HKSAR v. So Peter

HCCC 358/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3842

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 358 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The Defendant faces one count of robbery, contrary to sections 10 (1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. He pleaded guilty before a Magistrate on 13^th October 2025 and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, he confirmed his plea and admission of the Summary of Facts.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

2.On 11^th August 2024, at around 9:30 p.m., when Ms. Deng was counting cash at the counter of a crypto-currency exchange shop (“the Shop”) at Shop 202, 2^nd Floor, W Plaza, President Commercial Centre, No. 608 Nathan Road, Mong Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the Defendant entered the Shop and rushed to the counter. He was wearing a face mask and a cap, and wielded in his hand a knife of 32 centimetres long. He pointed the knife at Ms. Deng and subdued her on the table of the counter by pressing her arm and her shoulder. The Defendant grabbed a sum of HK $400,000 cash from the counter, put the same into his sling bag and fled. The knife was left on the table. Part of the stolen items, namely 25 pieces of HK $500 banknotes, were found on the staircase outside the Shop. 

3.After the incident, Ms. Deng was sent to the hospital. She suffered from right hand 1^st webspace superficial laceration, superficial scratch wounds over anterior chest and bilateral forearm, for which she received medical treatment and suture on her right wound.

4.Upon reviewing the CCTV footages of the Shop and its vicinity, the identity of the Defendant was revealed. It was shown from the CCTV footages that:-

(a) The Defendant went to W Plaza twice, at 6:16 p.m. and 9:02 p.m. respectively; and

(b) He was seen at Langham Place in Mongkok at around 9:39 p.m. on the same day.

5.Bank records showed that the Defendant deposited a sum of HK $83,000 cash into his bank account at 9:48 p.m. on the same day and deposited a sum of HK $95,000 on the following day. 

6.The Defendant was arrested by the police on 20^th September 2024. Under caution, the Defendant admitted that he had committed robbery because he was in debt of a few hundred thousand dollars.

7.In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant stated the following:-

(a) He committed robbery because he had incurred some debts;

(b) He searched online and found that there was a currency exchange shop in W Plaza;

(c) After wandering around W Plaza, he observed that the door of the Shop was open and therefore targeted at the Shop;

(d) After the robbery, he changed his clothes at Langham Place and went to work in Sham Shui Po;

(e) He deposited part of the stolen cash (i.e. HK $83,000) into his Bank of China bank account and further deposited a sum of HK $95,000 into the same account on the following day;

(f) He spent all the stolen money in buying food, repaying debt and gambling in Macau;

(g) The knife and the glove seized at the scene belonged to him. He took the knife from his home; and

(h) The banknotes which were left on the staircase outside the Shop were stolen by him.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

8.The Defendant has one previous criminal conviction in Hong Kong. In August 2006, he was convicted of one charge of “Possession of Dangerous Drugs” at Fanling Magistrates’ Courts, for which he was fined HK $2,000.

MITIGATION AND BACKGROUND

9.The Defendant was born in 1987, currently 39 years old. He was divorced in 2023. He received education up to form 3 secondary school level in Hong Kong. He used to live with his parents, brother and his 13-year-old son in Tai Po. Prior to the arrest, he was a construction worker during daytime and a wastewater tank driver from 9 p.m. to 2 a.m., earning HK $50,000 in total each month.

10.Mr. Raymond C. C. Yu, Counsel for the Defendant, submits that the Defendant had a miserable childhood, being separated from his mother and younger sister. His father was a compulsive gambler, who often abused him physically whenever the father had gambling losses. When the Defendant was 8 years old, his mother came to Hong Kong from Mainland China for family reunion. However, the domestic violence continued. His traumatised childhood experience has affected the Defendant deeply, Mr. Yu says.

11.Mr. Yu further submits that the Defendant committed the present offence to repay the gambling debt. He had been involved in different kinds of gambling activities, such as football betting, horse racing, and mahjong, and had borrowed loans from friends and financial institutions. By August 2024, the accumulated debt was half a million Hong Kong dollars, Mr. Yu submits.

12.In his mitigation submission, the defence said:-

“6. Defendant got married at age of 24 and acted as the sole breadwinner for his family. However, in 2023, his wife unilaterally pursued a divorce. The sudden dissolution of his marriage and the fracturing of his family profoundly shattered Defendant, leaving him profoundly isolated, forlorn, and deeply depressed.

7. As a naturally introverted individual, Defendant internalized his profound grief and anxiety over his son’s future. Paralyzed by a growing dread of returning to an empty matrimonial home haunted by memories of his ex-wife, Defendant turned to gambling (horse racing, football, and mahjong). This was not driven by greed, but rather as a desperate, dysfunctional coping mechanism to achieve temporary psychological escapism from his severe emotional trauma.”

SENTENCE

13.Robberies of jewellery shops, banks and other establishments in possession of valuable items or large amounts of cash are very serious offences. The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for robbery is that of life imprisonment.

14.In Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLRD 610, it has been established that the appropriate sentence for an ordinary armed robbery where the accused was carrying a knife or other dangerous weapon, excluding a firearm, which he displayed to the victim, should normally be 5 years’ imprisonment. As a further guide, the Court of Appeal in Mo Kwong Sang indicated that if the accused had broken into a private domestic or business premises, the appropriate sentence was one of 6 years. If there is any physical violence, including tying the victim up, a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

15.In HKSAR v Yip Hoi Kei [2005] 2 HKLRD 165, the target of the robbery was a post office which kept a large amount of cash. The applicant and another person had forced their way into the post office, holding an extensible rod which was used to threaten the staff. The Court of Appeal considered that, while not as serious as robbery of a bank or a jewellery shop, robbing a post office is more serious than street robberies, and warranted a sentence heavier than the guideline laid down in Mo Kwong Sang, which only applied to the usual types of robbery. A more serious sentence is required to deter, and the starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment adopted by the trial judge was found to be appropriate.

16.In HKSAR v Wong Kam [2013] 1 HKLRD 39, the 1^st applicant entered a shop, robbed a mobile phone and a Bluetooth headset. He used a 25-cm-long knife to threaten and stab the victim in the wrist, causing a 0.5-cm wound. The trial judge adopted a starting point of 9 years. The Court of Appeal held that there were several aggravating factors in the case, inter alia, the robbery was committed in a private business premises and actual violence was used. It was held that the uplift of the starting point by a total of 3 years from the guideline sentence contemplated in Mo Kwong Sang was fully justified.

17.In HKSAR v Limbu Binod [2021] HKCA 1431, Mr Justice Zervos JA, said at §23 : “In robbery cases, a sentencing court when assessing the starting point to be adopted will take into account aggravating factors or features that reflect the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender, such as the circumstances and location of the robbery, the target of the robbery, the degree of planning and execution involved, the level of force or violence, the extent of the injuries sustained by and impact on a victim or victims, the nature and use of a weapon, the number of offenders, the use of clothing to disguise the identity of the offenders, and the items of property taken.”

18.In HKSAR v Lam Man Chung [2024] HKCA 493, Mr Justice Macrae VP said at §23, that sentences for robbery of banks, currency exchange or remittance shops and goldsmith or jewellery shops must carry with them a significant element of public deterrence, because of the large amounts of cash and valuables being carried on the premises, which offer significant temptation to potential robbers. He held that a starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment was appropriate for that case which concerned a conspiracy to rob a high street jewellery shop with a machete and sledgehammer by a group of masked men in broad daylight.

The Present Case

19.In this particular case, I have taken into account the fact that at the material time the Defendant equipped himself with a weapon, i.e. a 32cm long knife, with the intent to intimidate the staff of the Shop. He also wore a facemask and a cap to hide his identity. During the robbery, the Defendant brandished the knife and pointed it at a woman, i.e. Ms. Deng. He subdued Ms. Deng, and applied physical force against her. She sustained injuries and received medical treatments including suture.

20.It is submitted by the defence that it was Ms. Deng herself who put up resistance to snatch back the money, and that caused her the injuries. I find this mitigating factor somewhat counter-productive, as it was a shining example of “playing the victim”.

21.I take into account the fact that the Defendant was a lone robber and that the robbery lasted for a short time only.

22.I also take into account the fact that the robbery was committed at acryptocurrency exchange shop, a place where large amounts of cash would be kept. There certainly is a need to enhance the sentence.

23.There are other aggravating factors:-

(a) The robbery was premeditated; the Defendant conducted an online search to locate the Shop;

(b) He went to W Plaza at about 6:16pm in a different T-shirt; the purpose of that visit is self-explanatory;

(c) The Defendant brought along a 32cm knife with him, and used it to threaten the victim Ms. Deng during the robbery;

(d) Actual violence was used and Ms. Deng was injured;

(e) The value of the stolen property is high: HK$400,000;

(f) Only HK$12,500 of the HK$400,000 was recovered, not by way of restitution, but because 25 pieces of HK$500 banknotes were found on the staircase outside the Shop;

(g) The Defendant was wearing a mask and a cap during the robbery to hide his identity; and

(h) He went to Langham Place and changed his clothing again after the robbery, to avoid detection by the Police.

24.Having considered all the circumstances, I consider the appropriate starting point for this robbery to be 8 years' imprisonment. The Defendant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, for which he is granted the full one-third discount. After applying the discount, the sentence of the Defendant is reduced to 5 years 4 months’ imprisonment.

ORDER

25.By reason of the matters aforesaid, the Defendant is sentenced to 5 years 4 months’ imprisonment.

Ms. Clara Ma, Senior Public Prosecutor of Department of Justice, for the Prosecution

Mr. Raymond C. C. Yu, instructed by Chong & Yen, assigned by DLA, for the Defendant