COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to a count of robbery in the Magistrates’ Court during committal proceedings. He was charged on 18 January 2021, at Room 801, Ricky Centre, No. 36 Chong Yip Street in Kwun Tong, together with three named persons and other persons unknown, robbed Madam Yan Ching-ching of 3.5 million and a mobile phone.
The facts which the defendant had admitted are as follows. Madam Yan (“PW1”) and her husband (“PW2”), had been cryptocurrency traders since October 2018. They maintain an account in a cryptocurrency trading platform called Huobi for trading with others.
In late December 2020, PW1 and PW2 became acquainted with a male (“Wanted Person 1”) via Huobi. Wanted Person 1 had approached PW1 and PW2 to purchase a cryptocurrency known as Tether coins. PW1 and PW2 had since undergone four cryptocurrency transactions with Wanted Person 1 at Room 801, Ricky Centre, No. 36 Chong Yip Street, Kwun Tong (“the Office”) which was said to be Wanted Person 1’s Office, where Wanted Person 1 paid for the cryptocurrency in cash.
Since the second transaction, it was either PW1 alone or PW1 together with PW2 who attended the Office to trade with Wanted Person 1.
At about 1414 hours on 18 January 2021, PW1 arrived at the Office alone for another cryptocurrency trade with Wanted Person 1, who previously requested to buy further Tether coins worth HK$3.5 million. After transferring an equivalent amount of Tether coins to Wanted Person 1’s e-wallet, PW1 received 3.5 million in cash (all HK$1,000 banknotes) (“the Cash”) from PW1, who placed the Cash on the table. PW1 then packed the Cash into her Mannings plastic bag.
At this juncture, a group of four masked robbers, including the defendant and three other named persons suddenly dashed out from a room in the Office. One of the robbers held a knife and another robber held a stun gun. The robber holding a knife pointed the knife at PW1 and demanded PW1 not to say anything. PW1 was scared. She immediately placed the Mannings bag onto the table and moved backward. The culprit then took away the Mannings bag containing the Cash and passed it to the other robbers. He also snatched away the mobile phone held by PW1, being an iPhone valued at about HK$10,000.
The culprit instructed PW1 to go inside the room and demanded her not to make any noise. He then checked PW1’s handbag but did not take anything from it. Afterwards, the culprit held a mobile phone with the camera facing PW1. The culprit asked PW1 what she was trading and PW1 replied, “USDT”. The culprit then asked PW1 how much USDT she traded, and PW1 said “HK$3.5 million worth USDT”.
The robbers subsequently left the Office. Wanted Person 1 was also gone and no one was remaining at the Office. At about 1436 hours on the same day, PW1 used another mobile phone to call PW2 and asked for help. A report was then made to the police.
After leaving the Office, the robbers, including the defendant, got on a light goods vehicle driven by PW4, who was a GoGoVan driver hired for a journey from Ricky Centre to Tuen Mun. Upon their arrival at Siu Hong Station in Tuen Mun, the robbers alighted the light goods van.
The escape route of the robbers was captured by the dash camera installed on the light goods van and also by other CCTV cameras. After they alighted the light goods van, the robbers walked along Ng Lau Road from Lam Tei Light Rail Stop towards the direction of Chung Uk Chuen Light Rail Stop.
When the police later conducted a search along Ng Lau Road on 20 January 2021, miscellaneous items including a knife, a stun gun, balaclavas, a grey knitting hat, gloves and other items of clothing were found and seized. Those items were later shown to PW1, who positively identified the items as having been carried or worn by the robbers.
Upon forensic examination of the items seized, the defendant’s DNA was found on two gloves, one shirt and one balaclava. The DNA of another robber was also found on the said balaclava.
Stun gun used in the robbery and seized by the police was capable of generating 3,571 high voltage pulses continuously in three seconds duration for both electrodes. Given its specification, if it were applied to sensitive areas such as the forehead, chest, carotid and spine, it could alter heart rhythms, cause severe pain, disrupt blood flow to the brain and/or stimulate motor neurons, resulting in stunning and disabling effects on the subject. It was a portable device designed or adapted to stun or disable a person by means of an electric shock applied either with or without direct contact with that person.
The defendant had been wanted by police in connection with the robbery. On 20 June 2024, the defendant surrendered himself to the police. He was then arrested.
Under caution, defendant made no admission to the offence but confirmed his acquaintance with another robber. The defendant also admitted that he lived at Hung Tso Tin Tsuen at the time of the incident.
Relevant CCTV footage captured the defendant going from his place of residence to the location of the Office on the material day. The footage also captures the defendant had been acting together with Ching on the afternoon of the same day after the robbery.
The defendant now accepts and admits that at the material time he, together with three other named persons and other persons unknown, robbed PW1 of the Cash and the phone.
The defendant was born on 25 November 2002. He is now 23, but was just over 18 at the time of the offence. He is of clear record and had studied up to secondary 3 in Hong Kong. He had worked as a waiter and was working in a warehouse at the time of his surrender. His parents were divorced and he had an elder sister. I have a letter from his elder sister before me. She stated that the defendant resided with the father.
I have asked Ms Wong for the prosecution who confirmed that had the defendant not surrendered himself, defendant’s DNA would not be available to police. And without the DNA, his involvement in the robbery cannot be confirmed. His identity was only known to the police because one of the robbers had under caution revealed the defendant’s identity.
This is a serious armed robbery committed by a number of robbers. In Mo Kwong Sang, CACC 359/1981, Robert CJ stated in the judgment that:
“...the appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery, where the accused was carrying a knife or other dangerous weapon which he displayed to his victim should normally be 5 years.”
In the present case, a knife and also a stun gun were displayed to the victim. Robert CJ continued to say in the judgment:
“...suggested sentence should be increased if there are other aggravating factors. Among these, though the list is not exhaustive, include the presence of more than one person in the group of robbers, threats made to the victim.”
More recently, the Court of Appeal in the case of Limbu, CACC 64/2021, Zervos JA giving the judgment of the court, said:
“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 or property taken.”
As I said in the outset, this is a serious armed robbery. There are a number of aggravating factors or features in this case. First of all, it involved not less than five robbers. Secondly, this is a well-planned and well-executed robbery, premeditated, and the victim was lured to the Office on the pretence that there is a trading of cryptocurrency.
The victim was frightened. She was ordered to face the camera to speak, and she was on her own in an office with four robbers armed with knife and a stun gun. I also take into consideration the substantial amount of money, HK$3.5 million being taken and was not recovered.
The other three robbers were dealt with by the Court of First Instance on an earlier occasion. I had the benefit of reading the transcript of the sentence in that case. I noted that the learned recorder in that case took an initial starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment for this, I say, serious armed robbery with aggravating features.
I have been struggling for a little while in that I am not too sure whether 7 years’ imprisonment as a starting point is too lenient for such a serious robbery. After careful consideration and, in particular, I do not want to create any unjustifiable grievance on your part, I decided not to depart from the 7 years starting point that the learned recorder had taken.
You are young and, at the time of the offence, just turned over 18, and you have a clear record. But in Mo Kwong Sang, Robert CJ had said little account can be given to the previously good or previously clear record of anyone who takes part in an armed robbery. Though you were quite young, 18 years old, at the time of the offence, but I do not think you are that young that could lessen your responsibility for this robbery. So other than the one-third discount for your plea, I will not give you any discount for your age nor for your previous good character.
I noted, however, you surrendered yourself to police after 3½ years, and I am told in these 3½ years you were in gainful employment supporting yourself. And from the letter from your elder sister, it seems that you remained a fugitive for that 3½ years because you were concerned that no one takes care of your father who is not of good health.
I further had confirmation from the prosecution that had you not surrendered yourself in 2024, police would not have your DNA. Without DNA there is no concrete evidence against you in the robbery. I am prepared to accept that you are truly remorseful to what you had done, and I admire you that you surrendered yourself to the police and decided to turn a new leaf and pay for the penalty as soon as possible.
I am prepared to give you another 6 months discount for your surrendering to police when the evidence against you is not concrete at that stage, I mean concrete against you.
I sentence you to 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
You have been in custody since 2024, June, so I suppose you will not have a long time in prison from today. You are only 23, very young. Hope you can keep your promise. Do not let your elder sister or your father down again. Thank you.
