HKSAR v. Cheung Yu Chak

DCCC 440/2026

[2026] HKDC 1962

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 440 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Fraud". He, together with other person(s)  unknown, obtained 2 luxury watches, the agreed selling price of which was $2,353,000 in total, from the seller without making payment.

Summary of Facts

Background

2.Mr. Zeng (PW1)  was the manager of a luxury watch dealer shop based in Guangzhou ("Juhang").  On 25 March 2025, Juhang's procurement department received messages from a WeChat user, whose ID name was "Car_agency" ("the WeChat User"), showing interest in purchasing a Rolex watch. PW1 then started communicating with the WeChat User.  They agreed to complete the sale on 29 March 2025 in an office located at the 18^th Floor, Star House, Tsim Sha Tsui ("the Office").  The agreed selling price was $324,800.

3.About 2:24 p.m. on 29 March 2025, Mr. Liang (PW2), a staff member of Juhang, took the Rolex watch to the Office.  He completed the transaction with the defendant. 

The fraud

4.On 1 April 2025, the WeChat User expressed his interest to PW1 in a Rolex watch (serial number 1E1L0975; "Watch 1")  and a Patek Philippe watch (serial number 7480163/6513827; "Watch 2"). PW1 agreed to sell Watches 1 and 2 at $875,000 and $1,478,000 respectively. Both parties also agreed to complete the sale at the Office on 9 April 2025.

5.On 9 April 2025, PWs 1 and 2 met up with the defendant on the Ground Floor of Star House. The defendant led them to the Office. There was a receptionist at the entrance. The defendant escorted PWs 1 and 2 to a manager's room ("Room 1").

6.In Room 1, the defendant inspected Watches 1 and 2. When he finished, he took out 2 stacks of $1,000 banknotes from the safe in the room and put them on the desk. The defendant told PWs 1 and 2 that the total value of the 2 stacks of banknotes was $2 million. He asked PWs 1 and 2 not to disassemble them until he had put both watches in the safe. Having done so, the defendant locked the safe and placed the 2 stacks of banknotes on top of the safe. He then made a phone call asking for a banknote counting machine. After the phone call, the defendant left Room 1, claiming that he would get the counting machine around 1:40 that afternoon.

7.PWs 1 and 2 waited until about 4:00 in the same afternoon, but the defendant did not return. PW1 left Room 1 to speak to the receptionist and discovered that she was also gone. Feeling suspicious, PW1 went into the room next to Room 1 ("Room 2"). There were 2 black chairs and a black floor-standing wooden cabinet. PW1 checked the black cabinet and discovered that it had a hole connecting it to the safe in Room 1. The safe also had a hole in its back, and the wall between the two rooms had a hole as well. Whatever was placed in the safe in Room 1 could be retrieved from the black cabinet in Room 2. Watches 1 and 2 were not in the safe or the black cabinet. They disappeared from the Office. PW1 disassembled the 2 stacks of banknotes and discovered that, except for the top and bottom notes, all were "training notes" (for tellers to practice counting). The case was reported to the police.

CCTV footage

8.Between 10:23 a.m. and 1:11 p.m. on 9 April 2025, the defendant entered Star House and took the lift. He walked into Room 1, set up the safe and checked the "banknotes" inside the safe. He then had a conversation with an unknown male who sat across the desk from him.

9.Between 1:15 and 1:43 p.m. on the same day, the defendant took the lift and left Star House. He returned to Star House with PWs 1 and 2. They entered Room 1. PWs 1 and 2 took out Watches 1 and 2 and placed them on the desk. The defendant placed 2 stacks of banknotes on the desk. He put Watches 1 and 2 in the safe and placed 2 stacks of banknotes on top of the safe. He left the Office, took the delivery lift to the Ground Floor, and left Star House.

Tracing of the stolen watches

10.Police investigation revealed that in the afternoon on 3 April 2025, Mr. Chu (PW3), a staff member of "Watch Maker", received a WhatsApp message soliciting a price quotation for Watch 2. PW3 quoted a price. On 8 April 2025, the parties agreed to complete the sale on the following day. About 2:06 p.m. on 9 April 2025, the defendant arrived at Watch Maker. He handed over Watch 2 to PW3 for inspection. Finally, PW3 paid the defendant cash in the sum of $1,240,000 for Watch 2. The defendant's personal particulars (including his HKID card number)  were recorded on the invoice.

11.Similarly, in the afternoon on 5 April 2025, Madam Sin (PW4), a staff member of "RWW Watch Company", received a WhatsApp message soliciting a price quotation for Watch 1. PW4 quoted a price. The parties agreed to complete the sale on 9 April 2025. About 2:50 p.m. on 9 April 2025, the defendant arrived at RWW Watch Company. He handed over Watch 1 to PW4 for inspection. Finally, PW4 paid the defendant cash in the sum of $780,000 for Watch 1. The defendant's personal particulars (including his HKID card number)  were recorded on the invoice.

Arrest and ID parades

12.The police arrested the defendant on 24 April 2025. In his video recorded interview, he remained silent.

13.ID parades were conducted. Both PWs 1 and 2 have identified the defendant as the person who had dealt with them in Room 1. Both PWs 3 and 4 have identified the defendant as the person who had respectively sold them Watches 2 and 1.

Mitigation & Sentence

14.The defendant is 36 and has one previous conviction dated May 2022 involving a minor gambling offence for which he was fined $1,000. Defence counsel Mr. Tsoi informed me that the defendant is single and resides with his mother (aged 59)  and elder sister (aged 37)  in a public housing unit. He last worked as a waiter in a mahjong parlour earning roughly $40,000 per month. He had been unemployed for 3 months prior to his arrest. In mitigation, Mr. Tsoi explained that the defendant owed heavy debts to loan sharks because of his gambling habit and unstable income during the pandemic. He foolishly agreed to join the scam initiated by a friend for a reward of $50,000. He has reflected deeply on his criminal conduct and is now truly remorseful.

15.Although this case does not involve the Barrick type of breach of trust, I find the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 relevant. In my view, such guidelines are simply a yardstick. For cases which are not of the Barrick type, the court may still follow the guidelines in Ng Kwok Wing or impose a sentence which is higher or lower than the guidelines provide, depending on the facts of each case.

16.This case is a well-orchestrated scam targeted at PW1, PW2 and/or their company. The WeChat User first established a rapport with PW1; the defendant then gained PW2's trust by completing the purchase of a Rolex watch at the Office. The hole-in-the-wall set-up was a parody of "Mission: Impossible". I accept that the defendant was probably not the mastermind(s)  behind this scam, because he was foolish enough to have given out his personal particulars when transacting with PWs 3 and 4. He was doomed to be caught, yet his role was indispensable. Had the defendant not acted as a pawn, the mastermind(s)  behind him would not have succeeded. He must now bear the consequences in their stead. I consider the scam perpetrated in the present case to be of a seriousness commensurate with that in Ng Kwok Wing, and I shall follow the guidelines in that case.

17.According to Ng Kwok Wing, if the amount stolen is between $1 million and $3 million, the starting point is 3 to 5 years' imprisonment. Applying a strict arithmetical approach, the starting point for $2,353,000 should be 52 months. For ease of calculation, I adopt 51 months as the starting point. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 34 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 34 months' imprisonment.