HKSAR v. Koh Zheng Xi, Leonard

HCCC 374/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 374 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The Defendant, pleaded guilty on 23 October 2025 before a magistrate at the Eastern Magistracy to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. As a result of this plea of guilty, he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. In the charge, the defendant admitted that on 5 December 2023, at the Ground Floor, Silka Far East Hotel, Nos. 135-143 Castle Peak Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, in Hong Kong, together with persons unknown, he unlawfully trafficked in 6,810 grammes of a liquid containing 3,212 grammes of cocaine. The Summary of Facts dated 15 September 2025 was admitted by the defendant.

On 4 December 2023, a DHL parcel, which was a carton box, arrived in Hong Kong. It stated that it contained four bottles of red wine addressed to the defendant who is named Leonard Koh with the contact number of +85297390250. It was to be delivered to a hotel at 135‑143 Castle Peak Road, Tsuen Wan. This was intercepted and the police were alerted about the parcel.

On 5 December, the police officer opened the parcel which was found to contain four plastic bags containing four plastic wrappings containing four glass bottles with liquid containing the quantity of drugs as stated in the charge. The carton box was repacked and sealed, however this time it was replaced with four bottles of water.

A decoy police officer carried the carton box to the hotel. At 4.17 pm, he presented the delivery note to the hotel staff and asked the staff member to call the contact number on the box. At 4.20 pm, the defendant arrived at the hotel lobby and told the decoy officer in English “I am Leonard Koh”. The decoy officer passed the delivery note to the defendant, who signed on it to acknowledge receipt of the parcel. The parcel was then passed to the defendant, who carried it with both hands and walked towards the lift.

At 4.21 pm, the defendant was intercepted and arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs. He remained silent under caution. Nothing suspicious was found on him. A hotel key card of Room 1107 was found in the defendant’s right jacket pocket. Upon search of the Room 1107, nothing suspicious was found.

In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated under caution that:

(a) He first went to China from Malaysia in mid‑November 2023 and then came to Hong Kong in late November 2023 from Shenzhen, China. He left Hong Kong for Shenzhen for about two to three days and returned to Hong Kong in early December 2023.

(b) He came to Hong Kong in early 2023 to collect a parcel containing bottles of red wine for a reward upon introduction by an unknown male. He was to stay at the hotel from 3 to 11 December.

(c) He met this unknown person in a bar, who was a friend of his friend, the unknown person purchased his air ticket from Malaysia to Shenzhen.

(d) After he arrived at the hotel, another unknown male gave him a black iPhone which was to be used by him for collecting the parcel.

(e) At about 4 pm on 5 December 2023, he received a call from the staff of the hotel that there was a parcel for him. He went to the lobby to collect the parcel and was arrested.

(f) In relation to the 14,364.50 cash, he said $13,920 was the reward he had received from the unknown person, $300 was the deposit refunded by the hotel, and the coins belonged to him.

Upon search of the hotel room, the following items were found:

(1) a DHL delivery note;

(2) three receipts of the hotel;

(3) a key card of Room 1107;

(4) a black mobile phone and a green mobile phone;

(5) two Octopus cards;

(6) the cash of HK$14,364.50, renminbi 6,080.60, Malaysian Ringgit 370.30;

The defendant had with him a mobile phone with the contact number as stated on the parcel.

Movement record showed that the defendant entered into Hong Kong on 23 November 2023, left on 30 November 2023, returned to Hong Kong on 3 December 2023.

CCTV footage of the hotel showed that at 4.11 pm on 5 December 2023, the defendant collected the parcel at the hotel lobby and carried it with both hands.

The estimated street value of the cocaine was $3,580,202.

I turn now to the background and mitigation. Defendant’s counsel Ms D Crebbin has submitted written mitigation on behalf of the defendant. Together with the mitigation she has three letters from the defendant and his parents. I have taken into account all that has been submitted on the defendant’s behalf. The defendant was born in Malaysia and is a Malaysian national who is now 26 years old. At the time of the offence he was aged 23. He has a clear record. He obtained Form 3 secondary level education but left school at the age of 15 and has since worked as a salesman selling mobile phones and used cars up until the time of his arrest.

The defendant said that he was approached by an unknown male who offered him money as reward for coming to Hong Kong and picking up a parcel containing red wine which he was then to deliver onto someone else. He said he was in need of money. He was young and naïve and therefore was tempted to agree. The defendant said he never appreciated at the time how serious it was just to collect and pass on a parcel to another person. He sincerely regrets what he has done and swears he will never be so stupid to do something like this again in the future.

Ms Crebbin submits that there is really little that can be said in mitigation in this sort of case but submits that the defendant is genuinely remorseful for what he has done and fully realises that he has not only ruined his own life during his prime years but has also brought shame on himself and to his family and is a big disappointment to them.

Despite his family living abroad in Malaysia, they have done their utmost to stand by their son and made every effort to come to Hong Kong whilst in remand. His parents and siblings are in fact here in court today.

I turn now to sentence. The approach to sentencing in drug trafficking cases are the ones laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and complemented in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150. The application of the principles and the steps are as follows.

The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the relevant guideline applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned. The revised tariff case for the drugs heroin and cocaine is set out in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKCA 234. Pursuant to the tariff where an amount trafficked is 3,212 grammes of cocaine, that falls within the bracket of between 1,500 and 5,000 grammes, attracting a starting point of between 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment. This amount, by itself, would arithmetically speaking attract a starting point of 21 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based on the evidence. In this case, the defendant came specifically to Hong Kong to collect the parcel containing drugs and he was to deliver them to another. It is not known where he was to deliver the parcel to. The evidence suggests and it is highly suspicious that he had trafficked in drugs at least before. The evidence is from the fact that there was a DHL receipt found in his hotel room and he had left Hong Kong to go to the mainland and return to Hong Kong, of which another DHL package was delivered. There is however no evidence nor is there an irresistible evidence that he had trafficked in drugs before, nor that he was going to take these drugs to the mainland, but I state it is highly suspicious that this was the modus operandi.

I turn now to the third step. The third step is to identify where in the relevant band the defendant came. In the circumstances of this case, given the role of the defendant, the court accepts that he was a courier for these drugs in Hong Kong only. Taking into account the third band of where in the guidelines the defendant should lie, I consider that an appropriate starting point should remain at 21 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

The fourth step is a consideration of any aggravating factors. In this case, I do consider there to be an aggravating factor which calls for an enhancement of the starting point. The facts of this case show that the defendant has specifically entered Hong Kong to commit this very serious offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was paid a reward. I consider that an enhancement of 5 months’ imprisonment from the starting point is warranted.

As stated in the case of HKSAR v Norena Gutierrez Cristhian Andres [2015] HKEC 699, the Court of Appeal at paragraph 20 stated:

“Thus when a foreigner comes to Hong Kong specifically for committing a crime here then that is an aggravating factor and has long been regarded as such. It matters not that Hong Kong, its people or its institutions, are not the victims of his crime; what matters is that the foreigner has specifically chosen or targeted Hong Kong, the place, its people or its institutions for his criminal activity. The courts must do what they can to deter foreign criminals who would use Hong Kong as a place for the commission of their crimes.”

In the circumstances, the starting point being one of 21 years 10 months’ imprisonment, being enhanced by 5 months, the notional starting point is therefore 22 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

The fifth step is to consider all mitigating factors, bearing in mind that in this particular branch of sentencing, personal circumstances would generally count for little. The most significant mitigating factor is the defendant’s plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity of which he will benefit from a one-third discount to his sentence.

Defendant, the starting point being 22 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, giving you the one-third discount, that is reduced to 14 years and 10 months’ imprisonment to which you shall so serve.

In observing the sixth step, I have observed the overall sentence passed and I am satisfied that it is fair, just, and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender.