HKSAR v. Lui Chin Ho

DCCC 1313/2024

[2026] HKDC 988

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1313 OF 2024

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to the alternative count of money laundering (2^nd charge) and was convicted accordingly.

Brief Facts

2.On 7 December 2022 at about 4:30 pm, Madam Chan (PW1) who was aged 81 received a call from a male claiming to be her grandson ‘Hin’.  That male said he was arrested and asked for cash $7,000 as bail money.  He would come to collect the money at the bus stop opposite to Lok Nga Court. 

3.Later on the same day, PW1 took a taxi driven by PW2 Law to Lok Nga Court. Dash camera from the taxi showed that the defendant boarded the taxi at about 5:22 pm and soon alighted near Chun Wah Road. 

4.Soon after, the defendant approached PW1 claiming that he was a friend of Hin and passed his mobile phone to PW1.  A voice from the phone claimed himself to be Hin and told PW1 to pass the money to his friend.  PW1 then gave cash $7,000 to the defendant.  Soon, another person joined PW1 and the defendant. 

5.PW2 witnessed the defendant counting money with PW1 and noticed that the latter is an elderly woman.  Feeling suspicious, PW2 reported to the police. 

6.At about 5:46 pm, PC60754 (PW3) intercepted the defendant near Chun Wah Court which is next to Lok Nga Court.  Upon body search on the defendant, PW3 found cash $7,000 and 2 mobile phones (one of the phones has the phone number 4655 4205). 

7.PW3 arrested the defendant. In the subsequent video‑recorded interviews, the defendant made certain admissions:-

(1) one of his friends called Kai Chiu asked him to collect money from someone. The defendant will get $1,000 as a reward.

(2) Kai Chiu gave a mobile phone to the defendant and told the defendant to go to Chun Wah Road to collect money.

(3) Kai Chiu’s contact number is 6634 1336.

(4) Kai Chiu informed the defendant that he would see an elderly woman with purple garment top and the defendant should then pass the phone to the woman who would then hand over some money to the defendant.

(5) At the offence location, the defendant saw PW1 and he gave the phone to the latter. Shortly afterwards, PW1 gave him a red packet inside which there was cash $7,000.

(6) Upon seeing the elderly woman, the defendant had asked Kai Chiu about the situation as the defendant found it strange. Kai Chiu told the defendant that PW1’s grandson owed him money.

(7) He was not acquainted with PW1.

8.Call records of the phone number 4655 4205 (the phone seized from the defendant) shows that there were 6 incoming calls from 6634 1336 (allegedly from Kai Chiu). 

Mitigation

9.The defendant is a Hong Kong resident and now aged 52.  He is married and his wife, who is living in the mainland, is applying for a one-way permit to come to Hong Kong.  He has a son now aged 11. Prior to his arrest, the defendant was a casual worker.  Defence counsel claimed that the defendant committed the offence because he trusted his friend wrongly.  He is remorseful.  It was said the  defendant was planning to run a noodle shop upon discharge. 

10.Defence counsel submitted that the defendant had no knowledge of the predicate offence and there is no international dimension in this offence.  The amount involved was only $7,000 and the proceeds will return to the victim.  It involved only one transaction and the scheme is in no way sophisticated.  The role of the defendant was minor, just to collect money from the victim.

11.Defence counsel suggest that the starting point of sentence can be less than 3 years.  Defence counsel has no objection for the prosecution to apply for enhancement of sentence and to submit CIP Tsang’s statement. Defence counsel said that the court can consider the range of not more than one-third for enhancement. 

Sentence

12.The sentencing principles relating to money laundering offences are relatively well established, as promulgated by the Court of Appeal in cases like HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 and HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545. 

13.It is accepted that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant knew or was involved in the predicate offence.  But the defendant did not just collect money per se from the victim.  He passed the phone to the victim so that the caller could talk to the victim.  The victim was fortunate that the taxi driver made a report to the police in time so that the money can be recovered.  There is also no evidence to show that the defendant was involved in other similar offences. 

14.The defendant had a total of 36 previous convictions and the date of his last discharge from prison is 27 August 2024. There is no concrete information to say whether the defendant was or was not on bail when committing the present offence in December 2022. 

15.The defendant takes a wise move to plead guilty to Charge 2 which will entitle him to get one-third discount in sentence. Taking all factors into consideration and the money involved, I would take a starting point of 2 years, and with his plea, the sentence is reduced to 16 months. 

16.CIP Tsang’s statement on 21 May 2026 shows that the telephone deception cases reached its peak in 2024 with 9,204 cases and by 2025, the case number was fallen to 8,621.  In any event, I accept that the specified offences are prevalent and that these offences caused severe harm to the community.  Having considered all relevant factors, I would enhance the sentence by 25%.  That will lead to an increase of 4 months. Accordingly, I sentence the defendant to 20 months’ imprisonment.