HKSAR v. Li Bao

DCCC1115/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1115 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.You pleaded guilty to six counts of conspiracy to defraud.

2.Facts revealed that on six different occasions the six victims, most of them elderly persons, received phone calls from persons unknown who claimed that their sons owed the caller a sum of money and was being detained.  Victims were asked to pay a sum of money for the release of their sons.  These sums ranged from $15,000 to $60,000.  Believing what the caller said, these six victims prepared the money and dropped them at places designated by the caller.  Thereafter you collected these money and deposited them into given bank accounts.  You were arrested when you collected money dropped by one of the six victims.

3.Under caution, you admitted that you were instructed by a person named Ah Fu to come to Hong Kong to collect these money, and you were fully aware that these were proceeds of telephone deception cases.  You were rewarded $750 for every $10,000 you collected.

4.In this case the prosecution applies for an enhancement of sentence on the ground that the offences involved substantial planning and is a prevalent offence in Hong Kong.  Defence agrees that these offences, namely telephone deceptions,  are prevalent in Hong Kong but objects to the application on the ground that you only played a minor role in this case, and since you came from mainland, you may not have any idea that this offence is prevalent in Hong Kong, therefore, any enhancement of sentence is unfair to you. 

5.After considering the information supplied by the prosecution, I consider that these charges do fall within the meaning of organised crime under section 2 of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance and it does call for an enhancement under section 27(11) of the ordinance. 

6.Accepting the defence submission that defendant only played a minor role in this case and may have no knowledge of the prevalence of this kind of offence in Hong Kong, I found this court should still exercise its discretion in enhancing the sentence. 

7.In the case of HKSAR v Hung Yung Chun & another(?), the appellate court suggested that a 4 years’ starting pointing is appropriate for telephone deception cases, and one-third enhancement of the sentence is also appropriate.  This is a rather recent decision dated August of this year.  There being no information suggesting to this court that there is a substantial increase in the trend of this kind of offence from August up to this moment, I regard a one-third enhancement is still appropriate. 

8.In sentencing you, I will take into account your plea of guilty, your clear record, your role in this case and also the mitigation put forward by your counsel, and I will also take into account the totality principle.

9.I will take a global sentence for all six charges.  For each of the six charges, I will take 42 months as the starting point.  Because of your plea I reduce it to 28 months and I will enhance the sentence by one-third, therefore, making the final sentence to 42 months.  And all sentences to run concurrently to each other, that means the total sentence also one of 42 months.