HKSAR v. Mok Ka Ming and Others

HCCC 8/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3839

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 8 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The 1^st Defendant (“D1”) and 2^nd Defendant (“D2”) pleaded guilty to one count of robbery, contrary to sections 10(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance (“the Ordinance”).

2.The 3^rd Defendant (“D3”) pleaded guilty to one count of handling stolen goods, contrary to section 24 of the Ordinance.

3.D1 also pleaded guilty to one count of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause, contrary to sections 9L(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.

PARTICULARS

Count 1

4.D1 and D2, on 14 May 2023, at Kam Bo Shing Watches and Jewellery Limited, Shop 1C, Ground Floor, Nos.1-13 Kai Fat Path, Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hong Kong (“the Shop”), together with Lau Pak-yuen and other persons unknown, robbed Chau Chi-wang (“Chau”) of 88 Rolex watches.

Count 2

5.D3, on divers day between late May 2023 and early June 2023, in Hong Kong, dishonestly received stolen goods, namely three “Rolex” watches, knowing or believing the same to be stolen goods.

Count 3

6.D1, on the 12 May 2025, in Hong Kong, being a person admitted to bail, without reasonable cause, failed to surrender to custody as shall have been appointed by a court.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

7.The Shop was jointly owned by Chau and his brother. The Shop comprised 2 floors and was installed with CCTV. At about 11:34 am on 14 May 2023, a total of 7 staff were working in the Shop, including Chau, a salesperson named Choi (“Choi”) and a manager named Chan (“Chan”).

8.When Chau was chatting with Chan near a showcase, 3 masked males in black, including D1, LAU Pak-yuen (“WP1”) and one of an unknown identity (“WP2”), rushed from Pui To Road Flyover to the entrance of the Shop. WP1 first entered the Shop. He shouted, “Move away” and smashed a showcase with a big hammer. D1 then entered the Shop, holding and waving a watermelon knife. WP2 pointed a knife at Choi and asked her not to move.

9.Chau immediately rushed to the M/F to activate the alarm and called the police. The three robbers (D1, WP1 and WP2) were seen ransacking the Shop and putting the watches taken from the broken showcase into a red-white-blue nylon bag. After about a minute, the three robbers left the Shop with the bag and fled towards Pui To Road Flyover. Chau returned to G/F. The hammer was left behind and some branded watches had been robbed. The Police soon arrived.

10.A total of 88 Rolex watches worth about HK$6,917,500 were robbed.

Video Footage

11.Various CCTV and car camcorder footage retrieved by the police captured, inter alia,the following on 14 May 2023:

a. At about 9:28 am, D1 and WP1 left New Trend Centre in San Po Kong together. They got in a private car which then left the scene;

b. At about 10:35 am, D2, driving a silver Mercedes with registration mark YJ 8706 (“the Mercedes”), pulled over at Fung Cheung Road in Yuen Long. D2 got off the Mercedes and returned to it shortly after he purchased some food and cigarettes;

c. At about 10:41 am, a silver Hyundai with false registration mark YK 3044 (“the Hyundai”) stopped at Long Ho Road in Yuen Long;

d. At about 10:56 am, the Mercedes, now with false registration mark XY 2318, drove past Shui Tsiu San Tsuen Road in Yuen Long. It was eventually pulled over next to the Hyundai on Long Ho Road. D2 got off the Mercedes, did something to its rear registration plate and then got back into the car;

e. The Mercedes and the Hyundai had stayed together at the scene from 11am until the Hyundai left at about 11:08am. The Mercedes stayed at the scene until the Hyundai’s subsequent return at 11:45am;

f. At about 11:29am, the Hyundai drove past Tuen Mun Town Plaza and stopped at a hatching area of Tuen Mun Road under Pui To Road Flyover. D1, WP1 and WP2 got off from the Hyundai and walked towards the Shop at about 11:34am;

g. Upon arrival at the Shop, WP1 took out a big hammer from a red-white-blue nylon bag carried by him, threw the bag onto the ground and entered the Shop. He said “Move away” and struck a showcase with the hammer. D1 picked up the bag and entered the Shop. Waving a watermelon knife, he asked everyone not to move. WP2 also waved a watermelon knife outside the Shop towards pedestrians;

h. WP1 then smashed the showcase closest to the entrance with the hammer. D1 took the watches from the showcase and put them into his bag. WP1 then struck another showcase using the hammer;

i. WP2 entered the Shop and put the watches into the bag together with WP1 and D1. At one stage, WP2 walked out of the Shop and looked around. The three robbers left the Shop with the bag after about a minute. They rushed back to the Hyundai and left;

j. At about 11:45am, the Hyundai was pulled over next to the Mercedes on Long Ho Road. D2 and a passenger alighted from the Mercedes. An unknown person also alighted from the Hyundai and put an object resembling the red-white-blue nylon bag into the Mercedes. The Mercedes soon left the scene and the Hyundai left towards the opposite direction of Long Ho Road; and

k. At about 11:41am, D1 and WP1 walked out from Long Ho Road and hailed a taxi at a bus stop.

12.D2 is the registered owner of the Mercedes, which the Police located in the carpark of his home. The Police also located the Hyundai at Long Ho Road.

13.Upon forensic examination, glass fragments agreeing in colour, elemental composition and refractive index with those found in the Shop, were found on the carpets of both the Mercedes and the Hyundai.

14.D1, D2 and D3 were all arrested on 25 July 2023.

15.In D2’s video-recorded interview, he admitted, inter alia, under caution that he possessed the only car key of the Mercedes.

16.D3 was located at his home by the Police. Upon search, inter alia, a blue Huawei phone belonging to D3 and 3 Rolex watches worth about HK$307,000 were found. The 3 watches were covered with protection films and were later confirmed to have been robbed from the Shop on 14 May 2023.

17.Under caution, D3 said, inter alia, that: (i) he had nothing to do with the robbery and he was not involved in it; (ii) it was Thai Jai (i.e. WP1) and Shao Nga Jai (i.e. D1) who did it; (iii) they borrowed HK$200,000 from him and gave him the 3 Rolex watches as collateral; and (iv) they said they would repay the loan and take back the watches.

18.In D3’s video-recorded interview, D3 said, inter alia, the following under caution:

a. Regarding his admission made at the scene, he clarified that two of the Rolex watches were given to him by D1 and one Rolex watch was given to him by WP1, also known as Michael;

b. On a day in late May or early June 2023, D1 phoned him and asked to meet in Hung Hom. D1 said he was in urgent need of HK$200,000 to settle the wages of his staff and proposed to leave him with 6 Rolex watches as collateral of his loan;

c. At about 9pm that night, D3 drove to a roundabout in Tsim Sha Tsui to meet D1. D1 drove a car with WP1 in it. When they met, D3 gave HK$100,000 cash to D1 and D1 gave him 6 Rolex watches. He placed the watches at home. He was aware that all the watches were covered by protection films. D3 further gave D1 another HK$100,000 in cash the following day;

d. D3 agreed to lend the money to D1 purely because D1 gave him the 6 watches as collateral. D1 promised to repay him after a month and give him some reward;

e. Shortly after D1 gave D3 the 6 watches, D3 asked WP1 for repayment of his outstanding debt. WP1 gave him one further Rolex watch as collateral and then left for Thailand. WP1 said he would repay the money in mid- or late-June. When WP1 gave him that Rolex, WP1 mentioned that it came from the same batch of D1’s “goods”;

f. At about the same time after D1 gave D3 the watches, D3 read the news about the robbery of the present case. D3 rang D1 and asked him about the source of the watches. D1 told him that the 6 watches were part of those robbed in the robbery, but they were just some ordinary models;

g. D3 rang WP1 again after a few days for debt recovery. WP1 told him that he was waiting for his batch of “goods” with D1 to be sold. D3 understood that WP1 meant they were trying to sell the stolen watches. WP1 also told him that he was involved in the robbery for being the driver;

h. In about early July, D1 contacted D3 saying that he wanted to get back the watches and sell them to repay him. When they met that evening, D3 only returned 4 of the 6 Rolexes to D1 and kept the 2 more expensive models, because he was worried that D1 would not honour his promise. D1 had not repaid any money to him so far;

i. After knowing that the 3 watches were stolen property, he only hoped that D1 and WP1 could repay the loan and get back the watches as soon as possible; and

j. Upon being shown the photos, D3 confirmed that the 3 Rolexes seized from his home were given to him by D1 and WP1.

19.D3’s blue Huawei phone has his WhatsApp chat records with D1 on 24 June 2023. On that day, D1 asked D3 to take photos of the 3 stolen watches and send the photos to him. After taking and sending the photos, D3 sent a message to D1 which reads “(140000 + 110000 + 126000) x 0.4 = 150000 and asked D1 if that was acceptable.

20.In the video-recorded interview, D3 attempted to explain that message: D1 had told him his buyer was only willing to buy the watches at 40% of the market price, so he (D3) proposed to D1 that if D1 could not repay his loan, he could ask his friends to buy the watches or he could buy them at 40% of the market price.

21.D1 first appeared at the Fanling Magistrates’ Courts on 27 July 2023 facing one count of “Conspiracy to rob”. He had been released on court bail since 23 August 2024. At the mention hearing on 22 October 2024, the charge was amended to “Robbery” and the case was transferred to the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts for committal proceedings.

22.D1 was absent at the return day hearing on 12 May 2025 and a warrant of arrest was issued against him.

23.On 21 August 2025, D1 was intercepted and re-arrested by a police officer near Sai Yee Street, Mong Kok. At the time, D1 flung his hands and legs, and became emotional. He resisted despite warning by the officer. He was eventually subdued by the officer, handcuffed and arrested.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION OF D1 and D2

24.Mr. Raymond C. C. Yu, counsel for D1, submitted a written mitigation submission. D1 is 31 years old and has two children, aged 8 and 6. He joined the workforce after completing form three. He has previous criminal convictions and the most recent one was in 2025. However, none of them is related to robbery.

25.During his oral submission on behalf of D1 this morning, Mr. Yu refers to, inter alia, HKSAR v Lam Man Chung [2024] HKCA 493 and submits that our present case is similar to that case, and that it follows that a starting point of 10 years should be appropriate.

26.Mr. William K. F. Hui, counsel for D2, submitted a written mitigation submission. D2 is 31 years old, a father of two sons, aged 12 and 6 respectively. He has one drink driving criminal record in 2021. Mr. Hui has also submitted a letter written by D2, consisting of 9 pages.

27.During his oral submission on behalf of D2 this morning, Mr. Hui asks for a starting point of 8-9 years.

SENTENCE – Charge 1

28.Armed robbery is a serious offence. Section 10(2) of the Ordinance provides that the maximum sentence forrobberyis life imprisonment.

29.The leading sentencing guideline case for armed robbery is Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLR 610. It was suggested that in cases of armed robbery where the defendant carried a knife or other dangerous weapon which he displayed to his victim, the starting point should be one of 5 years’ imprisonment; that where the robbery involved an invasion of private premises, a starting point of 6 years was appropriate; and that if physical violence, including tying up the victim, was used, a starting point of 7 years should be considered.

30.In HKSAR v Ting Chiu & Anor [2003] 3 HKLRD 378, it has been held that when a robbery involved more than one culprit, that was an aggravating factor, because the threat or pressure exerted by a number of robbers on the victim were obviously more serious than those exerted by a lone robber.

31.In my judgment, the following aggravating factors are present in the case:-

a. The robbery was well planned and premeditated;

b. The Defendants carried with them knives and a big hammer;

c. The Defendants used the knives and the hammer during the robbery;

d. The robbery was targeted at a jewellery shop;

e. The value of the stolen goods is high; close to HK$7 million;

f. The robbery involved invasion of private premises;

g. The robbery involved more than one culprit; there were 3 in total;

h. The robbery involved two vehicles with fake registration plates;

i. The plan involved changing clothing to disguise the identity of the offenders after the robbery; and

j. Only 3 of the 88 stolen Rolexes were recovered.

32.In light of the above, I adopt a starting point of 8 years 6 months (102 months) for Charge 1.

33.For D1, considering that he had absconded and his plea was not made at the earliest opportunity, he should not be entitled to a full one-third discount.

34.In this connection, Zervos JA said in HKSAR v Au Chun Foo CACC 125/2023:-

“17. As the Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasised, a guilty plea discount is reduced in circumstances not to punish the applicant for absconding but for the consequences of absconding, such as whether it results in a late plea; length of time that justice has been delayed; whether the defendant surrendered to the authorities ultimately or whether it was necessary for him to be rearrested; the inconvenience and wasted expense and costs caused by the aborted scheduled hearing, to witnesses, counsel and the court: Lo Kam Fai. In the present case, the applicant’s absconding had the consequences of causing inconvenience and waste to the provision of criminal justice in his case.”

35.I would allow a one-fourth discount for D1’s guilty plea for Charge 1.

36.So, for Charge 1, D1 is sentenced to 6 years 4 months’ (76 months) imprisonment.

37.D2, in view of his early plea, should be entitled to a one-third discount, and the sentence would be reduced to 5 years 8 months’ (68 months).

SENTENCE – Charge 3

38.D1 was absent at the return hearing on 12 May 2025, as a result of which a warrant of arrest was issued against him. D1 was later re-arrested on 21 August 2025. He had absconded for more than 3 months.

39.According to HKSAR v Lo Kam-fai[2016] 2 HKLRD 308, a starting point of 6 months should be adopted in relation to Charge 3.

40.I adopt a starting point of 6 months and reduce it by one-third to 4 months for D1’s plea of guilty.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION OF D3

41.Mr. Dixon Tse, on behalf of D3, submitted a written mitigation submission. D3 is 46 years old, married with a 26-year-old daughter. Prior to arrest, he used to earn HK$40,000 to HK$50,000 monthly in the logistics field. D3 has two gambling related criminal records, which were more than 20 years ago. D3 has made donations to Save the Children Hong Kong since 2016.

42.Mr. Tse submits that there are two mitigating factors in this case, one being D3’s timely guilty plea and the other being procedural delay beyond D3’s control. He submitted that the procedural delay was caused by the Prosecution not completing their investigation and/or legal advice between 27 July 2023 and 22 October 2024, and D1’s abscondence between 12 May 2025 and 2 October 2025. Supporting authorities have not been referred to in the argument.

43.Mr. Tse submitted that D3 initially did not know the Rolexes were stolen goods and that they were collateral for the loan lent to D1 by D3. He asked the Court to consider adopting a starting point of 2 years, and to consider D3’s rehabilitation after bail was granted to him on 23 August 2024.

SENTENCE – Charge 2

44.The nature of handling stolen goods encompasses a wide range of circumstances in which the offence can be committed. Although sentencing for handling stolen goods is highly dependent on the facts of each case, it is recognised that the sentences would usually be within the range of 2 to 4 years – see: R v Chan Wing Kwan CACC 121/1985.

45.The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 360 endorsed a list of aggravating factors relevant to handling of stolen goods. Amongst them, the seriousness of the primary offence and high value of the stolen goods are directly relevant to this case.

46.From the available evidence, D1 and WP1 had borrowed HK$200,000 from D3 and used 3 stolen watches, with an aggregate value of HK$307,000 as collateral. There is no evidence indicating that D3 was in any way connected to the primary offence. Of course, later on, he had actual knowledge that the Rolexes were stolen properties from a robbery.

47.I am of the view that a starting point of 2 years should be imposed, which I would reduce by one-third to 16 months for D3’s guilty plea. I have considered Mr. Tse’s submission on delay. I am of the view that the period of delay was reasonable and resulted from the normal operation of the criminal justice system in the circumstances, as opposed to neglectful conduct on the part of the prosecution. I do not consider that the claimed rehabilitation on the part of D3 is sufficient to warrant any further discount. In any event, the sentence of 16 months is already a lenient one.

TOTALITY OF CHARGE 1 AND CHARGE 3

48.Mr. Yu asked the Court to consider ordering the sentences of Charge 1 and Charge 3 to run largely concurrently, as D1 only absconded for a short period of time.

49.According to Lo Kam-fai (supra), these two offences are wholly distinct and separate. It follows that the sentences for the two charges should be served wholly consecutively.

ORDER

50.For D1, I order that the sentences for Charge 1 and Charge 3 should run consecutively, making 6 years and 8 months in total.

51.D2 is sentenced to 5 years 8 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1.

52.D3 is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2.

Ms. Angela Wong, Senior Public Prosecutor of Department of Justice, for the Prosecution

Mr. Raymond C. C. Yu, instructed by Vitus Lawyers, assigned by DLA, for the 1^st Defendant

Mr. William K. F. Hui, instructed by Joseph M. K. Chan, Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the 2^nd Defendant

Mr. Dixon Tse, instructed by Kong & Lam Solicitors LLP, for the 3^rd Defendant