HKSAR v. Kuang Yaowei

DCCC 93/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 93 OF 2015

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

---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence. This is described as a telephone deception drop-off case.

2.The victim, a Mr Chik Bing (PW1), is aged 87 years.  It is admitted that on 26 November 2014 in the afternoon at about 2 o’clock, he received a telephone call from an unknown male.  This person claimed to be PW1’s son and claimed he had been abducted because he was a guarantor of a person for $200,000, who defaulted.  Another also unknown male took over that conversation, asked for the repayment of that money.  Eventually, it was agreed that a sum of cash of $10,000 would be paid.  The meeting was to be outside the Sun Wai Restaurant in Chai Wan.

3.PW1 went to the restaurant about 2.30 with the money.  When he was there, a security guard, who was PW2, became suspicious and enquired of him, found out what was happening and he called the police.

4.Around that time, the victim’s mobile phone rang and another unknown male asked him to describe his clothing.  It was then that the defendant approached PW1, checked the mobile phone, told him he had come to collect the money.

5.PW2 stopped him immediately.  No money was ever handed over.

6.The police were called.  The police arrived and the defendant was cautioned.  He said he did not know what was going on.  He was only told over the phone to collect money from an old man.  He was there to collect money, did not know anything else.

7.He elaborated on that in a subsequent video recorded interview.

8.Travel records show the defendant arrived in Hong Kong from Shenzhen on 24 November, at about 9.17 in the morning.

9.The defendant has a clear record.

10.In relation to the offence, an application was made by the prosecution for an enhancement of sentence, under the provisions of Section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455. 

11.In support of that application, a statement was admitted into evidence under the provisions of Section 65B of Cap 221.  The statement is made by Inspector Lam Cheuk-ho.  The statement gives statistical evidence of the increase in number and prevalence of this particular type of offence and the harm caused by their repeated occurrence.

12.The application is not opposed.

13.The defendant is 21 years of age.  He is single, of Form 3 education, an only child.  He has some previous working experience as a metal worker.  He is a holder of a two-way permit to Hong Kong and is in apparently good health.

14.It was said the defendant was not a party to the telephone deception, his role being limited to collecting the money. Obviously, he is still part of the conspiracy, but with a limited role.

15.The defendant has shown his remorse by writing a letter and pleaded guilty to the offence.

16.I have been shown a number of similar cases to this and it is submitted that this is a single offence with a comparatively smaller amount of money and that it should be considered to lie at the lowest end of the spectrum of sentencing for such offences.

17.Having regard to all those factors, I consider that the starting point for sentence in this case should be 21 months’ imprisonment. 

18.There is a discount of one-third from this figure, to a figure of 14 months’ imprisonment.

19.I consider that an enhancement of the sentence is appropriate.  I shall take a figure of 25 per cent, rounded down to the nearest full monthly figure. 

20.This gives a sentence of 17 months’ imprisonment for this offence and that is the sentence I will impose:  one of 17 months’ imprisonment.