區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Terence Wai11/11/2024[2024] HKDC 1911
DCCC798/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 798/2024
C [2024] HKDC 1911 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 798 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I * (D1) I
----------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Terence Wai K
Date: 12 November 2024
L L
Present: Mr Ko Tsun Kiu, Frankie, Public Prosecutor of the
M Department of Justice, for HKSAR M
Mr Leung Fu Hang, of M/S Wong & Co, assigned by the
N N
Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant
O Offence: [1] & [3] Conspiracy to defraud (串謀詐騙) O
P
[2] Dealing with property known or believed to represent P
proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代
Q Q
表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) - (alternative to Charge 1)
R [4] Attempting to deal with property known or believed to R
represent proceeds of an indictable offence (企圖處理已知
S S
道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) -
T T
(alternative to Charge 3)
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C -------------------------------------- C
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
D D
--------------------------------------
E E
1. D1 pleaded guilty to one count of “dealing with property
F F
known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence” (“money
G laundering”, Charge 2) and one count of “conspiracy to defraud” (Charge G
3).
H H
I Facts I
J J
2. On 30 October 2023 around 4 pm, Mr Wu Kam Hon (Wu)
K received a phone call from someone claiming to be his younger son (S) and K
to be in urgent need of HK$60,000 for bail. S told Wu that he would
L L
arrange a friend “Ah Chong” to collect the cash, and that Wu was to meet
M up with Ah Chong at the main entrance of Jazz Garden Phase II (Jazz M
Garden) in Pat Heung, New Territories.
N N
O 3. At 4:45 pm, Wu received a call from someone claiming to be O
“Ah Chong” who told Wu that he had arrived at the main entrance of Jazz
P P
Garden. When Wu arrived there, he was approached by D1 who
Q introduced himself as “Ah Chong” and told Wu that he was there to collect Q
bail money for Wu’s son. Thereupon, Wu handed over $60,000 in cash to
R R
D1. D1 then left.
S S
4. Later that evening, Wu realised that the request for bail money
T T
was a scam when he contacted his younger son.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 5. On 31 October 2023, around 9:30 am, Wu received another C
call from S asking for a further sum of $40,000 for bail and was told by S
D D
to hand over the money at the same main entrance as before. Realising that
E this was a scam, Wu reported the matter to the police, who prepared a E
dummy package posing as a bag of cash for use in the hand-over during a
F F
controlled meeting.
G G
6. At 11 am, D1 was seen arriving at the vicinity with another
H H
male Lin Tsz Yau (Lin) by taxi. After alighting from the taxi, D1 walked
I towards the main entrance of Jazz Garden while Lin walked in another I
direction. Wu noticed D1 wandering around in the vicinity when he
J J
received a call on his mobile phone that “Ah Chong” would collect the cash
K from him. At 11:17 am, D1 approached Wu and told him that he was “Ah K
Chong”. Recognising D1 to be same person who had collected the $60,000
L L
cash from him on the previous day, Wu grabbed hold of the right hand of
M D1 who then attempted to flee but was eventually intercepted by a police M
officer. With regard to this incident, D1 was arrested and cautioned for
N N
“obtaining property by deception”. Under caution, D1 said, “someone
O asked me and Lin Tsz Yau to attend Jazz Garden Phase II to collect money O
today, therefore Lin Tsz Yau and I went there to collect money.”
P P
Q 7. D1 was next arrested and cautioned for “obtaining property Q
by deception” regarding the incident on the previous day. Under caution,
R R
D1 said, “Yesterday it was also someone who asked me to attend Jazz
S Garden Phase II Pak Heung to collect money. I went there with Lin Tsz S
Yau.”
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
8. During a cautioned video-recorded interview held on the same
C day in the presence of his mother, D1 said he had agreed with a person C
called “Kio” to take up a job of collecting money from others for a reward
D D
of 1% of the money collected. On 30 October 2023, on the instruction of
E Kio, he and Lin met up with two males (males “B” and “C”) at the E
Kowloon Tong MTR station. B took a photo of him and handed him an
F F
iPhone. Around 4 pm that day, he received a call from Kio asking him to
G go to Jazz Garden to collect money. When he and Lin arrived there at 5 G
pm, he was told over the phone by Kio to give him a call when he saw an
H H
elderly man. This he did, and he was then told by Kio to call a certain
I number. The person on that number asked to speak with the elderly man. I
The elderly man handed over $60,000 to him after speaking with the person
J J
on that number. He then left and, as instructed by Kio, went to the
K University MTR station where he handed over the money to C. On 31 K
October 2023, he received a call from Kio asking him to collect a further
L L
sum of $40,000. He and Lin arrived at Jazz Garden at 11 am but he got
M arrested by the police when he was approaching the same elderly man M
whom he had met on the previous day. He admitted that after collecting
N N
the money on 30 October 2023, he realised that the money was derived
O from a scam. He knew that what he was doing was wrong. O
P P
9. The money-collecting incidents on 30 and 31 October 2023
Q were captured by CCTV cameras of Jazz Garden. Q
R R
10. In a consensual search of D1’s residence, clothes matching
S D1’s clothing on 30 October 2023 were seized. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
Defendant’s Background
C C
11. D1 is 15 years old and was only 14 at the time of the offences.
D D
He was born and was educated in Hong Kong up to secondary 2 level. His
E parents are divorced. He is their only child. Although not yet married, E
according to his counsel Ms Lisa Yip, D1’s girlfriend whom he met in the
F F
workplace, is now pregnant and delivery is expected in January 2025.
G G
12. He has a conviction dated 13 August 2024 for “conspiracy to
H H
defraud” and was sentenced to be detained in a Detention Centre. That
I offence, which was committed on 29 June 2023, also involved this I
defendant collecting the proceeds of a telephone scam.
J J
K Mitigation K
L L
13. Defence counsel told the court that D1 committed the present
M offences out of ignorance, stupidity and greed. Naively thinking that if he M
had a job he could be free of his parents’ control, he agreed to take up the
N N
job of collecting money for others for a reward, and continued to do so
O even after learning that the money was the proceeds of a scam. O
P P
14. His genuine remorse can be seen from his full cooperation
Q with the police and his pleas of guilty in court, the latter being his strongest Q
mitigation.
R R
S 15. He would like to apologise to the victim and to his parents. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
16. His detention in the Detention Centre has taught him the
C importance of discipline and leading a law-abiding life. He has learned a C
bitter lesson and is determined to turn over a new leaf. During his detention,
D D
he has come to realise how much his parents care for him.
E E
17. He wishes for an early release so he may start a new life, and
F F
help his girlfriend to look after their baby. His parents are very supportive
G of his efforts to rehabilitate himself. G
H H
18. D1 and his mother both claimed in their respective mitigation
I letters that D1 was led astray by bad peers that he associated with in the I
basketball courts. Both are confident about D1’s determination to change
J J
for the better.
K K
19. D1 is aware of the prosecution’s application for enhancement
L L
of sentence pursuant to s 27(2) of the Organised and Serious Crimes
M Ordinance (OSCO) on the ground of the prevalence of the offences. He M
has no objection to the application.
N N
O 20. Ms Yip pointed out that there is another aggravating feature O
in the present case, and that is that D1 committed the present offences
P P
whilst on bail for the offence for which he is now serving sentence.
Q Q
21. Counsel referred to the maximum sentence for both offences
R R
and pointed out that there are no tariffs for either of the offences. HKSAR
S v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 and Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok S
Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 were then referred to for the factors to
T T
consider in sentencing money-laundering offences.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 22. While imprisonment is often the appropriate sentence for C
these offences, Ms Yip asked the court to consider other sentencing options
D D
and call for a pre-sentencing suitability report for Detention Centre,
E Training Centre and Rehabilitation Centre in light of D1’s young age, his E
lack of participation in the phone scam, his relatively minor role, his
F F
knowing about the scam only after the first collection of money, the
G victim’s loss was not very significant, and the provisions of section 109A G
of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221.
H H
I Sentencing considerations I
J J
23. Undoubtedly, the offences committed by D1 are serious
K offences. This fact, coupled with the aggravating feature of the offences K
having been committed while D1 was on bail for another similar offence,
L L
would normally warrant a sentence of immediate imprisonment for an adult
M offender. M
N N
24. In this connection, I would like to point out that the
O prosecution has proved to the requisite standard the prevalence of the O
offences under section 27(2) of OSCO so that enhancement of the sentence
P P
is fully justified and would be made if a sentence of imprisonment was
Q deemed appropriate. Q
R R
25. However, in view of D1’s age, which brings him within the
S meaning of a “young person” under the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance, S
Cap 226, the court is bound, under section 11(2) of that Ordinance, to
T T
consider sentencing options other than imprisonment.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 26. Ms Yip asked the court to consider D1’s suitability for C
detention in the Rehabilitation, Detention or Training Centre.
D D
E 27. As far as Rehabilitation Centre is concerned, under section E
4(2)(c)(i) of the Rehabilitation Centres Ordinance, Cap 567, a detention
F F
order shall only be made against a person who is not serving and has not
G previously served a sentence of detention in a detention centre. As D1 is G
now serving sentence in such a centre, the Rehabilitation Centre option is
H H
out of consideration.
I I
28. A Detention Centre/Training Centre suitability report was
J J
called for.
K K
29. This report is now before the court. Mr Leung, acting for D1
L L
on this occasion, urged the court to adopt the recommendation of the report
M and make a Detention Centre order against D1. M
N N
30. The report says that D1 is mentally and physically fit for
O detention in either centre, but he is considered more suitable for detention O
in a Detention Centre (the Centre) after assessing his behaviour and attitude
P P
whilst undergoing training in the Centre.
Q Q
31. The report mentions that D1 showed an average response to
R R
the training programme; he managed to behave well and incurred no
S disciplinary report during his training in the Centre. He was polite and S
cooperative during the interview. He admitted his culpability with regard
T T
to the present offences and attributed his breach of the law to a weak law-
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
abiding concept and greediness for easy money. He had reflected on his
C misdeeds whilst undergoing training in the Centre and he wanted to C
apologise to the victim as well as his parent for his wrong-doing. D1’s
D D
mother noted that her son had become more considerate and disciplined
E since his detention in the Centre and she would render her unfailing support E
towards his rehabilitation.
F F
G 32. In light of the contents of this report and the officer’s G
recommendation, I am satisfied that it is in D1’s interest and the public
H H
interest that he should undergo a period of detention in a Detention Centre,
I and I so order. I
J J
K K
( Terence Wai )
L Deputy District Judge L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 798/2024
C [2024] HKDC 1911 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 798 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I * (D1) I
----------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Terence Wai K
Date: 12 November 2024
L L
Present: Mr Ko Tsun Kiu, Frankie, Public Prosecutor of the
M Department of Justice, for HKSAR M
Mr Leung Fu Hang, of M/S Wong & Co, assigned by the
N N
Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant
O Offence: [1] & [3] Conspiracy to defraud (串謀詐騙) O
P
[2] Dealing with property known or believed to represent P
proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代
Q Q
表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) - (alternative to Charge 1)
R [4] Attempting to deal with property known or believed to R
represent proceeds of an indictable offence (企圖處理已知
S S
道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) -
T T
(alternative to Charge 3)
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C -------------------------------------- C
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
D D
--------------------------------------
E E
1. D1 pleaded guilty to one count of “dealing with property
F F
known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence” (“money
G laundering”, Charge 2) and one count of “conspiracy to defraud” (Charge G
3).
H H
I Facts I
J J
2. On 30 October 2023 around 4 pm, Mr Wu Kam Hon (Wu)
K received a phone call from someone claiming to be his younger son (S) and K
to be in urgent need of HK$60,000 for bail. S told Wu that he would
L L
arrange a friend “Ah Chong” to collect the cash, and that Wu was to meet
M up with Ah Chong at the main entrance of Jazz Garden Phase II (Jazz M
Garden) in Pat Heung, New Territories.
N N
O 3. At 4:45 pm, Wu received a call from someone claiming to be O
“Ah Chong” who told Wu that he had arrived at the main entrance of Jazz
P P
Garden. When Wu arrived there, he was approached by D1 who
Q introduced himself as “Ah Chong” and told Wu that he was there to collect Q
bail money for Wu’s son. Thereupon, Wu handed over $60,000 in cash to
R R
D1. D1 then left.
S S
4. Later that evening, Wu realised that the request for bail money
T T
was a scam when he contacted his younger son.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 5. On 31 October 2023, around 9:30 am, Wu received another C
call from S asking for a further sum of $40,000 for bail and was told by S
D D
to hand over the money at the same main entrance as before. Realising that
E this was a scam, Wu reported the matter to the police, who prepared a E
dummy package posing as a bag of cash for use in the hand-over during a
F F
controlled meeting.
G G
6. At 11 am, D1 was seen arriving at the vicinity with another
H H
male Lin Tsz Yau (Lin) by taxi. After alighting from the taxi, D1 walked
I towards the main entrance of Jazz Garden while Lin walked in another I
direction. Wu noticed D1 wandering around in the vicinity when he
J J
received a call on his mobile phone that “Ah Chong” would collect the cash
K from him. At 11:17 am, D1 approached Wu and told him that he was “Ah K
Chong”. Recognising D1 to be same person who had collected the $60,000
L L
cash from him on the previous day, Wu grabbed hold of the right hand of
M D1 who then attempted to flee but was eventually intercepted by a police M
officer. With regard to this incident, D1 was arrested and cautioned for
N N
“obtaining property by deception”. Under caution, D1 said, “someone
O asked me and Lin Tsz Yau to attend Jazz Garden Phase II to collect money O
today, therefore Lin Tsz Yau and I went there to collect money.”
P P
Q 7. D1 was next arrested and cautioned for “obtaining property Q
by deception” regarding the incident on the previous day. Under caution,
R R
D1 said, “Yesterday it was also someone who asked me to attend Jazz
S Garden Phase II Pak Heung to collect money. I went there with Lin Tsz S
Yau.”
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
8. During a cautioned video-recorded interview held on the same
C day in the presence of his mother, D1 said he had agreed with a person C
called “Kio” to take up a job of collecting money from others for a reward
D D
of 1% of the money collected. On 30 October 2023, on the instruction of
E Kio, he and Lin met up with two males (males “B” and “C”) at the E
Kowloon Tong MTR station. B took a photo of him and handed him an
F F
iPhone. Around 4 pm that day, he received a call from Kio asking him to
G go to Jazz Garden to collect money. When he and Lin arrived there at 5 G
pm, he was told over the phone by Kio to give him a call when he saw an
H H
elderly man. This he did, and he was then told by Kio to call a certain
I number. The person on that number asked to speak with the elderly man. I
The elderly man handed over $60,000 to him after speaking with the person
J J
on that number. He then left and, as instructed by Kio, went to the
K University MTR station where he handed over the money to C. On 31 K
October 2023, he received a call from Kio asking him to collect a further
L L
sum of $40,000. He and Lin arrived at Jazz Garden at 11 am but he got
M arrested by the police when he was approaching the same elderly man M
whom he had met on the previous day. He admitted that after collecting
N N
the money on 30 October 2023, he realised that the money was derived
O from a scam. He knew that what he was doing was wrong. O
P P
9. The money-collecting incidents on 30 and 31 October 2023
Q were captured by CCTV cameras of Jazz Garden. Q
R R
10. In a consensual search of D1’s residence, clothes matching
S D1’s clothing on 30 October 2023 were seized. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
Defendant’s Background
C C
11. D1 is 15 years old and was only 14 at the time of the offences.
D D
He was born and was educated in Hong Kong up to secondary 2 level. His
E parents are divorced. He is their only child. Although not yet married, E
according to his counsel Ms Lisa Yip, D1’s girlfriend whom he met in the
F F
workplace, is now pregnant and delivery is expected in January 2025.
G G
12. He has a conviction dated 13 August 2024 for “conspiracy to
H H
defraud” and was sentenced to be detained in a Detention Centre. That
I offence, which was committed on 29 June 2023, also involved this I
defendant collecting the proceeds of a telephone scam.
J J
K Mitigation K
L L
13. Defence counsel told the court that D1 committed the present
M offences out of ignorance, stupidity and greed. Naively thinking that if he M
had a job he could be free of his parents’ control, he agreed to take up the
N N
job of collecting money for others for a reward, and continued to do so
O even after learning that the money was the proceeds of a scam. O
P P
14. His genuine remorse can be seen from his full cooperation
Q with the police and his pleas of guilty in court, the latter being his strongest Q
mitigation.
R R
S 15. He would like to apologise to the victim and to his parents. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
16. His detention in the Detention Centre has taught him the
C importance of discipline and leading a law-abiding life. He has learned a C
bitter lesson and is determined to turn over a new leaf. During his detention,
D D
he has come to realise how much his parents care for him.
E E
17. He wishes for an early release so he may start a new life, and
F F
help his girlfriend to look after their baby. His parents are very supportive
G of his efforts to rehabilitate himself. G
H H
18. D1 and his mother both claimed in their respective mitigation
I letters that D1 was led astray by bad peers that he associated with in the I
basketball courts. Both are confident about D1’s determination to change
J J
for the better.
K K
19. D1 is aware of the prosecution’s application for enhancement
L L
of sentence pursuant to s 27(2) of the Organised and Serious Crimes
M Ordinance (OSCO) on the ground of the prevalence of the offences. He M
has no objection to the application.
N N
O 20. Ms Yip pointed out that there is another aggravating feature O
in the present case, and that is that D1 committed the present offences
P P
whilst on bail for the offence for which he is now serving sentence.
Q Q
21. Counsel referred to the maximum sentence for both offences
R R
and pointed out that there are no tariffs for either of the offences. HKSAR
S v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 and Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok S
Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 were then referred to for the factors to
T T
consider in sentencing money-laundering offences.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 22. While imprisonment is often the appropriate sentence for C
these offences, Ms Yip asked the court to consider other sentencing options
D D
and call for a pre-sentencing suitability report for Detention Centre,
E Training Centre and Rehabilitation Centre in light of D1’s young age, his E
lack of participation in the phone scam, his relatively minor role, his
F F
knowing about the scam only after the first collection of money, the
G victim’s loss was not very significant, and the provisions of section 109A G
of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221.
H H
I Sentencing considerations I
J J
23. Undoubtedly, the offences committed by D1 are serious
K offences. This fact, coupled with the aggravating feature of the offences K
having been committed while D1 was on bail for another similar offence,
L L
would normally warrant a sentence of immediate imprisonment for an adult
M offender. M
N N
24. In this connection, I would like to point out that the
O prosecution has proved to the requisite standard the prevalence of the O
offences under section 27(2) of OSCO so that enhancement of the sentence
P P
is fully justified and would be made if a sentence of imprisonment was
Q deemed appropriate. Q
R R
25. However, in view of D1’s age, which brings him within the
S meaning of a “young person” under the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance, S
Cap 226, the court is bound, under section 11(2) of that Ordinance, to
T T
consider sentencing options other than imprisonment.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 26. Ms Yip asked the court to consider D1’s suitability for C
detention in the Rehabilitation, Detention or Training Centre.
D D
E 27. As far as Rehabilitation Centre is concerned, under section E
4(2)(c)(i) of the Rehabilitation Centres Ordinance, Cap 567, a detention
F F
order shall only be made against a person who is not serving and has not
G previously served a sentence of detention in a detention centre. As D1 is G
now serving sentence in such a centre, the Rehabilitation Centre option is
H H
out of consideration.
I I
28. A Detention Centre/Training Centre suitability report was
J J
called for.
K K
29. This report is now before the court. Mr Leung, acting for D1
L L
on this occasion, urged the court to adopt the recommendation of the report
M and make a Detention Centre order against D1. M
N N
30. The report says that D1 is mentally and physically fit for
O detention in either centre, but he is considered more suitable for detention O
in a Detention Centre (the Centre) after assessing his behaviour and attitude
P P
whilst undergoing training in the Centre.
Q Q
31. The report mentions that D1 showed an average response to
R R
the training programme; he managed to behave well and incurred no
S disciplinary report during his training in the Centre. He was polite and S
cooperative during the interview. He admitted his culpability with regard
T T
to the present offences and attributed his breach of the law to a weak law-
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
abiding concept and greediness for easy money. He had reflected on his
C misdeeds whilst undergoing training in the Centre and he wanted to C
apologise to the victim as well as his parent for his wrong-doing. D1’s
D D
mother noted that her son had become more considerate and disciplined
E since his detention in the Centre and she would render her unfailing support E
towards his rehabilitation.
F F
G 32. In light of the contents of this report and the officer’s G
recommendation, I am satisfied that it is in D1’s interest and the public
H H
interest that he should undergo a period of detention in a Detention Centre,
I and I so order. I
J J
K K
( Terence Wai )
L Deputy District Judge L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V