香港特別行政區 對 姚傑偉

On 11 September 2026, the Court of Appeal (Yeung JA) refused leave to appeal conviction and sentence in HKSAR v Yiu Kevin Kit Wai (CACC 175/2025). The respondent (HKSAR) was represented by acting Senior Public Prosecutor Ms. Shen Ka-ki; the applicant appeared in person.

The applicant stood trial in the District Court (before Deputy District Judge Wong Nga-yan) on two counts of evasion of liability by deception, contrary to s.18B(1)(b) of the Theft Ordinance, and was convicted and sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment. Count 1 arose from a HK$150,000 deposit paid by PW3 for a diamond deal that never materialised, secured by a Wing Lung promissory note that was dishonoured on presentation. Count 2 involved PW1, who paid HK$958,145.10 in staged instalments for gold bar trading, only to receive a signed blank cheque she herself filled in for HK$2,263,541 representing the alleged "spread" on her purchases. That cheque was returned unpaid marked "PAYMENT COUNTERMANDED BY THE DRAWER" (§§5-6, 8-13).

The Court held that:

(1) The applicant's four grounds of appeal against conviction were not arguable. The amount on the PW1 cheque had been confirmed via WhatsApp regardless of who filled it in (§40(a)). The kidnapping narrative was thoroughly undermined by the trial judge: gaps in bank statements, fabricated screenshots, inconsistencies between the cautioned statements and trial evidence, and the applicant's failure to seek immediate medical attention or report the incident promptly (§§32, 40(b)).

(2) The fourth ground, that the trial was unfair because he was unrepresented, failed. The court record showed the applicant was given multiple opportunities to retain counsel and affirmatively chose self-representation at multiple interlocutory hearings; he conducted a full defence including cross-examination (§40(d)).

(3) The sentence appeal was equally unarguable. The trial judge correctly distinguished the present case from Liu Ying Fai because no comparable restitution was offered before sentencing, and rejected reliance on HKSAR v Chiu Chun-ming [2025] HKDC 1507 as an un-reviewed District Court first-instance decision involving only HK$22,500 (§§47-49).

For practitioners handling similar cases, two practical points emerge: an accused who voluntarily waives legal representation at multiple stages will struggle to resurrect an unfairness argument on appeal, and a "spread" amount stated on a dishonoured cheque is properly treated by sentencing courts as the figure of the deception rather than the cash actually parted with. Applicants seeking to rely on District Court first-instance sentencing decisions for manifest excess arguments will find little traction unless reviewed authority is on point.