HKSAR v. Lee Tsz Wang and Others

DCCC 1155/2025 &
DCCC 1499/2025
(Heard together)

[2026] HKDC 993

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1155 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1499 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charges

1.D1 - D3 pleaded guilty to a joint charge of “theft” in DCCC 1155/2025, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

2.D2 also pleaded guilty to the 4 charges in DCCC 1499/2025, namely:

(a)  3 counts of “fraud”, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 (Charges 1 to 3); and

(b)  1 count of “attempted fraud”, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 and sections 159G and 159J of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 (Charge 4).

Facts of DCCC 1155/2025

3.At all material times, Mr Cheung Kwan Kit (“PW1”)  was a delivery driver of a logistics company and was responsible for delivering goods for UPS.  Ms Tsoi Ming Wai (“PW2”)  was the Customer Service Manager of ASSA Abloy Global Solutions Hong Kong Limited and was responsible for managing the delivery of goods.

4.At 11:20 a.m. on 10 February 2025, PW1 drove a light goods vehicle (the “Vehicle”)  into the carpark of Kwong Sang Hong Centre, 151-153 Hoi Bun Rd, Kwun Tong.  After the Vehicle was parked, PW1 left for delivery of goods with the tail lift open.  When he returned at 11:25 a.m., he found 5 boxes of Integrated Circuit Chips worth HK$2,209,558 missing. The case was reported.

5.At 2:40 p.m. on 20 February 2025, police found 24 bags of Integrated Circuit Chips at the Refuse Collection Point outside Suet Fung House, Fung Tak Estate, Wong Tai Sin. PW2 confirmed the same to be part of the stolen property and that her company suffered a loss of HK$942,860 from the theft.

CCTV

6.Among other things, CCTV and dash camera footages depicted D1, D2 and a male (believed to be D3)  removing 5 boxes from the Vehicle at the carpark of Kwong Sang Hong Centre at 11:26 a.m. on 10 February 2025.

7.D1-D3 respectively boarded a taxi at Wai Yip Street, Kwun Tong at 11:30 a.m. and alighted outside Fung Tak Estate Shopping Mall, Wong Tai Sin at 11:37 a.m. Dash camera footage captured D1-D3 taking boxes out of the taxi’s boot.

8.At 12:21 p.m., D1 and D2 disposed boxes at the Refuse Collection Point outside Suet Fung House. At 12:17 p.m., D3 changed his clothes at the park of Ngan Fung House, Fung Tak Estate and left at 12:33 p.m.

Arrest and Caution

9.When D1-D3 were respectively arrested on 18 February 2025, 19 February 2025 and 1 March 2025.  They all remained silent under caution. 

TIC Record

10.TIC records show that D1 entered Hong Kong via Lok Ma Chau Control Point at 8:25 a.m. on 10 February 2025.

11.TIC records show that D3 entered Hong Kong via Lo Wu Control Point at 8:23 a.m. on 9 February 2025 and departed Hong Kong via Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point at 3:43 p.m. on 12 February 2025.

Facts of DCCC1499/2025 (only concern D2 in DCCC 1155/2025)

12.The case involved Carousell posts by WP(s)  selling Fish Leong concert tickets. The victims of Charges 1 - 3 reached out to the WP(s)  and arrangements were made for them to buy the tickets.  On each occasion, it was D who showed up to collect the money in exchange for the tickets. The tickets were found to be fake.

Charge 1

13.The victim, Mr Lau Man Shun, reached out to WP1 on 20 January 2025. He paid HK$3,600 to D on 21 January 2025 in exchange for 4 tickets.

Charge 2

14.The victim, Mr Yeung Chung Kei Stephen, reached out to WP2 on 2 February 2025.  He paid HK$2,200 to D on 6 February 2025 in exchange for 2 tickets.

Charge 3

15.The victim, Ms Chan Ching Man, reached out to WP2 on 4 February 2025. She paid HK$2,200 to D on 6 February 2025 in exchange for 2 tickets.

Charge 4

16.Having unveiled the scam, Ms Chan (victim of Charge 3)  reached out to WP2 again via her Carousell account on the same day and agreed to buy 2 tickets for HK$800.  When D showed up at about 7:26 p.m. to collect the money at the Sitting-out Area at Nullah Road, he was confronted and the case was reported.

Arrest and Caution

17.At 7:38 p.m. on the same day, D was arrested for “Using a False Instrument”, he remained silent under caution.  Upon search, HK$2,777, a phone with two SIM cards inside and a SIM card inside D’s wallet were found.

18.In the subsequent cautioned VRI, D stated, inter alia, that he had a Carousell account, which he used to buy things.  He also stated that he had forgotten his number, which he had been using for 6 months.

Expert

19.Mr Sit Ming Kay, the ticketing manager of Leisure and Cultural Services Department, examined the tickets in Charge 3 and confirmed that they were not issued by URBTIX.

Personal background and criminal convictions

D1

20.D1 is aged 41, a father of an 8-year-old boy.  He received education up to secondary level and used to work as a driver in Hong Kong.

21.He has 11 criminal records involving 32 charges. 15 of the charges were thefts.

D2

22.D2 is aged 32, single.  He studied up to Form 1 and used to work as a renovation worker on casual basis.

23.He lived with his 60-year-old mother prior to his remand while his father and younger brother were living apart.

24.He has 3 criminal records involving 3 charges of drug-related offences.

D3

25.D3 is aged 51, single. He was born and lived in mainland China with his 89-year-old mother.

26.He received education up to secondary level and used to sell sneakers online to make a living.

27.He has a clear record in Hong Kong.

Mitigation

D1

28.Counsel for D1, Ms Ho, submitted that the offence was committed in plain view of security footages and hence without any sophisticated planning.

29.On sentence, Ms Ho accepted that the offence was serious as valuable property was stolen but pointed out that it was not a breach of trust case.

30.Ms Ho also accepted that D1 was a repeated offender of “theft” but suggested that if the Court were to enhance his sentence, an upward adjustment of 3 months would be appropriate.

D2

31.Counsel for D2, Mr Chong, informed the Court that D2’s girlfriend in Shenzhen was pregnant but unfortunately had a miscarriage due to an accident. His girlfriend was suffering from depression as a result. Mr Chong submitted that it was under such circumstances that D2 committed the offences in both DCCC 1155 & DCCC 1499/2025 to make up for his girlfriend’s medical expenses and cost of buying tonic foods.

32.In his mitigation letter, D2 expressed his remorse for committing the offences. He promised to turn a new leaf in life and repay the society after his release from prison. He urged the Court to make the sentences as short as possible so as to allow him to return home and take care of his parents.

33.Regarding the offence in DCCC 1155/2025, Mr Chong submitted it was not premeditated and opportunistic in nature.  According to Mr Chong, D1-D3 had just finished their breakfast and walked past the carpark at the time of the offence.  As the tail lift of the Vehicle was left open, it was upon the suggestion of another that D2 committed the offence.  Mr Chong also explained that when D1-D3 took the boxes away, they did not know what was inside.  It was only after opening the boxes that they realized the Chips could not be resold.  As such, they discarded them at the Refuse Collection Point.

34.On sentence, Mr Chong urged the Court to take into account the actual loss suffered by the victim company, namely, HK$942,860, and that D2 was no instigator of the offence.

35.Regarding the offence in DCCC 1499/2025,Mr Chong submitted that D2 was not the planner of the fraud and his role was limited to the collection of money and handing out of tickets.

36.Mr Chong also informed the Court that D2 was remorseful and promised not to reoffend. In addition, D2 offered to compensate the victims in DCCC1499/2025 but he did not have the means to do so.

37.On sentence, Mr Chong referred to the case of HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai (梁耀輝) CACC 100/2014 and submitted that the facts of the present case were far less serious as there were fewer victims, smaller amounts involved and a short offence period.  Besides, there was neither elaborate nor sophisticated planning and execution.

38.All in all, Mr Chong urged the Court to take into consideration the totality principle and order that the sentences in both DCCC 1155 & DCCC 1499/2025 to run concurrently or partly concurrently.

D3

39.Counsel for D3, Mr Cheng, submitted that D3 committed the offence due to his indebtedness of about RMB300,000, largely incurred for the medical expenses of his old age mother.

40.In his mitigation letter, D3 expressed his remorse for committing the offence and apologized for letting his aged mother down.  He urged the Court to pass a sentence that would allow him to go home earlier so as to take care of his mother.

41.On sentence, Mr Cheng pointed out that there was no sentencing guideline for theft of the present nature and invited the Court to adopt a notional starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment and adjust it upward so as to reflect (i)  the relative high value of the stolen property, (ii)  the degree of planning and (iii)  the number of offenders involved.

Sentencing Considerations (DCCC 1155/2025)

42.It is true that there is no sentencing guideline for the offence of theft and each case depends on its on facts.  It is also true that there was no breach of trust involved in the present case.  Nevertheless, I do find the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing[2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 relevant.  In my view, such guidelines are simply a yardstick, and the Court may follow or make adjustment, depending on the facts of each case. According to those guidelines, if the theft amount is between $250,000 and $1 million, the starting point will be one of 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment, and if the amount is between $1 million and $3 million, the starting point will be 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment.

43.Despite the loss suffered by the victim company was reduced by the recovery of part of the stolen property, that does not detract from the fact that it was a theft of Integrated Circuit Chips worth over HK$2 million. If one were to apply the guidelines in Ng Kwok Wing strictly, D1-D3 would be looking at a starting point of some 4 years’ imprisonment. 

44.Having said that, I have not overlooked the fact that this was not a breach of trust case and the actual loss was substantially reduced by half.  While I have grave reservations about the getting together of D1-D3 prior to the offence, I am prepared to give them the benefit of doubt and accept that it was an opportunistic offence.  After all, they would not have succeeded in stealing the Chips had PW1 not left the Vehicle’s tail lift open and unattended.

45.As to Mr Chong’s submission that D2 did not instigate the offence, I take the view that each of the defendants played an active role in the offence and was equally culpable. Besides, the acting in concert of D1-D3 inevitably added to the gravity of the offence.

46.Having considered all the circumstances of the case and the submissions of Counsel for D1-D3, I find a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment appropriate.

Sentence (DCCC 1155/2025)

D1

47.D1 is a repeated offender for theft and clearly, he has not learned his lesson from the previous sentencing.  To reflect the public’s abhorrence of his recidivism and to serve as a deterrent, I enhance the starting point by 3 months to 30 months’ imprisonment.

48.Taking into account his timely plea of guilty, D1 is entitled to his 1/3 discount, and the sentence is reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment.

D2

49.D2 committed the present offence while on bail for the offences in DCCC1499/2025. This constituted an aggravating factor, and I enhance the starting point by 3 months to 30 months’ imprisonment.

50.Taking into account his timely plea of guilty, D2’s sentence is likewise reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment.

D3

51.D3 was born and lived in mainland China. He came to Hong Kong with D1 on 9 February 2025 and committed the present offence with D1 and D2 on the following day.  He changed his clothes at Fung Tak estate shortly after the offence and left Hong Kong on 12 February 2025. Given his lack of connection here and the overall circumstances of the case, I find the motive of his travelling to Hong Kong suspicious.  Had there been more evidence showing that he came here for the sole purpose of committing crime, I would have no hesitation in enhancing his sentence.

52.Nevertheless, given D3’s clear record and his timely plea of guilty, his sentence is reduced to 18 months’ imprisonment.

Sentencing Considerations (DCCC 1499/2025, only concern D2 in DCCC 1155/2025)

53.There is no sentencing guideline for the offence of fraud as the modus operandi, sophistication of the scheme, number of persons involved, number of victims affected, amount of money involved, duration during which the offence was committed, the effect of the offence on the victim and the role of the defendant vary from case to case.  As such, the starting point for sentence will depend on the facts of individual cases.

54.In the case of Leung Yiu Fai, the defendant advertised online Ocean Park tickets for sale, and 36 victims were asked to deposit a total sum of $63,180 into a third-party account.  The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence of 3 years after trial for one charge of fraud.  That was a starting point of 30 months, granted a discount of 3 months for admitting most of the prosecution case, enhanced by 1/3, and resulted in 3 years’ imprisonment. It was stated in the case that for offences that target the public, and which were ruthless, disgusting and despicable fraud cases, the Court will adopt strict sentences in order to have sufficient deterrent effect, and to protect the general public.  Even where the amounts involved were not very high, and even considering the clear record of defendants, the Court will still adopt starting points of 3 to 4 years.

55.Nevertheless, having carefully considered the facts of the case, I accept Mr Chong’s submission that D2 was no mastermind in the case and that he was merely playing the role of a foot solider in collecting money and handing out tickets.  Moreover, the overall gravity of the offences including the degree of planning and execution was far less serious than that in Leung Yiu Fai.In the premise, I consider a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment appropriate for each of the offences.

56.Given the timely plea of guilty of D2, the sentence is reduced by 1/3 to 16 months’ imprisonment each.

57.The prosecution applied for enhancement of sentence under section 27(2)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (OSCO)  on the following grounds, namely: -

(a)  The prevalence of these specified offences;

(b)  The nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of these specified offences; and

(c)  The nature and extend of the total benefit, whether financial or otherwise, accruing directly or indirectly to any person from recent occurrences of these specified offences.

58.Mr Chong confirmed that there was no objection to the application.

59.According to the statement of Woman Detective Senior Inspector Chan Ching Mei dated 18 May 2026, the modus operandi involved in this case falls within the “e-Shopping Fraud” cases. 

60.Having carefully considered the information provided by Ms Chan, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the grounds in support of the application and grant it accordingly. I take the view that an enhancement of 25% is appropriate and hence the sentence of each charge becomes one of 20 months’ imprisonment.

Sentence (DCCC 1499/2025, only concerns D2 in DCCC 1155/2025)

61.Considering the 4 offences were committed within a short period of about 2 weeks, only 10 tickets and HK$8,000 were involved, I order the sentences on Charges 1-4 to run concurrently, i.e., a total of 20 months’ imprisonment.

Totality (DCCC 1155/2025 and DCCC1499/2025)

62.While DCCC 1155/2025 and DCCC1499/2025 involved different offences, the 2 cases took place just 4 days apart and can we regard as a series of criminal conduct.  As such, I order 7 months of the sentence in DCCC 1155/2025 to run consecutive to the 20 months’ imprisonment in DCCC1499/2025, making a total of 27 months’ imprisonment.