HKSAR v. Zhen Huien

DCCC 378/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 378 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to deal with property, knowing or believing it to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence. This is a type of case which is often referred to as a telephone deception case. There have been a number of such cases recently.

2.The victim Madam Chiu, is aged 90.  She lives alone at a property in Kowloon City.  She has a son aged 60 and a grandson 34.

3.At 11 am on the morning of 1 February 2013, she received a telephone call on her landline from an unknown male impersonating her grandson shouting for help.  A second male took over the telephone conversation and claimed himself as a Mr Lau and claimed that the grandson had been detained and she had to pay a ransom of $130,000.  After negotiation, this was reduced to $50,000.

4.Madam Chiu subsequently made a telephone call to her son and discovered that the grandson was safe all along.  A report was made to the police and the police set up an ambush.  Madam Chiu was provided with a recycle bag containing a plastic bag and some papers as dummy money.  The instructions given to Madam Chiu was that she was to go to Carpenter Road Park in Kowloon City and find a male sitting on a bench inside the park.  She was to ask the male if he was instructed to collect money by a Mr Lau and if he said yes, she would hand over the money bag to that person.  

5.At 2.40 pm, Madam Chiu went to the park as instructed and she found the defendant sitting on a bench and waving his hand to her.  She asked the defendant if he was instructed by a Mr Lau, and the defendant replied yes, and she handed over the money bag to the defendant.  The police then moved in and arrested the defendant.

6.At the time, the defendant had a mobile phone in his left hand and also one in his trouser pocket.  He said that he had been instructed by someone to pick up the money.  However, in a subsequent video-recorded interview, he changed his story, denied the offence and told a pack of lies to the police.

7.According to immigration movement record, the defendant entered Hong Kong at 10.40 am the previous day on the strength of a two-way permit from the mainland. 

8.The defendant has a clear record.

9.In relation to this offence, an application was made by the prosecution for an enhancement of sentence under the provisions of section 27 of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.  In support of that application, a statement was admitted into evidence under the provisions of section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221, the statement being made by Detective Chief Inspector Lam Cheuk-ho.  This gives statistical evidence of the increase in the numbers and prevalence of this particular type of offence and also the increased amount of money being obtained by this method.  The application for enhancement was unopposed by Mr Chan who represented the defendant.

10.In mitigation, I was told that the defendant is 26 years of age, single, finished Form 3 secondary education in China and is a full-time courier from which he earns some RMB3,000 a month.  I am told that he lives with his father who is 56 years of age and suffers from a spinal problem which makes him incapable of working.  I am told that he has a supportive family and harmonious relationship with his father.

11.It was pointed out that the defendant was not a party to the telephone deception, his role being limited to collecting the money.  The defendant has shown his remorse by pleading guilty to the offence.

12.A letter was submitted on behalf of the defendant stating that he comes from a single-parent family, his mother having left the family when he was only 1 month old.  I am told that he comes from a poor family.  A medical certificate was submitted confirming the medical condition of his father. 

13.There were also certain letters issued by some members of his village from where he comes on the mainland in support of the defendant and confirming that he has a clear record.  Those documents confirm that he has a clear record on the mainland and that he has been very helpful and of good character.

14.In relation to this case, it was pointed out by the defence counsel that in the statement of Detective Chief Inspector Lam, two methods of committing this offence are referred to.  One method is the bank deposit method where sums of money are deposited into a nominated bank account and subsequently collected by the perpetrators.  The second method is what is referred to as the drop-off method where the money is deposited in some public place and later collected by a member of the gang.  

15.The unusual feature of this case is that there was a face-to-face collection.  It was pointed out that this was a foolish method because obviously there would be identification issues for anybody involved.  Clearly, this was not a very sophisticated operation.

16.It was also pointed out that the number of victims involved in these offences, a large percentage are retired persons.  The victim in this case, however, is 90 years of age.  This must have been an extremely distressing experience for her to be told that her grandson had been detained it was a cynical attempt to persuade her to pay over a considerable amount of money.

17.I have been shown a number of similar types of case, and it seems clear from those cases that this particular offence is at the lower end of the scale of gravity of offences of this particular kind. 

18.Looking at the cases presented, I have decided that the appropriate starting point for this offence should be 21 months’ imprisonment which will be reduced by one-third to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea.  I accede to the application made by the prosecution for the enhancement of the sentence under the provisions of section 27 of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.  The sentence will be enhanced by a percentage of 25 per cent. 

19.The defendant will therefore go to prison for 17 months and 2 weeks.