HKSAR v. Li Xin

DCCC 308/2026

[2026] HKDC 2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 308 OF 2026

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant faces a charge of "Handling stolen goods" (Charge 1) and 3 charges of "Fraud" (Charges 2 to 4).  He pleaded guilty to Charges 1 to 3.

2.I granted the prosecution's application to leave Charge 4 on the court file, not to be proceeded with against the defendant without leave of court.

Summary of Facts

3.About 2:30 a.m. on 28 May 2025, Mr. Chan (PW1) was sitting on a bench, drinking with his friends, in the Urban Council Centenary Garden, Tsim Sha Tsui.  He became drunk and fell asleep on the bench.  When he woke up at 6:00 the same morning, he found both his mobile phone (E1) and wallet (E2) missing.  E2 contained PW1's HKID card (E3), Home Return Permit (E4), HSBC credit card[1] (E5), and HSBC ATM card[2] (E6).

Charge 1

4.PW1 borrowed his friend's phone to call his own number many times.  At 1:30 p.m. on the same day, an unknow male voice (WP1) answered PW1's call.  WP1 told PW1 that WP1's friend was in possession of E1 to E6.  PW1 agreed to meet WP1's friend at 3:00 p.m. at Exit A1 of Yau Ma Tei MTR Station ("Location 1") for the return of PW1's properties.

5.PW1 arrived at Location 1 at 3:00 p.m. on the same day.  He saw the defendant and asked him if he was in possession of E1 to E6.  The defendant said yes and handed over E6 to PW1, asking PW1 to withdraw $2,500 for him, promising to return E1 to E5 to PW1 in exchange.  PW1 withdrew $2,500 but asked the defendant to give him E1 to E5 first.  The defendant claimed that E1 to E5 were not in his possession and asked PW1 to meet him again at 3:30 p.m. outside a shop at Sincere Podium in Mongkok.  The defendant also asked PW1 to give him $500 as a deposit.  PW1 complied, and the two of them left Location 1.

6.About 4:00 p.m. on the same day, PW1 was informed by HSBC of a total of 5 transactions conducted on 28 May 2025 using E5, namely :-

Charge 2

(a)  $200 at OK Convenience Store at 4:00 a.m. ("Transaction 1");

(b)  $200 at OK Convenience Store at 4:01 a.m. ("Transaction 2");

(c)  $200 at OK Convenience Store at 4:02 a.m. ("Transaction 3");

Charge 3

(d)  $500 at 7-Eleven Store at 5:00 a.m. ("Transaction 4"); and

(e)  $14.70 at 7-Eleven Store at 5:01 a.m. ("Transaction 5").

7.The case was reported to the police.

Arrest

8.About 5:40 p.m. on 2 June 2025, the defendant contacted PW1 and offered to return E3 and E4 to PW1 for $500 each.  PW1 agreed to meet the defendant at 6:45 p.m. on the same day at Location 1.  He then informed the police, and a controlled meeting was arranged.

9.The defendant met PW1 at 6:38 p.m. near Exit B2 of Location 1.  He handed over E3 and E4 to PW1.  DPC 13336 (PW2) then intercepted and arrested the defendant for "Theft" in relation to E1 to E6.  Under caution, the defendant claimed that he was not the one who stole E1 to E6.  PW2 further arrested the defendant for "Obtaining property by deception" and "Handling stolen goods".  Under caution, the defendant admitted that all the "documents" were given to him by someone named "Bald", for whom he was working.  He helped Bald deliver those "documents" for $200 per task.  All the unauthorized transactions were carried out by the defendant.  He had returned E5 to Bald afterwards.

Supporting evidence

10.CCTV footage captured the defendant carrying out Transactions 1 to 5 using E5 at the relevant convenience stores.  The meeting between PW1 and the defendant on the afternoon of 28 May 2025 at Location 1 was also captured.

11.A mobile phone was seized from the defendant upon arrest.  It contained call records and text messages between the defendant and PW1 on 2 June 2025 regarding the return of E3 and E4 at Location 1.

Mitigation & Sentence

12.The defendant is 32 and single.  He has 7 conviction records involving a total of 9 offences, none were related to "Theft" or dishonesty.  Defence counsel Mr. Leung informed me that the defendant resides with his mother and stepfather.  He was a cook earning $21,000 per month until his arrest.  In mitigation, Mr. Leung submitted that it was Bald who asked the defendant if he wanted to earn some quick money.  Bald gave the defendant a credit card and asked him to use it to buy some Apple gift cards.  Regarding the meeting with PW1, Bald gave instructions to the defendant over the phone as to what to say.  The defendant was merely acting as a conduit of Bald.

13.According to the relevant sentencing authorities[3], credit card offences are serious and must be deterred.  Even a small scale credit card fraud with small losses by an offender who is not alleged to be part of a larger syndicate can attract a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment.

14.In HKSAR v Chen Wing Hong CACC 40/2005, the Court of Appeal observed "… in this day and age the integrity of the credit card system is highly important and those who attempt to beat the system by fraudulent methods necessarily erode the confidence which people are entitled to place on this aspect of modern commercial life[4]."

15.Mr. Leung has referred me to the Court of Appeal decision in HKSAR v Li Chi Yat [2019] HKCA 458 (CACC 189/2018), in which Zervos JA held that authorities including Lam See Chung, Stephen[5] and Tu I Lang[6] have recognized that small-scale credit card offences cannot be subjected to strict guidelines because they can vary significantly in a number of ways and that a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment or less would be appropriate[7].

16.In the present case, there is no evidence that the defendant stole PW1's properties.  According to Mr. Leung, in addition to asking the defendant to make purchases using E5, Bald gave him E3 and E4 for his disposal.  The defendant therefore tried to obtain a reward from PW1 by returning E3 and E4 to him.

17.For Charge 1, I have borne in mind the sentencing principles laid down by the English Court of Appeal in R v Webbe (Bernard) [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 22 (which were adopted and applied by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 360).  In my view, the primary offence, namely "Theft" (pickpocketing from a drunk person, to be specific), warrants a starting point of 12 to 15 months' imprisonment.  Based on the value of E1 to E6, I consider 12 months' imprisonment appropriate and just.  With the timely guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 8 months' imprisonment for this charge.

18.The aggregate sum of purchases made by the defendant using E5 was $1,114.70.  I will follow the sentencing principles stipulated in Li Chi Yat.  For Charges 2 and 3, I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment each.  With the timely guilty pleas, I sentence the defendant to 16 months' imprisonment each.

19.Bearing in mind the totality principle, I order the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 to run concurrently; and 4 months in Charge 1 to run consecutively to the sentences for Charges 2 and 3.  Thus, arriving at a total prison term of 20 months.

20.By committing the present offences, the defendant breached his suspended sentence, which was imposed on 24 July 2023 in KCCC 1929/2023 (for "simple possession").  Furthermore, Mr. Leung explained that the defendant had forgotten to renew his HKID card periodically, and this resulted in the offences of "Breach of conditions of stay" (STCC 4756/2024).  Since the nature of the present case is completely different from drug-related offences, I shall not activate the suspended sentence imposed in KCCC 1929/2023.