A HCCC 413/2024 A
[2025] HKCFI 6495
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 413 OF 2024
D ----------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F F
Zsa Sing-tak
G ----------------- G
Before: Hon Woodcock J
H Date: 16 December 2025 at 2.35 pm H
Present: Mr Matthew Hui, PP of the Department of Justice, for
I
HKSAR I
Mr Victor Ho, instructed by Kingston Tong and Co,
assigned by DLA, for the accused
J Offence: (1) Being a prescribed officer maintaining a standard J
of living above that commensurate with his official
emoluments (現任訂明人員維持高於與其公職薪俸相稱的生活水
K K
準)
(2) to (4) Dealing with property known or believed to
L represent proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已 L
知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產)
M (5) Misconduct in public office (藉公職作出不當行為) M
(6) Public servant accepting an advantage(公職人員接受利
益)
N N
---------------------------------
O Transcript of the Audio Recording O
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
P P
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to the following charges:
Charge 1, being a prescribed officer maintaining a standard
Q Q
of living above that commensurate with his official
emoluments, contrary to section 10(1)(a) and 12(1) of the
R Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Chapter 201. R
Charges 2, 3 and 4 are identical offences of dealing with
S property known or believed to represent proceeds of an S
indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the
Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 455, money
T T
laundering offences. In Charges 1 to 4, the defendant is
accused of committing these offences with his wife, Ng Wai-
U Shan. U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 1 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A Charge 5, misconduct in public office, contrary to Common A
Law and punishable under Section 101I(1) of the Criminal
Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221; the last charge, Charge 6,
B being a public servant accepting an advantage, contrary to B
Section 4(2)(a) and 12(1)1 of the Prevention of Bribery
Ordinance.
C C
The defendant and his wife married in December 1995. At all
D material times, both were government employees. The D
defendant worked in the Electrical and Mechanical Services
Department, whilst his wife worked in the Social Welfare
E Department. Both are prescribed officers and public E
servants for the purposes of the offences under the
Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
F F
In his role as a senior building services engineer, the
G defendant was responsible for handling and overseeing the G
tendering and operations of public works contracts of a
subdivision of the department. He prepared tender
H documents, approved contractors’ works, reviewed H
contractors’ performances, and could influence their tender
I
scores in government tenders. I
The defendant pleaded guilty to all six charges on
J 28 November 2024 at Eastern Magistracy and was committed to J
the Court of First Instance for sentence. He confirms his
pleas and admission of the Summary of Facts.
K K
The facts of Charge 1 are that the defendant and his wife
L maintained a standard of living above that which is L
commensurate with their present and past official emoluments
between 1 January 2012 and 30 August 2019. In that relevant
M period, their monthly official emoluments over that 7½-year M
timeframe totalled, for the defendant HK$9,075,648, and for
his wife HK$5,969,964.
N N
During the relevant period, after a thorough investigation
O of their finances, the defendant agrees that he spent a O
total of HK$29,725,016 when his identifiable sources of
funds, which included his official emoluments, was
P HK$19,094,771. P
Having taken into account other legitimate sources of funds,
Q Q
including personal savings and money gained from the selling
of assets, the defendant had an excess of expenditure over
R identified sources of HK$7,091,011. R
In other words, he maintained a standard of living above
S which is commensurate with his present or past official S
emoluments and other total known sources of funds earned and
received during the relevant period. Over the same period,
T T
his wife had an excess of expenditure over identifiable
sources of HK$4,812,976.
U U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 2 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A In total, as a couple, during that relevant period, they A
spent far more than their present or past official
emoluments and identifiable known sources of funds by a
B total of HK$11,903,987. The defendant agreed this sum B
represented an unknown source of funds.
C C
The facts of Charge 2 are that the defendant received in his
Bank of China account, between 6 January 2012 and 10 October
D 2018, 127 cash deposits totalling HK$5,227,000. D
The facts of Charge 3 are that the defendant received in his
E HSBC account, between 9 April 2014 and 8 August 2014, three E
cash deposits totalling HK$252,500.
F F
The facts of Charge 4 are that the defendant received in
that same HSBC account, between 17 March 2017 and 21
G September 2018, 19 cash deposits totalling HK$782,000. G
The amount of cash deposits over these three charges of
H money laundering total HK$6,261,500. The defendant admits H
this amount represents the proceeds of an indictable offence
I
and he dealt with the said proceeds. I
For the background behind Charges 5 and 6, a Mr Chan
J Tsz-wing was an integral personality behind them. He was a J
director and shareholder of Million Engineering Limited
(“MEL”), director and shareholder of Great Rising
K Engineering Limited (“GREL”) and a director-shareholder of K
Sun Wo Engineering Consultants Limited (“SWECL”). He was
L intrinsically linked to the defendant and maintained a close L
personal relationship with him.
M On 17 October 2016, the Engineering and Mechanical Services M
Department awarded a contract worth HK$6.7 million to a
company who then subcontracted it to GREL.
N N
On 20 April 2018, the Engineering and Mechanical Services
O Department awarded a work contract worth HK$84.7 million to O
a company who then subcontracted it to SWECL. Both
contracts were for a period of three years.
P P
In mitigation, I have heard the defendant admits that he
frequently socialised with Chan, travelling overseas
Q Q
together regularly, meeting often in Hong Kong and
discussing the tendering process of government work
R contracts with Chan. R
All Electrical and Mechanical Services Department staff who
S deal with any tendering of work contracts are required to S
sign an undertaking that they have no conflict of interest
with any potential tenderer and must actively take steps to
T T
avoid any conflict of interest with those tendering. They
are to declare any conflict of interest.
U U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 3 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A Moreover, employees are not to accept any gifts or benefits A
that may give rise to a conflict of interest. They should
not socialise excessively with those that tender for
B government work contracts, as well as appointed contractors, B
subcontractors, and suppliers of the department. The
defendant admits he was well aware of these requirements,
C C
rules and regulations.
D At no point did the defendant report to his supervisor that D
he had a close relationship with Chan. In fact, he signed
undertakings for the two work contracts I have just referred
E to, declaring that he had no conflict of interest with Chan E
or any potential tenderer for those contracts.
F F
The defendant also informed Chan about the terms of the work
contracts at the time of the tendering for that
G $84.7 million contract. The defendant even signed off on a G
contractor’s performance report involving an employee or
worker who sustained injury in the course of his employment
H for those companies Chan was connected to. These facts are H
behind Charge 5.
I I
As for Charge 6, when the defendant was arrested on
28 February 2019, a bundle of cash, specifically HK$40,000,
J was found in the defendant’s office tied up with a rubber J
band bearing Chan’s DNA.
K The defendant admits that on 17 January 2019, he had lunch K
with Chan. He paid for lunch and at the same lunch, Chan
L gave him that HK$40,000. On that same day, the defendant L
approved three work orders under the HK$84.7 million work
contract awarded on 20 April 2018. He admits he accepts an
M advantage of this sum of cash. M
Mitigation
N N
Mr Ho has said all he can possibly say in mitigation on
O behalf of the defendant. The defendant’s best mitigation is O
his pleas at the earliest opportunity. Mr Ho does offer
reasons for the defendant committing these offences.
P P
His monthly family expenditure meant his salary and that of
his wife was insufficient. The reason being mainly because
Q Q
his son was studying in an international school in Hong Kong
with high school fees, and his daughter was living and
R studying in Canada, totally funded by her parents. R
Essentially, he committed these offences out of greed and a
desire to maintain a certain level of lifestyle for the
S family, which was out of his reach. S
He is now 60 years old, born in Hong Kong with, as I have
T T
said, two children. They are now 27 and 15 years old. He
had a clear record until these offences. He joined the
U government department after he graduated in September 1991. U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 4 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A He progressed up the ranks and became a senior building A
services engineer in October 2014. He tendered his
resignation on 15 July 2024. Although not yet confirmed, he
B expects to lose his pension. B
This will put the family under greater financial pressure.
C C
In fact, since his arrest, he has been under financial
pressure and has had to turn to his family for help. His
D mother is 90 years old with ailments and visual and hearing D
problems. He has two older siblings in Hong Kong.
E In December 2021, he turned to the church and has become a E
devout Christian. He pleaded guilty at the earliest
opportunity to express his remorse and express a
F F
determination to start all over again for the sake of his
family.
G G
His wife faced criminal charges relating to these offences
and she was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment in August
H 2023 after a plea in the District Court. She has served her H
sentence and since been released.
I I
I have been told since his arrest, the defendant has been
diagnosed with moderate depressive episodes and on
J medication. This diagnosis stems from the stress after his J
arrest, both emotional and financial stress.
K In addition, his daughter is suffering from severe K
depression and has been admitted to hospital for treatment
L on two separate occasions. Her depression is serious and I L
have been told of her situation. She is presently
unemployed, still in Canada and still relying wholly on her
M parents. The defendant’s pending prison sentence will add M
to that stress and burden.
N Sadly, it is usually family and close ones who bear the N
brunt of the consequences of criminal activity. That,
O however, is not mitigation I can attach much weight to in O
light of the seriousness of the offences here. I have
received many mitigation letters written by the defendant,
P his children, family, church, friends, and pastors. I have P
taken into account their contents.
Q Q
I also take into account the defendant’s fall from grace and
more than certain loss of all retirement benefits from a
R long career. The flaw in his character here was greed and a R
lack of self-restraint. These are relevant mitigation, but
not mitigation I can place too much weight upon, again
S because of the seriousness of the offences. After all, S
civil servants, especially those with important jobs such as
the defendant’s, must adhere to the rules of transparency,
T T
even more so where the works contract can affect the public
and public venues.
U U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 5 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A Sentencing A
There are no sentencing guidelines for these offences here.
B As Mr Ho has pleaded, the severity of a sentence here will B
depend on the seriousness of the facts. For Charge 1, the
maximum term of imprisonment that can be imposed is
C C
10 years.
D For Charge 1, Mr Ho has referred me to several authorities D
where the defendants were civil servants and accused of
similar and sentenced for similar offences. Those are not
E recent sentencing cases, ranging from 1995 to 2016. The E
prosecution has similarly taken me to old cases dating back
to 1985. More recent, serious cases of corruption and
F F
bribery are not so common, and that is because the ICAC has
fought hard to tackle corruption.
G G
Mr Ho has asked me to consider the amount of money that
exceeded the emoluments and other identifiable sources of
H income between the defendant and his wife, that is just H
under HK$12 million. It is not an insignificant amount of
I
money, and the length of time the offence was committed was I
substantial.
J A portion of that HK$12 million was laundered through two of J
the defendant’s bank accounts in the amount of HK$6.26
million.
K K
Charges 2 to 4
L L
HK$3.8 million will be confiscated from the defendant. For
this offence under the Organized and Serious Crimes
M Ordinance, the maximum term of imprisonment that can be M
imposed is 14 years. Because of the facts of this case, I
will take a global approach to these three charges.
N N
For Charges 2 to 4, Mr Ho has referred me to HKSAR v Boma
O [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, and the non-exhaustive list of features O
or factors the Court of Appeal has listed when dealing with
sentencing money laundering offences.
P P
What is relevant here is the nature of the predicate
offence, the state of the defendant’s knowledge, whether
Q Q
there was one transaction or many, and the length of time
over which the offence or offences were committed. What is
R also important is the role of the offender and the acts R
performed by him. The Court of Appeal has also said that
the amount of money involved is relevant, and I refer to
S HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] which was referred to in the S
Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung, [2012] 1 HKLRD 201.
T T
For these money laundering charges, I do take into account
there is no international element, nor was the offences
U sophisticated or committed by and on behalf of an organised U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 6 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A criminal syndicate. The relevant period is approximately A
six years, and the amount is HK$6.26 million with, as I have
said, HK$3.8 million to be confiscated.
B B
I have taken into account, for Charge 5, misconduct in
public office, the maximum term of imprisonment that can be
C C
imposed is 7 years’ imprisonment. For Charge 6, a public
servant accepting an advantage, the maximum term of
D imprisonment that can be imposed is also 7 years’ D
imprisonment.
E Mr Ho has referred me to HKSAR v Hui Rafael and Others, FACC E
12/2016, where a much more senior government official than
the defendant was convicted and sentenced to a total of 7
F F
years and 6 months’ imprisonment after trial of three
charges of misconduct in public office and two charges of
G conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. G
However, Mr Ho is quick to repeat that there are no
H sentencing guidelines for misconduct in public office and a H
public servant accepting an advantage. What I will take
I
into account is the amount of money involved in the I
advantage charge, $40,000, as well as the type of misconduct
in Charge 5. Here, the defendant failed to declare his
J conflict of interest where Chan and his companies were J
concerned. Those tendering exercises led to work contracts
relating to public works, affecting the public and public
K venues. The defendant helped Chan not only before the K
contracts were awarded, but also during the course of
L contracts. L
Having given careful consideration to the facts of the case
M and mitigation I have heard, in my judgment, the starting M
point of 7 years’ imprisonment is appropriate for Charge 1.
A starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment is appropriate for
N Charges 2, 3 and 4. A starting point of 6 years’ N
imprisonment is appropriate for Charges 5 and 6.
O O
The defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity
and therefore is entitled to a full one-third discount for
P each offence. P
After that discount is applied, the defendant is sentenced
Q Q
as follows: Charge 1, 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment;
Charges 2, 3 and 4, 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment;
R Charges 5 and 6, 4 years’ imprisonment. R
I have taken into account the totality principle, but I have
S also taken into account Ms Chan’s submission for the S
Department of Justice that Charge 1, a section 10 offence
under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, is a very
T T
separate and distinct offence to a section 4 offence, Charge
6, and should merit a partly concurrent, partly consecutive
U U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 7 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A sentence. I agree with her submission and intend to deal A
with the overall sentence in this manner.
B I will order the sentences imposed for Charges 2, 3, 4 and B
5 to run concurrently to the sentence imposed for Charge 1.
C C
I will order 10 months of Charge 6 to run consecutively to
the sentence imposed for Charge 1 and the balance
D concurrently. D
However, I will reduce that 10 months by 3 months to reflect
E the defendant’s previous clear record and order 7 months to E
run consecutively to Charge 1.
F F
Therefore, the defendant will serve a total of 5 years and
3 months’ imprisonment.
G G
H H
I/we certify that to the best of my/our ability
I and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript of I
the audio recording of the above proceedings
J J
.........................................
K K
Jeremiah Barcena Castro
Date: 23 December 2025
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 8 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A HCCC 413/2024 A
[2025] HKCFI 6495
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 413 OF 2024
D ----------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F F
Zsa Sing-tak
G ----------------- G
Before: Hon Woodcock J
H Date: 16 December 2025 at 2.35 pm H
Present: Mr Matthew Hui, PP of the Department of Justice, for
I
HKSAR I
Mr Victor Ho, instructed by Kingston Tong and Co,
assigned by DLA, for the accused
J Offence: (1) Being a prescribed officer maintaining a standard J
of living above that commensurate with his official
emoluments (現任訂明人員維持高於與其公職薪俸相稱的生活水
K K
準)
(2) to (4) Dealing with property known or believed to
L represent proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已 L
知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產)
M (5) Misconduct in public office (藉公職作出不當行為) M
(6) Public servant accepting an advantage(公職人員接受利
益)
N N
---------------------------------
O Transcript of the Audio Recording O
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
P P
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to the following charges:
Charge 1, being a prescribed officer maintaining a standard
Q Q
of living above that commensurate with his official
emoluments, contrary to section 10(1)(a) and 12(1) of the
R Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Chapter 201. R
Charges 2, 3 and 4 are identical offences of dealing with
S property known or believed to represent proceeds of an S
indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the
Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 455, money
T T
laundering offences. In Charges 1 to 4, the defendant is
accused of committing these offences with his wife, Ng Wai-
U Shan. U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 1 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A Charge 5, misconduct in public office, contrary to Common A
Law and punishable under Section 101I(1) of the Criminal
Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221; the last charge, Charge 6,
B being a public servant accepting an advantage, contrary to B
Section 4(2)(a) and 12(1)1 of the Prevention of Bribery
Ordinance.
C C
The defendant and his wife married in December 1995. At all
D material times, both were government employees. The D
defendant worked in the Electrical and Mechanical Services
Department, whilst his wife worked in the Social Welfare
E Department. Both are prescribed officers and public E
servants for the purposes of the offences under the
Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
F F
In his role as a senior building services engineer, the
G defendant was responsible for handling and overseeing the G
tendering and operations of public works contracts of a
subdivision of the department. He prepared tender
H documents, approved contractors’ works, reviewed H
contractors’ performances, and could influence their tender
I
scores in government tenders. I
The defendant pleaded guilty to all six charges on
J 28 November 2024 at Eastern Magistracy and was committed to J
the Court of First Instance for sentence. He confirms his
pleas and admission of the Summary of Facts.
K K
The facts of Charge 1 are that the defendant and his wife
L maintained a standard of living above that which is L
commensurate with their present and past official emoluments
between 1 January 2012 and 30 August 2019. In that relevant
M period, their monthly official emoluments over that 7½-year M
timeframe totalled, for the defendant HK$9,075,648, and for
his wife HK$5,969,964.
N N
During the relevant period, after a thorough investigation
O of their finances, the defendant agrees that he spent a O
total of HK$29,725,016 when his identifiable sources of
funds, which included his official emoluments, was
P HK$19,094,771. P
Having taken into account other legitimate sources of funds,
Q Q
including personal savings and money gained from the selling
of assets, the defendant had an excess of expenditure over
R identified sources of HK$7,091,011. R
In other words, he maintained a standard of living above
S which is commensurate with his present or past official S
emoluments and other total known sources of funds earned and
received during the relevant period. Over the same period,
T T
his wife had an excess of expenditure over identifiable
sources of HK$4,812,976.
U U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 2 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A In total, as a couple, during that relevant period, they A
spent far more than their present or past official
emoluments and identifiable known sources of funds by a
B total of HK$11,903,987. The defendant agreed this sum B
represented an unknown source of funds.
C C
The facts of Charge 2 are that the defendant received in his
Bank of China account, between 6 January 2012 and 10 October
D 2018, 127 cash deposits totalling HK$5,227,000. D
The facts of Charge 3 are that the defendant received in his
E HSBC account, between 9 April 2014 and 8 August 2014, three E
cash deposits totalling HK$252,500.
F F
The facts of Charge 4 are that the defendant received in
that same HSBC account, between 17 March 2017 and 21
G September 2018, 19 cash deposits totalling HK$782,000. G
The amount of cash deposits over these three charges of
H money laundering total HK$6,261,500. The defendant admits H
this amount represents the proceeds of an indictable offence
I
and he dealt with the said proceeds. I
For the background behind Charges 5 and 6, a Mr Chan
J Tsz-wing was an integral personality behind them. He was a J
director and shareholder of Million Engineering Limited
(“MEL”), director and shareholder of Great Rising
K Engineering Limited (“GREL”) and a director-shareholder of K
Sun Wo Engineering Consultants Limited (“SWECL”). He was
L intrinsically linked to the defendant and maintained a close L
personal relationship with him.
M On 17 October 2016, the Engineering and Mechanical Services M
Department awarded a contract worth HK$6.7 million to a
company who then subcontracted it to GREL.
N N
On 20 April 2018, the Engineering and Mechanical Services
O Department awarded a work contract worth HK$84.7 million to O
a company who then subcontracted it to SWECL. Both
contracts were for a period of three years.
P P
In mitigation, I have heard the defendant admits that he
frequently socialised with Chan, travelling overseas
Q Q
together regularly, meeting often in Hong Kong and
discussing the tendering process of government work
R contracts with Chan. R
All Electrical and Mechanical Services Department staff who
S deal with any tendering of work contracts are required to S
sign an undertaking that they have no conflict of interest
with any potential tenderer and must actively take steps to
T T
avoid any conflict of interest with those tendering. They
are to declare any conflict of interest.
U U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 3 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A Moreover, employees are not to accept any gifts or benefits A
that may give rise to a conflict of interest. They should
not socialise excessively with those that tender for
B government work contracts, as well as appointed contractors, B
subcontractors, and suppliers of the department. The
defendant admits he was well aware of these requirements,
C C
rules and regulations.
D At no point did the defendant report to his supervisor that D
he had a close relationship with Chan. In fact, he signed
undertakings for the two work contracts I have just referred
E to, declaring that he had no conflict of interest with Chan E
or any potential tenderer for those contracts.
F F
The defendant also informed Chan about the terms of the work
contracts at the time of the tendering for that
G $84.7 million contract. The defendant even signed off on a G
contractor’s performance report involving an employee or
worker who sustained injury in the course of his employment
H for those companies Chan was connected to. These facts are H
behind Charge 5.
I I
As for Charge 6, when the defendant was arrested on
28 February 2019, a bundle of cash, specifically HK$40,000,
J was found in the defendant’s office tied up with a rubber J
band bearing Chan’s DNA.
K The defendant admits that on 17 January 2019, he had lunch K
with Chan. He paid for lunch and at the same lunch, Chan
L gave him that HK$40,000. On that same day, the defendant L
approved three work orders under the HK$84.7 million work
contract awarded on 20 April 2018. He admits he accepts an
M advantage of this sum of cash. M
Mitigation
N N
Mr Ho has said all he can possibly say in mitigation on
O behalf of the defendant. The defendant’s best mitigation is O
his pleas at the earliest opportunity. Mr Ho does offer
reasons for the defendant committing these offences.
P P
His monthly family expenditure meant his salary and that of
his wife was insufficient. The reason being mainly because
Q Q
his son was studying in an international school in Hong Kong
with high school fees, and his daughter was living and
R studying in Canada, totally funded by her parents. R
Essentially, he committed these offences out of greed and a
desire to maintain a certain level of lifestyle for the
S family, which was out of his reach. S
He is now 60 years old, born in Hong Kong with, as I have
T T
said, two children. They are now 27 and 15 years old. He
had a clear record until these offences. He joined the
U government department after he graduated in September 1991. U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 4 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A He progressed up the ranks and became a senior building A
services engineer in October 2014. He tendered his
resignation on 15 July 2024. Although not yet confirmed, he
B expects to lose his pension. B
This will put the family under greater financial pressure.
C C
In fact, since his arrest, he has been under financial
pressure and has had to turn to his family for help. His
D mother is 90 years old with ailments and visual and hearing D
problems. He has two older siblings in Hong Kong.
E In December 2021, he turned to the church and has become a E
devout Christian. He pleaded guilty at the earliest
opportunity to express his remorse and express a
F F
determination to start all over again for the sake of his
family.
G G
His wife faced criminal charges relating to these offences
and she was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment in August
H 2023 after a plea in the District Court. She has served her H
sentence and since been released.
I I
I have been told since his arrest, the defendant has been
diagnosed with moderate depressive episodes and on
J medication. This diagnosis stems from the stress after his J
arrest, both emotional and financial stress.
K In addition, his daughter is suffering from severe K
depression and has been admitted to hospital for treatment
L on two separate occasions. Her depression is serious and I L
have been told of her situation. She is presently
unemployed, still in Canada and still relying wholly on her
M parents. The defendant’s pending prison sentence will add M
to that stress and burden.
N Sadly, it is usually family and close ones who bear the N
brunt of the consequences of criminal activity. That,
O however, is not mitigation I can attach much weight to in O
light of the seriousness of the offences here. I have
received many mitigation letters written by the defendant,
P his children, family, church, friends, and pastors. I have P
taken into account their contents.
Q Q
I also take into account the defendant’s fall from grace and
more than certain loss of all retirement benefits from a
R long career. The flaw in his character here was greed and a R
lack of self-restraint. These are relevant mitigation, but
not mitigation I can place too much weight upon, again
S because of the seriousness of the offences. After all, S
civil servants, especially those with important jobs such as
the defendant’s, must adhere to the rules of transparency,
T T
even more so where the works contract can affect the public
and public venues.
U U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 5 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A Sentencing A
There are no sentencing guidelines for these offences here.
B As Mr Ho has pleaded, the severity of a sentence here will B
depend on the seriousness of the facts. For Charge 1, the
maximum term of imprisonment that can be imposed is
C C
10 years.
D For Charge 1, Mr Ho has referred me to several authorities D
where the defendants were civil servants and accused of
similar and sentenced for similar offences. Those are not
E recent sentencing cases, ranging from 1995 to 2016. The E
prosecution has similarly taken me to old cases dating back
to 1985. More recent, serious cases of corruption and
F F
bribery are not so common, and that is because the ICAC has
fought hard to tackle corruption.
G G
Mr Ho has asked me to consider the amount of money that
exceeded the emoluments and other identifiable sources of
H income between the defendant and his wife, that is just H
under HK$12 million. It is not an insignificant amount of
I
money, and the length of time the offence was committed was I
substantial.
J A portion of that HK$12 million was laundered through two of J
the defendant’s bank accounts in the amount of HK$6.26
million.
K K
Charges 2 to 4
L L
HK$3.8 million will be confiscated from the defendant. For
this offence under the Organized and Serious Crimes
M Ordinance, the maximum term of imprisonment that can be M
imposed is 14 years. Because of the facts of this case, I
will take a global approach to these three charges.
N N
For Charges 2 to 4, Mr Ho has referred me to HKSAR v Boma
O [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, and the non-exhaustive list of features O
or factors the Court of Appeal has listed when dealing with
sentencing money laundering offences.
P P
What is relevant here is the nature of the predicate
offence, the state of the defendant’s knowledge, whether
Q Q
there was one transaction or many, and the length of time
over which the offence or offences were committed. What is
R also important is the role of the offender and the acts R
performed by him. The Court of Appeal has also said that
the amount of money involved is relevant, and I refer to
S HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] which was referred to in the S
Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung, [2012] 1 HKLRD 201.
T T
For these money laundering charges, I do take into account
there is no international element, nor was the offences
U sophisticated or committed by and on behalf of an organised U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 6 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A criminal syndicate. The relevant period is approximately A
six years, and the amount is HK$6.26 million with, as I have
said, HK$3.8 million to be confiscated.
B B
I have taken into account, for Charge 5, misconduct in
public office, the maximum term of imprisonment that can be
C C
imposed is 7 years’ imprisonment. For Charge 6, a public
servant accepting an advantage, the maximum term of
D imprisonment that can be imposed is also 7 years’ D
imprisonment.
E Mr Ho has referred me to HKSAR v Hui Rafael and Others, FACC E
12/2016, where a much more senior government official than
the defendant was convicted and sentenced to a total of 7
F F
years and 6 months’ imprisonment after trial of three
charges of misconduct in public office and two charges of
G conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. G
However, Mr Ho is quick to repeat that there are no
H sentencing guidelines for misconduct in public office and a H
public servant accepting an advantage. What I will take
I
into account is the amount of money involved in the I
advantage charge, $40,000, as well as the type of misconduct
in Charge 5. Here, the defendant failed to declare his
J conflict of interest where Chan and his companies were J
concerned. Those tendering exercises led to work contracts
relating to public works, affecting the public and public
K venues. The defendant helped Chan not only before the K
contracts were awarded, but also during the course of
L contracts. L
Having given careful consideration to the facts of the case
M and mitigation I have heard, in my judgment, the starting M
point of 7 years’ imprisonment is appropriate for Charge 1.
A starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment is appropriate for
N Charges 2, 3 and 4. A starting point of 6 years’ N
imprisonment is appropriate for Charges 5 and 6.
O O
The defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity
and therefore is entitled to a full one-third discount for
P each offence. P
After that discount is applied, the defendant is sentenced
Q Q
as follows: Charge 1, 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment;
Charges 2, 3 and 4, 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment;
R Charges 5 and 6, 4 years’ imprisonment. R
I have taken into account the totality principle, but I have
S also taken into account Ms Chan’s submission for the S
Department of Justice that Charge 1, a section 10 offence
under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, is a very
T T
separate and distinct offence to a section 4 offence, Charge
6, and should merit a partly concurrent, partly consecutive
U U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 7 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A sentence. I agree with her submission and intend to deal A
with the overall sentence in this manner.
B I will order the sentences imposed for Charges 2, 3, 4 and B
5 to run concurrently to the sentence imposed for Charge 1.
C C
I will order 10 months of Charge 6 to run consecutively to
the sentence imposed for Charge 1 and the balance
D concurrently. D
However, I will reduce that 10 months by 3 months to reflect
E the defendant’s previous clear record and order 7 months to E
run consecutively to Charge 1.
F F
Therefore, the defendant will serve a total of 5 years and
3 months’ imprisonment.
G G
H H
I/we certify that to the best of my/our ability
I and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript of I
the audio recording of the above proceedings
J J
.........................................
K K
Jeremiah Barcena Castro
Date: 23 December 2025
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT31/16.12.2025/JC 8 HCCC 413/2024(1)/Sentence
V V