect two boxes of materials for his friend called Ah Wai. And he did not know what was in the boxes. And then he admitted that he had called, he had contacted Nguyen to collect the boxes. And he said that Unit 1B he originally intended to live in but he did not do so. And he said the key that was found for Unit 1B in Suen’s pocket was, it was his. Because after inserting it in the keyhole of Unit 1B, Suen had helped him keep the key.

Now, he again denied then that he did not know the heroin that was found in 1B. He did not know who the owner of it was. He did not know what was inside. And that the gloves, plastic gloves were for cleaning work, electronic scale belonged to him. And the only admission he made was that the drugs found in his room in Cheung Sha Wan was for his own inhalation, for his own smoking. So, that is the facts of the case which the defendant had admitted to.

The defendant is aged 46. And at the time of the offence, he was aged 44. I am sorry, at the time of the antecedents statement he was aged 46. I think he would be about 48 now. But at the time of the offence, he was aged 44. He has had many criminal records, he has ten criminal records in Hong Kong. And he has three relating to dangerous drugs. They were minor offences for possession of dangerous drugs. And he was sentenced the last time to the drug addiction treatment centre.

In mitigation, Mr Chan has said everything he could possibly say on behalf of the defendant. There is no doubt that this is a very, very serious offence, and this is one of the largest haul of dangerous drugs to enter our border. The defendant had written a letter in mitigation and said that he had lived with his mother in Lei Cheng Uk Estate, who passed away during his incarceration. And he is regretful for what he has done, and he has now become a Christian in prison. And he says he is very remorseful, and that he hopes to be given a chance to return to society and contribute to society.

As this has been recognised, the sentencing guidelines have been laid down for different types of drugs by the Court of Appeal. Hong Kong has very, very heavy sentences for drug trafficking. It is because our borders are pretty open. And so it is a great temptation for people to be tempted to import drugs into Hong Kong. And in order to protect our own society, severe sentences have to be handed down.

In relation to Count 1, as Mr Chan said, the seminal judgment on sentencing guideline for ketamine is in the case of the Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, which was handed down in 2009. And for drugs of ketamine over 1,000 grammes, it would be 14 years and up. And if it is over 3,000 grammes, then it has been recognised that sentences should be merit 20 years or more.

Here, in Charge 1, we have 166.21 kilogrammes. And if one calculates it proportionate to the weight, it would be a life sentence and more. So, as the Court of Appeal in Sin Chung Kin pointed out, at the paragraph 1 in the held paragraph,

“According to the revised tariff laid down in the Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, trafficking in more than 1,000 grammes of ketamine would attract a starting point of 14 years or more. Where large quantities of ketamine were involved, although it was not possible to enhance the starting point proportionately, a reasonable and logical approach must be that the larger the quantity of the drug involved, the more severe the sentence would be.”

So, in this case, as I said, the amount, the quantity is very, very large. And so, I would consider that the starting point sentence should be one of 42 years. I also, in putting the starting point at 42 years, recognise that his role is not a mastermind, but nevertheless is one which is more senior than a mere courier. So, giving him one-third off for his plea of guilty would take it down to 28 years’ imprisonment.

On the 2nd count, now this 41.29 kilogrammes was partof the dangerous drugs in Count 1. So, I would adopt a starting point of 30 years’ imprisonment, one third of, will make it 20 years.

Now, the 3rd count, the heroin, is separately found in Flat 1B. And on the evidence, it does not appear to be related to Counts 1 and 2. For heroin, as Mr Chan pointed out, the guideline is really, the relevant guideline is in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang, a case, CACC 106/2022, [2025] HKCA 234, that 200 to 500 grammes of heroin would merit a guideline sentence of 12 to 16 years. So, in this case, I would impose, adopt a starting point sentence of 15 years, and reducing it to one-third, by one-third, it will be 10 years’ imprisonment.

In relation to Count 4, I would adopt a starting point of 18 months, reduced by one-third to 12 months for his plea.

I have to consider the totality. And in considering the totality, as I have said, Count 2 is from the lot, that the same lot as Count 1.So, I will make the 20 years’ imprisonment in Count 2 to be concurrent to the sentence in Count 1. And then, the sentence in Count 3 will be consecutive to Counts 1 and 2. And the sentence on the 4th count, the 12 months, will be concurrent to the above.

So, the defendant will go to prison for 38 years.