香港特別行政區 訴 顧靜及另二人

On 29 September 2026, Deputy District Judge Wong Ching-yu sentenced three of five defendants in HKSAR v 顧靜及另二人, DCCC 922/2024, [2026] HKDC 1814, after conviction at trial for fraud and money laundering arising from the FEI Group (Hong Kong) Limited investment scheme. Mr Lai Tsz-kin (Tulip Law Firm, instructed by LAD) acted for the second defendant (顧靜); Mr Shum Chi-fai (Messrs Wat Hung-wah, LAD) acted for the fourth defendant (王渼淇); and Mr Cheung Tai-yau (Messrs Lau Yuk-kuin Chu, LAD) acted for the fifth defendant (林侑蓁).

The scheme ran from February 2017 to September 2018. D1, who pleaded guilty before another judge, was the face of FEI; the others were staff. They told investors their money was AXA-insured, would generate high returns within three to nine months, and would actually be deployed for investment. Approximately HK$6,729,161.10 was collected; investors lost all or most of it (§7-8). After trial, D2, D4, and D5 were convicted of fraud (Charge 1, s.16A Theft Ordinance) and D2 and D4 of money laundering (Charges 6, 7, and 10, s.25 OSCO).

The court held that:

(1) On Charge 1, applying HKSAR v Ho Ka Keung CACC 196/2007, the starting points were: D2 at 48 months on a sentencing basis of HK$4.6 million (agreed); D4 at 24 months; D5 at 12 months (§41, §53, §59).

(2) Where the evidence shows a particular defendant's role and the losses tied to them, the equal-culpability presumption drawn from 劉秋芳 (CACC 416/2007) and 方淑嫺 (CACC 197/2006) does not apply. The court distinguished both for D4 and D5 on that basis (§50-51, §57).

(3) The DoJ took over three years to advise (not 2 years 7 months as the prosecution claimed), making the 5 years 9 months from first arrest to charge a case of "prosecutorial slowness." Applying Secretary for Justice v Chan Kit Bing and 香港特別行政區 訴 朱安芷, the court allowed a uniform three-month reduction (§46-47, §54, §60).

(4) On the money laundering counts, applying 律政司司長 訴 雲國強 and HKSAR v Boma, the starting points were 36 months for each of D2's two charges (HK$2.05M and HK$2.57M) and 24 months for D4 (HK$700,000) (§69, §73). The sentences on the predicate and ML counts ran fully concurrent because the periods overlapped (§78-79).

D2 received 45 months on Charge 1 (concurrent 33 months on each of Charges 6 and 7). D4 received 18 months (concurrent 18 months on Charge 10, with an extra 3-month discount for volunteer work). D5 received 9 months.

For practitioners: the lever for a lower-tier co-conspirator is granular proof of role and a clean separation of investor losses tied to that defendant. 劉秋芳 and 方淑嫺 are rebuttable once those facts are in evidence. On prosecutorial delay, document the DoJ timeline independently: this court went behind the prosecution's own chronology and pegged the discount to the true three-year-plus period of inaction.