HKSAR v. Yiu Kevin Kit Wai

DCCC 337/2026

[2026] HKDC 930

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 337 OF 2026

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

A. Charges

1.The Defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to four charges of fraud, contrary to s16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210:

Charge 1: D, between 24 and 26 July 2024[1], in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to Wong Chi-ming (“Wong”) that five genuine one kg 999.9 gold bars would be given to Wong as pledge, and with intent to defraud, induced Guoxin Development (HK) Holding Limited (“Guoxin”) to part with $2,905,006 Hong Kong currency[2], which resulted in benefit to D and in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to Wong and Guoxin.

Charge 2: D, between 24 July and 7 August, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to Wong that five genuine one kg 999.9 gold bars would be given to Wong as pledge, and with intent to defraud, induced Guoxin to part with $2,641,338, which resulted in benefit to D and in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to Wong and Guoxin.

Charge 3: D, between 30 July and 7 August 2024, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to Wong that D could sell and deliver a 12.5 kg gold bar to Wong, and with intent to defraud, induced Wong to part with 215,173 USDT (equivalent to $1,678,388.4), which resulted in benefit to D and in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to Wong.

Charge 4: D, between a day unknown in August and 29 November, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to Chen Qibin (“Chen”) that D was authorized and entitled to sell Flat D, 15^th Floor, Island Building, Nos. 439-445 Hennessy Road, Hong Kong (“the Flat”), and with intent to defraud, induced Chen to part with $900,000, which resulted in benefit to D and in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to Chen.

B. Facts

2.Wong engaged in gold trading through his company, Guoxin. On 20 July, he met D who claimed to be a gold trader.

B.1. Charge 1

3.On 24 July, it was agreed that D would sell five gold bars to Wong for $2,905,006 and that D would first provide five one kg 999.9 gold bars valued at approximately $2,900,000 to Wong as a pledge.Induced by this representation, Wong transferred $2,905,006 to bank accounts controlled by D. The latter then gave five purported one kg 999.9 gold bars (“the Purported Gold Bars”) to Wong as a pledge, and representing them as genuine.

4.On 25 July, D delivered four one kg 999.9 gold bars to Wong, who subsequently returned four of the five Purported Gold Bars to D, keeping the remaining one as a pledge.

5.On 26 July, in order to complete this transaction, D delivered the remaining one kg 999.9 gold bar to Wong who retained the pledged gold bar.

B.2. Charge 2

6.On 26 July, it was agreed that D would sell another five gold bars to Wong. Consequently, Wong transferred $2,641,338 to an account designated by D to settle the purchase price. D then provided four Purported Gold Bars as a pledge, resulting in Wong holding a total of five Purported Gold Bars (including the one retained since 24 July) as pledges. Eventually, D delivered only one genuine gold bar to Wong.

B.3. Charge 3

7.On 30 July, D represented to Wong that he could sell a 12.5 kg Russian gold bar to the latter for $4,800,000, with delivery promised for the following day. Induced by this representation, on the same day, Wong arranged to pay 215,173 USDT (equivalent to $1,678,388.40) to D as deposit for the purchase.

8.On 31 July, D failed to deliver any Russian gold bar and provided various excuses for the non-delivery. In fact, he knew all along that he had no such gold bar for sale.

9.On 7 August, as D still had not delivered the gold bar, Wong arranged to sell one of the Purported Gold Bars, only to discover that it contained no gold. Wong was unable to locate D thereafter.

10.The five Purported Gold Bars were actually made of gold-plated copper.

B.4. First arrest and caution

11.On 18 December, D was arrested.

12.On 28 December, D stated under caution that he had been deceived into purchasing the five Purported Gold Bars from a new supplier and had reported the matter to the police in June 2024. He claimed that during his transactions with Wong, he did not sell the bars to the latter but merely provided them as a pledge, and that he never asked Wong to liquidate them.

B.5. Charge 4

13.Chen engaged in gold trading business in Mainland China. Between 29 April and mid-August, across several transactions, Chen paid D $4,050,028.30 to purchase ten kg of gold. However, D failed to deliver any gold and provided various excuses.

14.In mid-August, D represented to Chen that he was selling the Flat, claiming that it was owned by his company and had a market value of $5.5 million. To settle his debts with Chen, D offered to sell the Flat to Chen for $4 million, stating that Chen only needed to pay a deposit of $800,000 plus legal fees.

15.On 22 August, Chen and his cousin Chen Yu-hang (“the Cousin”) agreed to purchase the Flat, with the Cousin to become the registered owner. D presented to Chen with a purported authorization dated 1 July 2022 (“the Purported Authorization”) allegedly issued by Power Asset Corporation Limited (“Power Asset”). Chen gave D $300,000 as a deposit, though no agreement was signed at that time.

16.On 29 August, in Chen’s presence, the Cousin, D and a property agent signed a provisional sale and purchase agreement (“the Provisional Agreement”). D affixed a Power Asset company chop to the Agreement, and purportedly signed it for and on behalf of Power Asset. Chen was provided with a copy of the Purported Authorization and paid D the remaining $500,000 of the deposit.

17.On 13 September, in Chen’s presence, the Cousin and D signed the formal sale and purchase agreement (“the Formal Agreement”). D purportedly signed it for and on behalf of Power Asset. The completion date was set for 7 October.

18.On 7 October, D informed Chen that because a tenant was still occupying the Flat, Chen and the Cousin could not move in.

19.On 17 October, Chen paid D $100,000 for legal fees.

20.On 29 November, it was discovered that the Flat was still occupied, that D had no authority to sell it because neither D nor Power Asset was the registered owner, and that the Flat was subject to encumbrances.

21.Chieng Warton Wai-ting (“the Owner”) was the sole director and shareholder of Power Asset. He met D in March 2021 and they subsequently engaged in business dealings. In May 2022, D recommended the Flat to the Owner as a good investment. The Owner expressed interest and signed the Purported Authorization, allowing D to act on behalf of Power Asset to negotiate the potential acquisition of the Flat. The lawyers acting for Power Asset initiated the acquisition process. However, there was ongoing ownership dispute over the Flat between Power Asset and the pre-existing chargee. 

22.D was never authorized to sell the Flat.

B.6. Second arrest and caution

23.On 28 February 2025, D was arrested in relation to the purported sale of the Flat.

24.D stated under caution the followings:

(a) Chen made a false report that D was selling gold to him.

(b) D signed the Provisional Agreement.

(c) He was selling the Flat to Chen because the latter was in substantial debt and wanted to arrange for the Cousin to hold the Flat to secure a loan.

(d) D received $500,000 and $100,000 from Chen as a deposit and legal fees, respectively, for the purchase of the Flat.

(e) The purchase was not completed.

(f) D co-owned Power Asset together with the Owner who had authorized him to sell the Flat.

B.7. Summary

25.For Charge 1, D received the purchase funds of $2,905,006 as a benefit, while Wong and Guoxin suffered a substantial risk of prejudice when D failed to deliver the purchased gold bars.

26.For Charge 2, D received the purchase funds of $2,641,338 as a benefit. He failed to deliver four of the five purchased gold bars, and the actual loss to Wong and Guoxin amounted to $2,113,070.40.

27.For Charge 3, D received the purchase funds of $1,678,388.40 as a benefit. He failed to deliver the 12.5 kg Russian gold bar, and the actual loss to Wong and Guoxin was the purchase price of 215,173 USDT (equivalent to $1,678,388.40).

28.For Charge 4, D received a benefit of $900,000 which equated to Chen’s actual loss.

C. Criminal record

29.D committed 2 previous cases. In DCCC 43/2023, which involved two charges of evasion of liability by deception, he was sentenced on 21 May 2025 to a total of 36 months’ imprisonment. In ESCC 2089/2025, which involved one charge of claiming to be a member of a triad society, one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and one charge of criminal intimidation, he was sentenced to a total of eight months’ imprisonment on 7 January 2026, six months of which were ordered to run consecutively to the sentence in DCCC 43/2023. Hence, the total sentence for these two cases is 42 months.

D. Mitigation

30.D is aged 49 and holds a master’s degree in commerce from the University of Sydney.

31.He divorced in 2022 and has a 12-year-old son. D was the primary caregiver for his son before remand; his parents now care for the child.

32.D’s parents, who are in their 80s, require significant care. Notably, his father was recently diagnosed with gallstones and requires surgery; he also relies on an external urine bag which restricts his mobility.

33.Defence cited HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing CACC [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 which held that for theft involving a breach of trust, the starting points are 2 to 3 years’, 3 to 5 years’, and 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment for amounts between $250,000 and $1 million, $1 million and $3 million, and $3 million and $15 million, respectively.

34.Regarding the present case, Defence submitted that:

(a) D was ‘scammed by a new supplier and receives 5 fake gold bars … This devastating loss created a severe liquidity crisis for D. Desperate to keep his business afloat, D devised a flawed and dishonest plan to trade his way out of the deficit.’[3]

(b) D did, in fact, deliver five genuine gold bars and one genuine gold bar to Wong in relation to Charges 1 and 2, respectively.

(c) ‘In a desperate scramble for funds as his business collapsed, D purported to sell a flat to [Chen]’.[4]

(d) Since the actual loss was approximately $4.69 million, the global starting point for all charges should be around 5 years.

35.Defence asks the Court to apply the totality principle, considering not only the sentences in this case but also for those in D’s two other unrelated cases: HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching CACC 107/2011 and HKSAR v Leung Ting Fung and Anor CACC 109/2014.

E. Sentence

36.In HKSAR v Ho Ka Keung (No 2) [2009] 1 HKC 88, the Court of Appeal held:

「11. ... It is well established that commercial frauds will attract, other than in exceptional circumstances, an immediate custodial sentence, even for a first offender. Obviously the length of that sentence will be determined by reference to factors such as, but not exclusively, the nature of the fraud itself; the duration of the fraud; its sophistication; the role played by the convicted person; the effect it may have on the marketplace; whether there are cross-border or international implications; and the nature and extent of the risk to the victim’s proprietary interests, as well as, albeit to a minimal extent, the extent of any loss actually sustained.」

37.In respect of the present case, I have had regard to the following matters:

(a) Charges 1 to 3 involved D falsely representing to Wong that genuine gold bars would be provided, and with intent to defraud, thereby inducing the relevant victims to part with their respective property.

(b) Charge 4 involved D falsely representing to Chen that he was authorized and entitled to sell the Flat, and with intent to defraud, thereby inducing the latter to part with his property.

(c) The total period of Charges 1 to 3 is between 24 July and 7 Aug, while that of Charge 4 is between August and 29 November.

(d) No compensation has been made.

(e) There was no international or cross-border element, nor material impact on the marketplace.

38.Although the total loss was approximately $4.69 million, less than the total defrauded amount of about $8.12 million, I disagree with Defence that this itself should form the basis of the starting point because Ho Ka Keung held that ‘the extent of any loss actually sustained’ is relevant only ‘to a minimum extent’.

39.Nevertheless, I agree with the global starting point of 5 years because this case does not involve a breach of trust and so the starting points stipulated in the guideline should be discounted accordingly.

40.In view of the above, the sentences for this case are as follows:

(a) The starting points for Charges 1 to 4 are 4 years (48 months), 3.5 years (42 months), 2.5 years (30 months), and 2 years (24 months), respectively.

(b) These are reduced by 1/3 for the guilty plea to 32, 28, 20, and 16 months, respectively.

(c) A global starting point for all charges is 5 years (60 months). It is reduced by 1/3 for the guilty plea to a total sentence of 40 months.

(d) To arrive at this sentence, I order that the sentences for Charges 1 to 3 to run totally concurrently, and 8 months of that for Charge 4 to run consecutively to the sentences for Charges 1 to 3.

(e) Hence, D is sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment.

41.Having considered the totality of the sentences for DCCC 43/2023, ESCC 2089/2025, and the present case, I order that 24 months of the sentence for this case to run consecutively to those for the other two cases.

42.Accordingly, the total sentence for all three cases is 66 months.[5]