HKSAR v. Huang Liangwei

DCCC 1844/2025

[2026] HKDC 1891

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1844 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to the above offence.

2.According to the Summary of Facts, Custom Officers (PW2) found and examined two postal packets at the Customs Examination Hall where Packet 1 contained one rhino horn in the weight of 1,019 kg and Packet 2 contained another rhino horn of 1.67 kg.  There was no valid import licence covering the importation of these items.

3.The Consignee Address was a room at a hostel booked by the Defendant at the material time.  Customs Officers therefore took out a controlled delivery operation by leaving two “Notification of Collection of Speedpost Item” cards at the hostel.

4.On 15 July 2025, the Defendant and another person visited Tsim Sha Tsui Post Office and presented the 2 cards for the collection of the two horns.  Upon completion of the procedure, he and the other person left the Post Office with each of them holding one of the horns.

5.The Defendant was arrested accordingly, and under caution, he admitted that he collected Packets 1 and 2 for a person called Ah Bill without any import licence.

6.Under further investigation, the Defendant claimed:

(1)  He worked as a temporary staff at a logistics company with a daily wage of around HK$200.

(2)  His friend “Ah Mao” asked him to collect a parcel for “Ah Bill” at the hostel in Hong Kong.  He agreed.

(3)  “Ah Mao” sent the Defendant’s entry-exit permit to “Ah Bill” for booking a hostel.

(4)  He then travelled to Hong Kong with HZL (ie the other guy) from 9 to 11 July 2025.

(5)  “Ah Bill” paid for the accommodation in Hong Kong from 9 to 11 July 2025.  He also received HK$1,000 from “Ah Bill” for buying food during his stay in Hong Kong.

(6)  He extended his stay in Hong Kong to 14 July 2025 and he paid the hostel rent from 12 to 14 July 2025.

(7)  He returned to the Mainland on 14 July 2025; and he was informed by the hostel that two postal packets had been sent to him.  Therefore, he returned to Hong Kong with HZL later on the same date to collect the notification cards from the hostel; and

(8)  He collected Packets 1 and 2 inside the Post Office.

7.AFCD expert confirmed that Horns 1 and 2 were specimens of Rhinocerotidae species which belonged to Appendix I species.  No import licence had ever been issued covering the importation of these horns.

8.The estimated total value of Horns 1 and 2 is around HK$1 million.

9.At the material time, the Defendant in Hong Kong, imported specimens of Appendix I species, namely Horns 1 and 2, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of section 5(1) of the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance, Cap 586.

10.In mitigation, it was said that the Defendant stayed in Hong Kong until 14 July 2025, paying the guesthouse rent himself from 12 July to 14 July.  He returned to the Mainland on 14 July 2025; the guesthouse subsequently notified him that 2 parcels had arrived for him.  Therefore, later that same day, he returned to Hong Kong with the other guy to retrieve the mail notice cards from the guesthouse, and went to Tsim Sha Tsui Post Office the next day to collect the 2 parcels.

11.I was told that the Defendant was born in Fujian in 1984.  He is currently nearly 42 years old and in good health.

12.The Defendant is married with no children.  Prior to committing the offence, he lived in Fujian with his 41-year-old wife and 80-year-old elderly mother.  He was the sole financial support for the family and needed to care for his mother.

13.The Defendant has only a primary school level of education from the Mainland.  Prior to the offence, he worked as a temporary courier for SF Express, earning a daily wage of over RMB 200, with a monthly income of approximately RMB 2,300.

14.The Defendant holds a Two-way Permit for Travelling to and from Hong Kong and Macao, and visited Hong Kong for the first time on 9 July 2025.

15.The Defendant had no criminal conviction record in Hong Kong in the past.

16.The Defendant referred the case of 香港特別行政區 訴 肖荣强 [2022] 4 HKLRD 758 where a number of factors are deemed to be relevant, such as the degree of endangerment of the species involved, the quantity and value, the scale of the operation and the role played by the accused.

17.It is noteworthy that the statutory penalty of the offence was increased in May 2018.

18.The Defence submitted that the followings are relevant sentencing considerations:

(1)  The total weight of the rhino horns involved in this case was 2.689 kg, with an estimated market value of approximately HK$1,000,000;

(2)  There is no evidence in this case suggesting that the Defendant was directly involved in the hunting of rhinos; and

(3)  This case does not involve a syndicate operation, and the Defendant’s role was merely collecting parcels on behalf of someone else.

19.Whilst I accept that the Defendant was a mere foot soldier deployed to collect the items in this case, it is unrealistic to think that there was not a syndicate behind the whole operation.

20.I would give the usual 1/3 discount and acknowledge the limited assistance the Defendant had offered in a controlled operation (See HKSAR v Kilima Abubakar Abbas [2018] 5 HKLRD 88 at #79-81 and HKSAR v Z [2007] 1 HKLRD 977 at #20).

21.This is a serious offence and I am of the view that it is more serious than the case of 肖荣强.  The Horns were packed with other items which was clearly designed to undermine the detection of the offence.  He also came to Hong Kong with the other guy for the sole purpose of committing the offence.

22.Having carefully considered the submissions of the Defence and the nature of the case (in particular this case involved Appendix I species), I take 39 months’ imprisonment to be the starting point.  Giving the Defendant a 1/3 discount, the sentence becomes 26 months’ imprisonment.

23.I further reduced it by 2 months to reflect the co-operation and extra efforts the accused had given to the C&E Department.

24.The sentence is therefore 24 month’s imprisonment.