A A
B B
DCCC 926/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1909 C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 926 OF 2024
F F
----------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H v H
PANG SHEK FAI
I I
----------------------------
J J
Before: His Honour Judge Tam
K K
Date: 6 November 2025
L Present: Ms Wong Kam Hing, Fanny, counsel-on-fiat, for HKSAR L
Mr Tse King Wai, Roy, instructed by S H Chou & Co,
M M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N Offences: [1] Conspiracy to commit criminal damage N
（串謀犯刑事損壞罪）
O O
[2] Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause
P （無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押） P
Q Q
-----------------------------------------
R R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S
----------------------------------------- S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. Mr Pang pleaded guilty before me to two charges on a Charge
C Sheet as follows. C
D D
2. Charge 1 is Conspiracy to commit criminal damage, contrary
E to section 60(1), 63(2), 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. E
Particulars are that he, on or about 16 December 2023, in Hong Kong,
F F
conspired with other person(s) unknown, without lawful excuse, to damage
G building part(s) inside the premises of Mee Cheong Building, Nos 141-145 G
Portland Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, being property belonging to another,
H H
intending to damage such property or being reckless as to whether such
I property would be damaged. I
J J
3. Charge 2 is Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable
K cause, contrary to section 9L(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure K
Ordinance, Cap 221. Particulars are that he, on 13 August 2024, in Hong
L L
Kong, being a person admitted to bail, without reasonable cause, failed to
M surrender to custody as was appointed by a court. M
N N
Facts admitted by Mr Pang
O O
Charge 1
P P
Q 4. In December 2023, Mee Cheong Building in Portland Street, Q
Mong Kok was undergoing renovation work to be performed by a
R R
construction company founded by PW8 and others.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. On 13 December 2023, PW8 received a call from a male
C person calling himself Jimmy and demanding protection money of C
$100,000 in relation to the renovation work. Subsequent messages
D D
repeated the demand. PW8 ignored them.
E E
6. On 16 December 2023, red paint was splashed at various
F F
building parts of Mee Cheong Building from 3/F to 8/F. Residents of Mee
G Cheong Building could smell strong scent of thinner afterwards. On 17 G
December 2023, green paint was splashed in the office of the construction
H H
company.
I I
7. Repair of the building parts cost about $6,000 to the company.
J J
K 8. CCTV installed at or near Mee Cheong Building captured K
images of Mr Pang’s contact with other person(s) prior to and after the
L L
incident of splashing of red paint between 0223 and 0254 hours on 16
M December 2023. M
N N
9. Upon investigation, Mr Pang was arrested. Mr Pang admitted
O he was recruited by one “Kam Mo” to act as a lookout for a reward of $500 O
when the latter splashed red paint at Mee Cheong Building. Mr Pang
P P
claimed he did not know the purpose of the splashing nor was he involved
Q in the extortion of PW8. Mr Pang also claimed he was not involved in the Q
incident relating to PW8’s office.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
10. Mr Pang now admits by agreeing to be such a lookout, he
C conspired with other person(s) unknown without lawful excuse to damage C
the said building part(s).
D D
E Charge 2 E
F F
11. In relation to this case, when his bail was extended by the
G court on 23 July 2024, one of the conditions was that Mr Pang was to G
appear in the District Court for mention on 13 August 2024. On the latter
H H
date, Mr Pang failed to appear. A warrant of arrest was issued by the
I District Judge against Mr Pang. I
J J
12. On 6 March 2025, during a police raid on a divan in Shanghai
K Street, Mr Pang was found thereat. Subsequently, the arrest warrant was K
executed. Under caution, Mr Pang claimed that he had forgotten to attend
L L
court.
M M
Criminal record
N N
O 13. Mr Pang has 10 previous convictions none similar. O
P P
Antecedents
Q Q
14. Mr Pang is aged 50 (48 at the time of the conspiracy offence),
R R
educated to middle school level, unemployed. Mr Pang is divorced and
S lived alone in private housing in Nathan Road. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
Mitigation
C C
15. Mr Roy Tse of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid
D D
mitigated on behalf of Mr Pang. The following is a summary of the
E mitigation submissions. E
F F
16. Mr Pang’s last job before arrest was as a part-time cook.
G G
17. Mr Pang committed the offence subject of Charge 1 due to
H H
money problem. His role was as a lookout only. He did not know the
I purpose of the paint-splashing. The repair cost was only $6,000, not a huge I
sum. After arrest, he cooperated with the police and made confessions.
J J
K 18. The strongest mitigation is the pleas of guilty. He promises K
not to re-offend.
L L
M 19. Mr Pang’s past records are mainly gambling convictions. M
N N
20. For Charge 1, the maximum penalty is 10 years’
O imprisonment. There is no sentencing tariff. O
P P
21. In HKSAR v Leung Dak Cheong (transliteration) & Anor
Q CACC 28/2010, a case of conspiracy to commit criminal damage with Q
similar facts but with the additional feature that the red paint also landed
R R
on the eyes of a cook, on appeal the sentence after trial was reduced from
S 4 years’ to 3 years’ imprisonment. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
22. In R v Lam Sek Lun CACC 474/1987, a case of criminal
C damage with similar facts, on appeal the sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment C
after trial was not disturbed.
D D
E 23. Mr Tse also cited a District Court sentencing case of HKSAR E
v Cheng Fai Kin & Anor DCCC 187/2013 on charges of criminal damage
F F
for reference purpose only.
G G
24. A starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment was suggested
H H
for Charge 1.
I I
25. Relating to Charge 2, Mr Tse referred to HKSAR v Lo Kam
J J
Fai [2016] 2 HKLRD 308. Mr Tse emphasized that Mr Pang absconded
K at an early stage during transfer of the case to the District Court when no K
date of a substantive hearing had yet been fixed. Furthermore, Mr Pang’s
L L
bail money of $5,000 has been estreated. It was submitted that Mr Pang
M has only been missing for no more than 7 months. A starting point of 4 M
months’ imprisonment was suggested for Charge 2.
N N
O 26. Despite the fact that Lo Kam Fai approved a reduced O
sentencing discount in the range of 20 to 25% (instead of the usual 1/3) for
P P
a late plea to the substantive charge (ie Charge 1 in the case before me),
Q Mr Tse urged the court to nonetheless give Mr Pang the customary 1/3 Q
sentencing discount in light of the factors enumerated in the foregoing
R R
paragraph.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
27. Mr Tse reminded the court to apply the totality principle when
C combining the sentences of Charges 1 and 2. C
D D
Sentence
E E
28. I bear in mind that Mr Pang has been charged with a
F F
conspiracy rather than a substantive offence of criminal damage. I bear in
G mind in Mr Pang’s favour that the particulars of the conspiracy relate only G
to the damage to the building part(s) of Mee Cheong Building. I bear in
H H
mind the limited role of Mr Pang in the conspiracy.
I I
29. Bearing all these things in mind, I adjudge it to be appropriate
J J
to adopt a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment for Charge 1.
K K
30. For Charge 2, the missing period of almost 7 months is not
L L
short and it was only due to a coincidence that Mr Pang was re-arrested. I
M adjudge a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment to be appropriate here. M
N N
31. Mr Pang pleaded guilty to Charge 1 late. Fortunately, not
O much inconvenience was caused to the administration of justice. I will give O
him 25% sentencing discount for his late plea.
P P
Q 32. Mr Pang pleaded guilty to Charge 2 in good time. He will get Q
his usual 1/3 sentencing discount.
R R
S 33. There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify S
another sentence reduction.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 34. I will apply the totality principle before reaching the final C
sentence for Mr Pang.
D D
E (Mr Pang, please stand) E
F F
35. For Charge 1, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
G G
36. For Charge 2, the sentence is 4 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I 37. I order 2 months of the sentence on Charge 2 to run I
consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1. The aggregate sentence is
J J
therefore 20 months’ imprisonment.
K K
L L
M M
N N
( Isaac Tam )
District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 926/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1909 C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 926 OF 2024
F F
----------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H v H
PANG SHEK FAI
I I
----------------------------
J J
Before: His Honour Judge Tam
K K
Date: 6 November 2025
L Present: Ms Wong Kam Hing, Fanny, counsel-on-fiat, for HKSAR L
Mr Tse King Wai, Roy, instructed by S H Chou & Co,
M M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N Offences: [1] Conspiracy to commit criminal damage N
（串謀犯刑事損壞罪）
O O
[2] Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause
P （無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押） P
Q Q
-----------------------------------------
R R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S
----------------------------------------- S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. Mr Pang pleaded guilty before me to two charges on a Charge
C Sheet as follows. C
D D
2. Charge 1 is Conspiracy to commit criminal damage, contrary
E to section 60(1), 63(2), 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. E
Particulars are that he, on or about 16 December 2023, in Hong Kong,
F F
conspired with other person(s) unknown, without lawful excuse, to damage
G building part(s) inside the premises of Mee Cheong Building, Nos 141-145 G
Portland Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, being property belonging to another,
H H
intending to damage such property or being reckless as to whether such
I property would be damaged. I
J J
3. Charge 2 is Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable
K cause, contrary to section 9L(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure K
Ordinance, Cap 221. Particulars are that he, on 13 August 2024, in Hong
L L
Kong, being a person admitted to bail, without reasonable cause, failed to
M surrender to custody as was appointed by a court. M
N N
Facts admitted by Mr Pang
O O
Charge 1
P P
Q 4. In December 2023, Mee Cheong Building in Portland Street, Q
Mong Kok was undergoing renovation work to be performed by a
R R
construction company founded by PW8 and others.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. On 13 December 2023, PW8 received a call from a male
C person calling himself Jimmy and demanding protection money of C
$100,000 in relation to the renovation work. Subsequent messages
D D
repeated the demand. PW8 ignored them.
E E
6. On 16 December 2023, red paint was splashed at various
F F
building parts of Mee Cheong Building from 3/F to 8/F. Residents of Mee
G Cheong Building could smell strong scent of thinner afterwards. On 17 G
December 2023, green paint was splashed in the office of the construction
H H
company.
I I
7. Repair of the building parts cost about $6,000 to the company.
J J
K 8. CCTV installed at or near Mee Cheong Building captured K
images of Mr Pang’s contact with other person(s) prior to and after the
L L
incident of splashing of red paint between 0223 and 0254 hours on 16
M December 2023. M
N N
9. Upon investigation, Mr Pang was arrested. Mr Pang admitted
O he was recruited by one “Kam Mo” to act as a lookout for a reward of $500 O
when the latter splashed red paint at Mee Cheong Building. Mr Pang
P P
claimed he did not know the purpose of the splashing nor was he involved
Q in the extortion of PW8. Mr Pang also claimed he was not involved in the Q
incident relating to PW8’s office.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
10. Mr Pang now admits by agreeing to be such a lookout, he
C conspired with other person(s) unknown without lawful excuse to damage C
the said building part(s).
D D
E Charge 2 E
F F
11. In relation to this case, when his bail was extended by the
G court on 23 July 2024, one of the conditions was that Mr Pang was to G
appear in the District Court for mention on 13 August 2024. On the latter
H H
date, Mr Pang failed to appear. A warrant of arrest was issued by the
I District Judge against Mr Pang. I
J J
12. On 6 March 2025, during a police raid on a divan in Shanghai
K Street, Mr Pang was found thereat. Subsequently, the arrest warrant was K
executed. Under caution, Mr Pang claimed that he had forgotten to attend
L L
court.
M M
Criminal record
N N
O 13. Mr Pang has 10 previous convictions none similar. O
P P
Antecedents
Q Q
14. Mr Pang is aged 50 (48 at the time of the conspiracy offence),
R R
educated to middle school level, unemployed. Mr Pang is divorced and
S lived alone in private housing in Nathan Road. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
Mitigation
C C
15. Mr Roy Tse of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid
D D
mitigated on behalf of Mr Pang. The following is a summary of the
E mitigation submissions. E
F F
16. Mr Pang’s last job before arrest was as a part-time cook.
G G
17. Mr Pang committed the offence subject of Charge 1 due to
H H
money problem. His role was as a lookout only. He did not know the
I purpose of the paint-splashing. The repair cost was only $6,000, not a huge I
sum. After arrest, he cooperated with the police and made confessions.
J J
K 18. The strongest mitigation is the pleas of guilty. He promises K
not to re-offend.
L L
M 19. Mr Pang’s past records are mainly gambling convictions. M
N N
20. For Charge 1, the maximum penalty is 10 years’
O imprisonment. There is no sentencing tariff. O
P P
21. In HKSAR v Leung Dak Cheong (transliteration) & Anor
Q CACC 28/2010, a case of conspiracy to commit criminal damage with Q
similar facts but with the additional feature that the red paint also landed
R R
on the eyes of a cook, on appeal the sentence after trial was reduced from
S 4 years’ to 3 years’ imprisonment. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
22. In R v Lam Sek Lun CACC 474/1987, a case of criminal
C damage with similar facts, on appeal the sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment C
after trial was not disturbed.
D D
E 23. Mr Tse also cited a District Court sentencing case of HKSAR E
v Cheng Fai Kin & Anor DCCC 187/2013 on charges of criminal damage
F F
for reference purpose only.
G G
24. A starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment was suggested
H H
for Charge 1.
I I
25. Relating to Charge 2, Mr Tse referred to HKSAR v Lo Kam
J J
Fai [2016] 2 HKLRD 308. Mr Tse emphasized that Mr Pang absconded
K at an early stage during transfer of the case to the District Court when no K
date of a substantive hearing had yet been fixed. Furthermore, Mr Pang’s
L L
bail money of $5,000 has been estreated. It was submitted that Mr Pang
M has only been missing for no more than 7 months. A starting point of 4 M
months’ imprisonment was suggested for Charge 2.
N N
O 26. Despite the fact that Lo Kam Fai approved a reduced O
sentencing discount in the range of 20 to 25% (instead of the usual 1/3) for
P P
a late plea to the substantive charge (ie Charge 1 in the case before me),
Q Mr Tse urged the court to nonetheless give Mr Pang the customary 1/3 Q
sentencing discount in light of the factors enumerated in the foregoing
R R
paragraph.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
27. Mr Tse reminded the court to apply the totality principle when
C combining the sentences of Charges 1 and 2. C
D D
Sentence
E E
28. I bear in mind that Mr Pang has been charged with a
F F
conspiracy rather than a substantive offence of criminal damage. I bear in
G mind in Mr Pang’s favour that the particulars of the conspiracy relate only G
to the damage to the building part(s) of Mee Cheong Building. I bear in
H H
mind the limited role of Mr Pang in the conspiracy.
I I
29. Bearing all these things in mind, I adjudge it to be appropriate
J J
to adopt a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment for Charge 1.
K K
30. For Charge 2, the missing period of almost 7 months is not
L L
short and it was only due to a coincidence that Mr Pang was re-arrested. I
M adjudge a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment to be appropriate here. M
N N
31. Mr Pang pleaded guilty to Charge 1 late. Fortunately, not
O much inconvenience was caused to the administration of justice. I will give O
him 25% sentencing discount for his late plea.
P P
Q 32. Mr Pang pleaded guilty to Charge 2 in good time. He will get Q
his usual 1/3 sentencing discount.
R R
S 33. There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify S
another sentence reduction.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 34. I will apply the totality principle before reaching the final C
sentence for Mr Pang.
D D
E (Mr Pang, please stand) E
F F
35. For Charge 1, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
G G
36. For Charge 2, the sentence is 4 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I 37. I order 2 months of the sentence on Charge 2 to run I
consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1. The aggregate sentence is
J J
therefore 20 months’ imprisonment.
K K
L L
M M
N N
( Isaac Tam )
District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V