區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Casewell9/12/2024[2024] HKDC 2191
DCCC27/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 27/2024
C [2024] HKDC 2191 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 27 OF 2024
F F
G --------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I TANG CHI WANG I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Casewell K
Date: 10 December 2024
L L
Present: Ms Tsoi Sarah, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
M Mr Chan Ging Man, Robert, instructed by T C Lau & Co, M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offences: [1] Conspiracy to defraud（串謀詐騙）
O O
[2] Attempting to deal with property known or believed to
P
represent proceeds of an indictable offence（企圖處理已知 P
道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產）
Q Q
R ----------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to the alternative charge on
C the indictment of attempting to deal with property known or believed to C
represent the proceeds of an indictable offence, the particulars of that
D D
offence being on 3 August 2023, in Tsing Yi, knowing or having
E reasonable grounds to believe the property, namely $73,000 of Hong Kong E
currency in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represented any person’s
F F
proceeds of an indictable offence, attempted to deal with that property.
G G
2. The defendant has been convicted by me of an attempt to
H H
commit the offence, nevertheless the sentences for the completed offence
I and the attempted offence would be in the same range. I
J J
3. The facts are relatively straightforward, and on 3 August, an
K elderly lady received a phone call from an unknown male at home claiming K
her son to be in urgent need of $80,000 for bail as he had been arrested by
L L
the police for a prostitution-related offence. Believing it was true, the
M victim retrieved the $73,000 from the bank. Around noon of that day, she M
was informed there was still $7,000 short but that ‘Ming Jai’ would be
N N
arranged to go to her flat to collect the money, regardless.
O O
4. Fortunately, the victim, PW1, realised the scam and called her
P P
son. The case was reported to the police and police were dispatched to
Q create what we call a “dummy drop” of the money. That afternoon, the Q
defendant knocked on the door and introduced himself as the person called
R R
Ming Jai, there to collect the money for her son. He was heard by a witness
S to say he was there to collect mah-jong gambling debt for a friend before S
the dummy package was passed to the defendant. The defendant was then
T T
intercepted by the police.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 5. Under caution, the defendant said the following. He was C
asked by another person called ‘Chun Jai’ to attend PW1’s flat to collect
D D
mah-jong gambling debts for a reward of $3,000. ‘Chun Jai’ was
E introduced to him by another person during his sentence of imprisonment E
and he had only ever contacted ‘Chun Jai’ by Telegram and he had never
F F
seen him in person. The defendant was then arrested for obtaining property
G by deception. He said there would be $3,000 as his reward for doing this. G
H H
6. The facts admitted by the defendant clearly show his
I involvement in the attempt to commit this offence and I convicted the I
defendant accordingly.
J J
K 7. As far as the defendant’s background antecedents are, we can K
see that he was born on 3 November 2003, currently age 21. He worked
L L
as a part-time food stall employee in July 21 and his antecedents show he
M was sentenced to a Training Centre. In fact, the defendant has a number of M
previous convictions, a total of four previous appearances in court,
N N
originally in 2019, sentenced to probation of 18 months and in 2021 for the
O offences of taking a conveyance without authority, possession of a O
dangerous drug, driving without a licence and using a motor vehicle on a
P P
road against third party risk. He was sentenced to Training Centre and I
Q have a letter from the Correctional Services Department that show that he Q
was discharged from his Training Centre Order on 17 April 2023 but re-
R R
admitted again on 4 August 2023 under the Supervision Order and finally
S discharged on 29 January 2024. So we can see that this offence was S
committed during his period of discharge from the Training Centre
T T
between 17 April 2023 and 4 August 2023.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 8. As far as the defendant’s mitigation is concerned, he fully C
admits the offence that he has committed and has admitted all the facts and
D D
provided the police with information on his arrest, so has been cooperative
E throughout. E
F F
9. He is a single man, lived with his mother within the family.
G He is said to not have a triad background. He has worked as a part-time G
food stall employee and after that was unemployed. He admits and
H H
confirmed his criminal record in the court.
I I
10. In mitigation, it is noted that the defendant had been sentenced
J J
to a Training Centre Order, which means that the defendant is now
K ineligible for the orders that can be made for younger people in respect of K
the Correctional Services Department’s programmes, meaning that the
L L
available sentence for the defendant in this case, given the severity of the
M offence, is a sentence of imprisonment. M
N N
11. Defendant is now aged 21 and the restrictions on
O imprisonment under Section 109A of the Criminal Procedural Ordinance, O
Cap 221, do not apply to him.
P P
Q 12. The court also obtained a background report on the defendant Q
which sets out similar background to the one put forward in mitigation. In
R R
the final paragraph, the expression is as follows: That the defendant has
S expressed verbal remorse for his wrongdoing and acknowledged the S
impact of his actions on the victim and felt sorry for his family. He is said
T T
to have learned a harsh lesson from the court experience, wanted to reform
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
himself and lead a lawful life thereafter. He has disappointed his family
C and they seek, of course, for the court to treat him with leniency. C
D D
13. The defendant is said to be ready to shoulder his legal
E responsibility and begs the court for the shortest possible custodial E
sentence, so it would appear from the context of that report that there is
F F
some realisation by the defendant of the severity of his actions and the fact
G that the life that he has previously lived is liable to lead him to continuous G
sentences of imprisonment.
H H
I 14. I have to determine what is the appropriate starting point for I
sentence. I have been referred to various authorities by the defence which
J J
deal with similar cases dealt with in the District Court. Defendant, of
K course, in this case has been convicted of the offence of attempting to deal K
with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable
L L
offence.
M M
15. It is common ground that there is no actual guideline sentence
N N
for this offence because the ways in which the offence can be committed
O are many-fold and it is not appropriate for the court to create a guideline O
for this offence. Nevertheless, one has to have regard to the case of HKSAR
P P
v Boma which sets out a number of steps that the court can take when
Q determining how to assess the appropriate sentence for this offence. I have Q
also been referred to HKSAR v Fok Tsz Hin, a case in 2023 in the District
R R
Court; the case of HKSAR v Cheung Ka Chun and Another, 2024, Hong
S Kong District Court and also the cases of Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok S
Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 and HKSAR v Cen Huakuo [2015] 2 HKLRD
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
951, and I take account of what is said in those cases and the starting points
C that have been adopted in previous cases of this nature. C
D D
16. Having regard to those cases and the general approach of the
E courts, I have decided to take a starting point for sentence of one of 30 E
months' imprisonment for this offence. The defendant has shown remorse,
F F
so I am entitled to deduct a full one-third discount for his plea of guilty
G which leads to a sentence at this stage of one 20 months' imprisonment. G
H H
17. I note in this case, the prosecution has notified the court that
I it intends to make an application for enhancement of sentence under I
Section 27 of what is called “OSCO” and that is supported by a statement
J J
of the police regarding the prevalence of the specified offence and the
K nature and extent of harm, direct or indirect, caused to the community by K
recent occurrences thereof.
L L
M 18. The defendant does not object to this application but asks the M
court to limit the enhancement of sentence to no more than 25 per cent, as
N N
has been the case in other cases of a similar nature. I consider that an
O appropriate step to take. The prosecution have clearly evidenced the need O
for enhancement of this sentence and I will enhance the sentence of 20
P P
months' imprisonment by a further 25 per cent to reflect that application.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
19. That now leads to a sentence of 25 months' imprisonment. I
C consider that an appropriate sentence for this defendant having regard to C
his background and other matters that have been brought before me. So
D D
the sentence I will impose is one of 25 months' imprisonment.
E E
F F
G G
H H
( Casewell )
Deputy District Judge
I I
J J
K K
L 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 27/2024
C [2024] HKDC 2191 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 27 OF 2024
F F
G --------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I TANG CHI WANG I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Casewell K
Date: 10 December 2024
L L
Present: Ms Tsoi Sarah, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
M Mr Chan Ging Man, Robert, instructed by T C Lau & Co, M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offences: [1] Conspiracy to defraud（串謀詐騙）
O O
[2] Attempting to deal with property known or believed to
P
represent proceeds of an indictable offence（企圖處理已知 P
道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產）
Q Q
R ----------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to the alternative charge on
C the indictment of attempting to deal with property known or believed to C
represent the proceeds of an indictable offence, the particulars of that
D D
offence being on 3 August 2023, in Tsing Yi, knowing or having
E reasonable grounds to believe the property, namely $73,000 of Hong Kong E
currency in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represented any person’s
F F
proceeds of an indictable offence, attempted to deal with that property.
G G
2. The defendant has been convicted by me of an attempt to
H H
commit the offence, nevertheless the sentences for the completed offence
I and the attempted offence would be in the same range. I
J J
3. The facts are relatively straightforward, and on 3 August, an
K elderly lady received a phone call from an unknown male at home claiming K
her son to be in urgent need of $80,000 for bail as he had been arrested by
L L
the police for a prostitution-related offence. Believing it was true, the
M victim retrieved the $73,000 from the bank. Around noon of that day, she M
was informed there was still $7,000 short but that ‘Ming Jai’ would be
N N
arranged to go to her flat to collect the money, regardless.
O O
4. Fortunately, the victim, PW1, realised the scam and called her
P P
son. The case was reported to the police and police were dispatched to
Q create what we call a “dummy drop” of the money. That afternoon, the Q
defendant knocked on the door and introduced himself as the person called
R R
Ming Jai, there to collect the money for her son. He was heard by a witness
S to say he was there to collect mah-jong gambling debt for a friend before S
the dummy package was passed to the defendant. The defendant was then
T T
intercepted by the police.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 5. Under caution, the defendant said the following. He was C
asked by another person called ‘Chun Jai’ to attend PW1’s flat to collect
D D
mah-jong gambling debts for a reward of $3,000. ‘Chun Jai’ was
E introduced to him by another person during his sentence of imprisonment E
and he had only ever contacted ‘Chun Jai’ by Telegram and he had never
F F
seen him in person. The defendant was then arrested for obtaining property
G by deception. He said there would be $3,000 as his reward for doing this. G
H H
6. The facts admitted by the defendant clearly show his
I involvement in the attempt to commit this offence and I convicted the I
defendant accordingly.
J J
K 7. As far as the defendant’s background antecedents are, we can K
see that he was born on 3 November 2003, currently age 21. He worked
L L
as a part-time food stall employee in July 21 and his antecedents show he
M was sentenced to a Training Centre. In fact, the defendant has a number of M
previous convictions, a total of four previous appearances in court,
N N
originally in 2019, sentenced to probation of 18 months and in 2021 for the
O offences of taking a conveyance without authority, possession of a O
dangerous drug, driving without a licence and using a motor vehicle on a
P P
road against third party risk. He was sentenced to Training Centre and I
Q have a letter from the Correctional Services Department that show that he Q
was discharged from his Training Centre Order on 17 April 2023 but re-
R R
admitted again on 4 August 2023 under the Supervision Order and finally
S discharged on 29 January 2024. So we can see that this offence was S
committed during his period of discharge from the Training Centre
T T
between 17 April 2023 and 4 August 2023.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 8. As far as the defendant’s mitigation is concerned, he fully C
admits the offence that he has committed and has admitted all the facts and
D D
provided the police with information on his arrest, so has been cooperative
E throughout. E
F F
9. He is a single man, lived with his mother within the family.
G He is said to not have a triad background. He has worked as a part-time G
food stall employee and after that was unemployed. He admits and
H H
confirmed his criminal record in the court.
I I
10. In mitigation, it is noted that the defendant had been sentenced
J J
to a Training Centre Order, which means that the defendant is now
K ineligible for the orders that can be made for younger people in respect of K
the Correctional Services Department’s programmes, meaning that the
L L
available sentence for the defendant in this case, given the severity of the
M offence, is a sentence of imprisonment. M
N N
11. Defendant is now aged 21 and the restrictions on
O imprisonment under Section 109A of the Criminal Procedural Ordinance, O
Cap 221, do not apply to him.
P P
Q 12. The court also obtained a background report on the defendant Q
which sets out similar background to the one put forward in mitigation. In
R R
the final paragraph, the expression is as follows: That the defendant has
S expressed verbal remorse for his wrongdoing and acknowledged the S
impact of his actions on the victim and felt sorry for his family. He is said
T T
to have learned a harsh lesson from the court experience, wanted to reform
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
himself and lead a lawful life thereafter. He has disappointed his family
C and they seek, of course, for the court to treat him with leniency. C
D D
13. The defendant is said to be ready to shoulder his legal
E responsibility and begs the court for the shortest possible custodial E
sentence, so it would appear from the context of that report that there is
F F
some realisation by the defendant of the severity of his actions and the fact
G that the life that he has previously lived is liable to lead him to continuous G
sentences of imprisonment.
H H
I 14. I have to determine what is the appropriate starting point for I
sentence. I have been referred to various authorities by the defence which
J J
deal with similar cases dealt with in the District Court. Defendant, of
K course, in this case has been convicted of the offence of attempting to deal K
with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable
L L
offence.
M M
15. It is common ground that there is no actual guideline sentence
N N
for this offence because the ways in which the offence can be committed
O are many-fold and it is not appropriate for the court to create a guideline O
for this offence. Nevertheless, one has to have regard to the case of HKSAR
P P
v Boma which sets out a number of steps that the court can take when
Q determining how to assess the appropriate sentence for this offence. I have Q
also been referred to HKSAR v Fok Tsz Hin, a case in 2023 in the District
R R
Court; the case of HKSAR v Cheung Ka Chun and Another, 2024, Hong
S Kong District Court and also the cases of Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok S
Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 and HKSAR v Cen Huakuo [2015] 2 HKLRD
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
951, and I take account of what is said in those cases and the starting points
C that have been adopted in previous cases of this nature. C
D D
16. Having regard to those cases and the general approach of the
E courts, I have decided to take a starting point for sentence of one of 30 E
months' imprisonment for this offence. The defendant has shown remorse,
F F
so I am entitled to deduct a full one-third discount for his plea of guilty
G which leads to a sentence at this stage of one 20 months' imprisonment. G
H H
17. I note in this case, the prosecution has notified the court that
I it intends to make an application for enhancement of sentence under I
Section 27 of what is called “OSCO” and that is supported by a statement
J J
of the police regarding the prevalence of the specified offence and the
K nature and extent of harm, direct or indirect, caused to the community by K
recent occurrences thereof.
L L
M 18. The defendant does not object to this application but asks the M
court to limit the enhancement of sentence to no more than 25 per cent, as
N N
has been the case in other cases of a similar nature. I consider that an
O appropriate step to take. The prosecution have clearly evidenced the need O
for enhancement of this sentence and I will enhance the sentence of 20
P P
months' imprisonment by a further 25 per cent to reflect that application.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
19. That now leads to a sentence of 25 months' imprisonment. I
C consider that an appropriate sentence for this defendant having regard to C
his background and other matters that have been brought before me. So
D D
the sentence I will impose is one of 25 months' imprisonment.
E E
F F
G G
H H
( Casewell )
Deputy District Judge
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V