HKSAR v. Zhang Xionghui

DCCC 802/2025

[2026] HKDC 1503

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 802 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to Theft.  The facts indicated that PW1, a mainland Chinese national, operated a company which specialized in the trading of computer components.  PW1’s business operated without maintaining any physical office in Hong Kong.

2.Since 2017, PW2, a mainland Chinese national who operated a logistic agent business, became acquainted with the Defendant.  The Defendant had a logistics company called Xing Guo Aviation Service (HK)  Co. Ltd (the “Company”).  The Company maintained a warehouse facility in Kwun Tong (“the Warehouse”).  The premises were rented to the Defendant since 2020 at a monthly rental of HK$11,000.  The Defendant offered warehousing services whereby PW2 could store merchandise in the Warehouse for a fee.

3.In or around April 2023, PW2 introduced PW1 to the Company’s warehousing services.  Since then, with the arrangement of PW2, PW1 had stored goods at the Warehouse on 20 different occasions.  Both PW1 and PW2 occasionally visited the Warehouse to inspect the goods, during which they were received by the Defendant on the premises.

4.On 23 October 2023, PW1 purchased 17 boxes of electronic components from overseas suppliers for US$161,815, with arrangements for the shipment to be delivered to Hong Kong for storage.  Through arrangements coordinated by PW2, all 17 boxes were delivered to the Warehouse on 1 November 2023.  PW1 and PW2 also visited the Warehouse in person to inspect the delivered goods on the same day.

5.On 3 November 2023, following an agreement with an overseas customer, PW1 instructed PW2 that 7 boxes of the electronic components needed to be shipped overseas, while the remaining 10 boxes valued at HK$725,000 would continue to be stored at the Warehouse.  Accordingly, PW2 liaised with the Defendant, who subsequently confirmed that he had already arranged the shipment. PW1’s client later confirmed receipt of these 7 boxes.

6.On 9 November 2023, PW1 discovered that 10 boxes of electronic components, identical to his stock stored at the Warehouse, were being offered for sale in Shenzhen.  These boxes bore labels with PW1’s company name.  Upon inquiry, the seller claimed they had sourced the goods from a man in Hong Kong but provided no further information.

7.Both PW1 and PW2 immediately returned to the Warehouse to confront the Defendant in the small hours on 10 November 2023.  Upon inspection, they discovered that the 10 boxes of PW1’s electronic components were missing.  Case was reported to the Police.  CCTV cameras installed in the common area of the floor where the Warehouse was situated captured the following:

(a)  On 1 November 2023, the Defendant opened the Warehouse entrance from inside to receive 14 yellow boxes labeled “KEY008” delivered by couriers to the said floor of the building. The couriers placed these boxes inside the Warehouse.

(b)  On 7 November 2023, the Defendant emerged from the Warehouse to meet a courier who arrived at the said floor of the building with a pallet truck. The courier then loaded 10 yellow boxes marked “KEY008” from the Warehouse onto his pallet truck before departing the premises.

8.Acting upon intelligence, the Defendant’s identity was revealed and he had been put on the wanted list. On 17 November 2024, the Defendant was arrested when he was about to leave Hong Kong.

9.In the subsequent cautioned record of interview, the Defendant stated inter alia the following:

(a)  Since mid-2021, he had been renting the Warehouse for a monthly sum of HK$11,000. The Warehouse was rented under the name of the Company;

(b)  In November 2023, he was in urgent need of money. He thus misappropriated around 8 to 10 boxes of computer components that had been stored at the Warehouse by a client referred by PW2. He had not entered into any written agreement with PW2 regarding the storage services at the Warehouse;

(c)  He encountered a man identified as Mr. Chan, who was acquiring computer components on Shing Yip Street. After inspecting the computer components at the Warehouse, Mr. Chan offered HK$200,000 for the goods. On the next day, he arranged for a courier identified as Ah Lun to collect the goods from the Warehouse and deliver them to Mr. Chan;

(d)  The HK$200,000 cash received from Mr. Chan was used to settle his outstanding debts with various loan companies; and

(e)  He was willing to make compensation to the Victim.

The Defendant’s Antecedent Statement and Mitigation

10.The Defendant is 39 years old, and has received Form 3 education.  He is married and has a 19-year-old son as well as a 13-year-old daughter.  He was the sole breadwinner of the family.  He owned a sole proprietor business at the time of the offence, which failed to sustain sufficient profit.  A bankruptcy order was made against the Defendant on 3 June 2025.  Since the bankruptcy, he had worked as a courier earning $5,000 per month, as well as receiving CSSA to make ends meet.  He has a clear record.

11.The Defence submits that the offence was committed due to heavy financial pressure caused by his failing business and role as sole breadwinner.  Despite his strong desire to make compensation, due to his present financial situation, he is not in a position to do so.

Legal Principles

12.The Defence submitted HKSAR v Cheung Mei Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776 and HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017, where the Court of Appeal’s guidelines for breach of trust cases concerning theft of $250,000 to $1,000,000 would involve a starting point of 2 to 3 years.

Sentencing Considerations

13.I have considered the Defendant’s guilty plea, facts of this case, his clear record, record as a blood donor, the mitigation letters submitted, and all mitigation advanced on his behalf.  As this case is a breach of trust theft case, the guidelines in Ng Kwok Wing ought to be considered.  I find that the appropriate starting point should be 30 months’ imprisonment.  The Defendant will be granted the full 1/3 discount for his guilty plea, and shall be sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.