HKSAR v. Tsui Ying Kit

DCCC 1703/2025

[2026] HKDC 1400

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1703 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty today to 4 separate conspiracies.  Those are conspiracies for an agent to accept advantages, contrary to Sections 9(1)(a)  and 12(1)  of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap 201 and sections 159A and C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

2.The offences themselves are historic in that they occurred between September 2008 and August 2009.  The other conspirators were dealt with by another court in 2011.  The defendant had been placed on ICAC bail on 15 August 2009, which was returnable on 23 October 2009. The defendant had failed to report on 23 October 2009.  Following on that, a warrant of arrest was executed on him.  On 21 July 2025, when the defendant entered Hong Kong from the Mainland via the Man Kam To Control Point, he has been, as I understand, remanded in custody since then.

3.The facts of these conspiracies have been agreed and arise out of the defendant’s employment at the time with Cathay Pacific Airways Limited.  The defendant and his fellow conspirators, Gordon Ng Ka-wah, and Tan Wei-menn, were employed as Customer Service Officers at Cathay Pacific Airways.  They were responsible for carrying out check-in procedures for CPAL passengers at check-in counter for CPAL at the Hong Kong International Airport.

4.The other main conspirators were Chow and an associate Yeung.  They were part of a syndicate for unlawfully facilitating the movement of Mainland travellers to overseas countries via Hong Kong.  There was also a man called Patrick Cheung, and Chan, Thomas Chan, engaged in another syndicate for unlawfully facilitating the movement of Mainland travellers to overseas countries via Hong Kong.

5.In the first 3 charges, the defendant conspired with Chow’s syndicate while in the 4^th charge, the defendant conspired with the syndicate with Cheung and Chan.  I believe these syndicates were run by travel agents. 

6.In respect of the 1^st charge, that is the charge of the conspiracy between December 2008 and August 2009, Chow sought assistance from the defendant in minimising troubles in speeding up the check-in procedures for Mainland travellers arranged by Chow’s syndicate.

7.The defendant would receive the travelling information from Chow and his associates, then he would access Cathay Pacific’s computer system to check the right information of the travellers and security information of Cathay Pacific to ensure the travellers could successfully check-in for flights without complications.  The defendant would conduct prior check-in with Cathay Pacific’s computer system to make assessments on the flights of the transit routes.  Once the travellers had successfully boarded the planes, the defendant would report to Chow of the traveller’s status. 

8.In respect of the 1^st charge, the defendant accepted a total of some HK$15,000 and RMB1,800 from Chow as a reward for carry out these check-in procedures and issuing boarding passes.

9.Charges 2 and 3 relate to what is effectively the same conspiracy that the defendant had involved other Cathay Pacific employees when he was not present and able to do give the assistance to the syndicate.  So between December 2008 and May 2009, the defendant requested Mr Ng to render the same assistance to the defendant as in the case of charge 1, that is assisting the defendant minimising troubles in and speeding up the check-in procedures from certain Mainland travellers arranged by the defendant and his associates.  Mr Ng was given some $500 for each boarding pass issued and he accepted a total sum of $15,000 from the defendant for carrying out these procedures. 

10.Between March and May 2009, defendant requested a man called Tan to render the same assistance to the defendant as in the 1^st charge, that is in minimising the trouble and speeding up the check-in procedures for Mainland travellers.  Tan was rewarded with some HK$1,000 to $2,000 each time he did it.  He totally accepted a total of $16,000 from the defendant for carrying out those check-in procedures and issuing boarding passes.

11.The fourth and final conspiracy existed between September and December 2008 by the introduction of Tan, Cheung and Chan sought assistance from the defendant for carrying out the same check-in procedure as in charge 1 for Mainland travellers arranged by Cheung and Chan’s syndicate.  Defendant and Tan rendered this assistance and they were rewarded $1,000 to 2,000 for each assistance provided.

12.It is formally and was formally the case that Cathay Pacific did not consent to the activities of these employers, including the defendant, and the other conspirators.  They would not approve them accepting advantage from any person as an inducement to or reward for or otherwise on account of the employees doing or having done an act in relation to the principal’s affairs or business.

13.The defendant was arrested on 13 August 2009.  He made extensive admissions in 2 cautioned video-recorded interviews conducted on 14 August 2009.  He admitted he was a ground staff responsible for carrying out check-in procedures.  He knew the ground staff could not accept advantages for carrying out their duties.  He confirmed the existence of the conspiracies and the rewards received.  He said he provided flight route information from the CPAL system, conducted check-in procedures for travellers and notifying if any issues that would arise during the check-in procedures.

14.He recruited other people to assist in providing that information when he was not duty and the reward from the syndicate would be received once the boarding passes were issued to the travellers. 

15.I have already said the defendant was released on ICAC bail as a result of his admissions of those matters and then failed to report on 23 October 2009 and has been absent since then.

16.Defendant is now 45 years old.  He has a clear record in Hong Kong.  There is reference to a spent conviction in the antecedents but that is not to be considered by the court in relation to sentencing today.  Mitigation has been placed before the court by the defence, including letters from family members and the defendant himself.

17.Turning to the matters raised in mitigation, the defendant, I am told is unmarried.  He had lived with his mother and younger sister before he left Hong Kong.  He is educated up to associate degree level in Hong Kong.  He has been absent for 16 years as a result of his involvement in these matters.  The defendant pleads in mitigation before the court today that he made full admissions, disclosing details of the circumstances of the offences.  He made no attempt to minimise his role or blame others, his cooperation was said to be frank and complete.  By the defendant’s plea today, he has avoided the need for trial and saved judicial time and prosecution witnesses. 

18.The defendant’s monetary reward was modest even by the standards of the day in which he received. It.  The case does not involve large scale corruption or systemic abuse for financial gain.  The information did not involve the use of forged travel documents or smuggling the passengers.  There was no perceived threat to aviation security and it is put in mitigation defence the case did not involve particular aggravating factors such as security risks or substantial financial harm. The wrongdoing in the defendant’s case was confined to the improper receipt of the advantages.  It said the defendant is remorseful and regretful for what he has done.  It is put that the defendant has in fact as a result of these offences wasted a considerable portion of his life. 

19.A number of cases are referred to by the defence as cases the court could consider in determining a starting point for sentence.  I do have the advantage of the Judgement of Her Honour Judge D’Almada Remedios who sentenced the other defendants in 2011 on similar charges.  The Judge in that case noted there is no guideline for sentence but determined that a starting point for sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment is appropriate on the charges that the other defendants faced.  I see no reasons why I should depart from that starting point for sentence in respect of these 4 charges.  It is in the interests of justice that it is perceived to be fair and that defendants involved in similar crimes should receive similar sentences.

20.So in respect of each of the 4 charges the defendant faces, I will adopt a starting point for sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment. 

21.I must now determine what discount should be made available to the defendant as a result of his plea of guilty.  The pleas of guilty are timely in respect of the facts of when the defendant was charged but not timely in respect of when the defendant was arrested and bailed for these offences.  I do not think it is a case where the defendant should receive the full 30 per cent discount from sentence, it would be inappropriate for the defendant to receive the same discount as a defendant who has remained in Hong Kong and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.  The courts should not be perceived in any way to encourage defendants who abscond from their court appearances.  I will in respect of these 4 charges grant the defendant a discount of 25 per cent from the original starting point which leads to a sentence on each charge of 18 months’ imprisonment. 

22.I must now determine the overall sentence.  The conspiracies are each separately charged and deal with separate dates.  They could be served to some element consecutively.  I determine that the first 3 charges should be served concurrently one to the other.  And finally, the 4^th charge, there should be a small element of that charge being served consecutively.  I have regard to the way in which the other defendants were sentenced when determining that figure.  I shall order that 2 months of the 4^th charge be served consecutively to the 1^st to 3^rd charges and the balance concurrently. 

23.That leads to an overall sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment for the defendant on these 4 charges.