區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Amy Chan27/2/2025[2025] HKDC 331
Criminal LawFraud and Financial Crime
DCCC318/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 318/2024
C [2025] HKDC 331 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 318 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I NG WAI MAN I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Amy Chan K
Date: 28 February 2025
L L
Present: Ms Lai Karinna, Senior Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Ms Ho Vanessa H Y, instructed by GT Lawyers, assigned by M
DLA, for the defendant
N N
Offence: [1] to [7] Fraud（欺 詐 罪 ）
O O
P
----------------------------------------- P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
-----------------------------------------
R R
1. The defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to 7 charges of Fraud,
S S
contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
The Facts
C C
2. Mr Leung (“PW1”) got acquainted with D in March 2020.
D D
Between November 2020 and June 2021, D made 7 bogus business
E proposals and lured PW1 into making investments in the total sum of E
$1,021,000. During the same period of time, PW1 had received small sums
F F
of purported profit totaling $199,500 from D.
G G
The 1st and the 2nd Charges – forgo a debt repayment of $100,000 and
H H
payment of $350,000
I I
3. On 23 November 2020, D told PW1 that he was a manager of
J J
a logistics company. D made false representations to PW1 that the business
K was profitable. The total investment was $200,000. PW1 and D would K
each contribute $100,000. The investment would be kept by the logistics
L L
company as deposit only and would be returned to them when they ceased
M to operate the business. M
N N
4. PW1 was interested in the bogus proposal and agreed to make
O the investment. As PW1 had previously lent $100,000 to D, PW1 agreed O
to D’s suggestion that D was not required make repayment of the debt to
P P
PW1 and the debt would be offset by PW1’s share for the warehouse
Q business. PW1 also agreed to let D take charge of the warehouse business. Q
R R
5. After PW1 had agreed to forgo the debt repayment of
S $100,000 involved in the 1st Charge, D made further false representations S
to PW1 that there was genuine business of undertaking 2 further
T T
warehouses owned by the logistics company. The purported investments
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
for the 2 warehouses would be $200,000 and $150,000 respectively. D
C emphasized that these sums of money would be kept as deposits only, and C
would be returned to them when they ceased to carry on the business. D
D D
asked PW1 to pay for his share of the investment for the time being. PW1
E agreed. Hence, PW1 transferred a total sum of $350,000 into D’s bank E
account.
F F
G 6. D had transferred a total sum of $77,000 into PW1’s bank G
account as the purported profit.
H H
I The 3rd Charge – payment of HK$150,000 I
J J
7. On 11 January 2021, D told PW1 that his elder brother “Ah
K Man” was a manager of a cleansing company. Since the cleaning company K
decided not to take up the cleansing service at the quarantine area in the
L L
Asia World Expo, D made false representations to PW1 that they could
M undertake this cleansing business and the investment was in the sum of M
$150,000. D further claimed that the investment was only a deposit, and
N N
would be returned to PW1 after the cleansing business had ended. The
O expected profit was $20,000 per month. O
P P
8. PW1 was interested in the bogus proposal and agreed to invest.
Q PW1 thus paid a total sum of $150,000 to D. PW1 received a total of Q
$51,000 from D as the purported profit.
R R
S The 4th Charge – payment of $109,000 S
T 9. In January 2021, D made a false representation to PW1 that T
there was genuine logistics business involving delivery of goods. The
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
business was profitable and they could earn $33,000 per week.PW1 was
C interested in the said business and paid a total sum of $109,000 into the C
bank accounts. D had returned a total sum of $71,500 to PW1 as the
D D
purported profit.
E E
The 5th Charge – forgo payment of $40,000
F F
G 10. On a day unknown in February 2021, D made a false G
representation to PW1 that there was genuine logistics business. D
H H
proposed PW1 to make investment in this logistics business for the
I delivery of electronic cigarettes. D alleged that PW1 only needed to invest I
a sum of $40,000 as the deposit and carried on the business of delivering
J J
the cigarettes to a warehouse in Tsuen Wan. PW1 would earn a profit of
K $10,000 per month. K
L L
11. PW1 did not have to make any actual payment for this
M investment because the sum could be deducted from the profits that he M
made from the investment involved in the 1st to the 4th Charges. PW1 was
N N
interested in the proposal and agreed with D’s arrangement.
O O
th
The 6 Charge – payment of $210,000
P P
12. In March 2021, D made a false representation to PW1 that
Q Q
there was genuine logistics business involving delivery of goods for
R Taobao. D proposed PW1 to invest in this logistics business for delivering R
goods for Taobao to the airport and sending the goods to Taiwan by a
S S
courier flight. D told PW1 that he only needed to pay a sum of money to
T the Airport Authority Hong Kong as the deposit, and the investment would T
be refunded if they decided to cease the business. The estimated profit
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
would be $30,000 per week. Acting on D’s representations, PW1
C transferred a total of $210,000 to D’s bank account. PW1 did not receive C
any profit or money from D for this investment.
D D
E The 7th Charge – payment of $62,000 E
F F
13. In June 2021, D made a false representation to PW1 that there
G was genuine logistics business involving delivery of goods for Huawei. D G
explained that the business was to provide cross-border logistics services
H H
between Hong Kong and the Mainland for Huawei. D requested PW1 to
I invest $62,000 in the business and, in return, PW1 would get a profit of I
$10,000 each month. PW1 was interested in the purported proposal and
J J
paid cash of $62,000 to D on 17 June 2021.
K K
14. On 15 July 2021, PW1 asked D to hand over the full business
L L
records of the above-mentioned investments for inspection. D went to
M PW1’s home for discussion and signed an “IOU”, which stated that D owed M
a total sum of $2,100,000 to PW1. D undertook to return the sum by 30
N N
September 2021, or otherwise D had to pay an interest of 5% of the
O outstanding debt. At the end, no repayment was made. The case was thus O
reported to the police.
P P
Q Criminal record Q
R R
15. D has one criminal record for theft in 2010 and was sentenced
S to 160 hours of community service and a fine of $1,000. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Background and Mitigation
C C
16. D is now 41 years old, single and lives with his elderly mother.
D D
She suffers from dementia. Although D has three elder siblings, he is the
E only child living with his mother. Prior to his arrest, he was the main care E
giver to his mother on a day to day basis in all aspects of daily life. Since
F F
D’s incarceration, the care of his mother is therefore left with his two elder
G sisters. G
H H
17. D committed the offence out of financial desperation. He had
I accumulated a large amount of debt due to his loss of full time employment I
in April 2020 as a result of the pandemic of Covid-19. At the time of arrest,
J J
D was working part-time at a dispensary earning HK$8,000 per month,
K unfortunately this was insufficient to meet the household needs and debt K
repayments.
L L
M 18. Prior to the D’s arrest he has contributed to charity M
contributions with a total of $1,000 on five occasions in 2022.
N N
O 19. D emphasized his remorse but he is unable to make any O
restitution to PW1.
P P
Q 20. His siblings have written a mitigation letter for D. They all Q
support him and hope for leniency.
R R
S 21. Defence relies on HKSAR v Cheung Mei Kiu CACC 99/2006 S
and submits that for the net loss of $821,500 suffered by PW1, the
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
appropriate starting point is 33 months’ imprisonment according to the
C guidelines on a pure mathematical calculation. C
D D
Discussion
E E
22. Fraud is a very serious offence. The maximum sentence is 14
F F
years’ imprisonment.
G G
23. In this case, D made various bogus business proposals to PW1.
H H
Relying on the representations made by D, PW1 was lured to make
I investments involving a total sum of $1,021,000 to D in the span of I
approximately 7 months.
J J
K 24. In HKSAR v Chong Hung Shek [2019] 2 HKLRD 937, the K
Court of Appeal stated that the amount of the fraud particularized in the
L L
charges should determine the appropriate sentencing band while the actual
M loss was simply a matter of mitigation. M
N
25. Therefore, I reject Defence’s submission to sentence D on the N
O
basis of PW1’s actual loss of $821,500. O
P 26. In my view, the sentence should be based on the total sum of P
$1,021,000 instead on the net loss of $821,500. In Charges 2, 3 and 4, D
Q Q
initially distributed profits of $199,500 to PW1 which effectively
R encouraged and enticed him to continue to invest further. D was thus able R
to perpetuate more fraud. In Charges 1, 5, 6 and 7, PW1 never received
S S
anything in return at any stage.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
27. The sentencing guidelines for the offence of theft involving
C breach of trust cases laid down by the Court in Cheung Mei Kiu involving C
$1 million to $3 million is 3 to 5 years.
D D
E 28. However, I do not agree the guidelines in Cheung Mei Kiu E
apply in this case. In cases involving deception, the sentence depends on
F F
the nature of the fraud exercised on the victim. Each case or each sentence
G shall be determined on a case to case basis. G
H H
29. In this case, it was not a breach of trust scenario. D befriended
I PW1 but was in reality deceiving him. D breached the trust placed in him I
by PW1 who expected him to invest his money. D never invested as
J J
promised.
K K
30. There was a degree of sophistication in the fraud exercised on
L L
PW1 in the short time span of 7 months. The court must take into account
M that D was acting with premeditation and persistence. D made 7 bogus M
business proposals to PW1. As a result, PW1 had paid $1,021,000 to D.
N N
The actual substantial loss sustained by PW1 was $820,000.
O O
31. It is likely that PW1 is unable to recover his loss.
P P
Q 32. I note that D’s mother suffers from dementia. D should have Q
taken this into consideration before committing these offences and so his
R R
family plight could not be of assistance to him in mitigation.
S S
33. Having considered the facts of this case and the factors
T mentioned above, I am going to adopt a starting point for each charge as T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
below. D’s guilty plea entitles him to receive a one-third reduction in his
C sentence. C
D D
Charge Loss of PW1 Starting point of Sentence after 1/3
sentence (months) discount (months)
E E
1 $100,000 9 6
F 2 $350,000 21 14 F
3 $150,000 10.5 7
G G
4 $109,000 9 6
H H
5 $40,000 3 2
I 6 $210,000 12 8 I
7 $62,000 4.5 3
J J
K 34. Having taken into account D’s background and all that was K
said on his behalf in mitigation, I find there is nothing which warrant any
L L
further reduction in sentence.
M M
35. The offences were committed on different occasions. They
N N
were separate and distinct acts. The sentences should, in principle, run
O consecutively. I have taken into consideration for the duration of the O
offences, the total amount of money that PW1 was deceived and his actual
P P
loss. Applying the totality principle, I consider that an overall term of 26
Q months should sufficiently reflect the criminality involved in this case. Q
R R
36. I therefore order a 2 months in respect of Charge (1), Charge
S (3) to Charge (7) are to run consecutively to the term of 14 months in S
respect of Charge (2), with the remaining terms to run concurrently,
T T
making a total of 26 months’ imprisonment (14 + 2 x 6).
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
37. D is to serve a total of 26 months’ imprisonment.
C C
D D
E E
( Amy Chan )
F F
Deputy District Judge
G G
H H
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 318/2024
C [2025] HKDC 331 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 318 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I NG WAI MAN I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Amy Chan K
Date: 28 February 2025
L L
Present: Ms Lai Karinna, Senior Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Ms Ho Vanessa H Y, instructed by GT Lawyers, assigned by M
DLA, for the defendant
N N
Offence: [1] to [7] Fraud（欺 詐 罪 ）
O O
P
----------------------------------------- P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
-----------------------------------------
R R
1. The defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to 7 charges of Fraud,
S S
contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
The Facts
C C
2. Mr Leung (“PW1”) got acquainted with D in March 2020.
D D
Between November 2020 and June 2021, D made 7 bogus business
E proposals and lured PW1 into making investments in the total sum of E
$1,021,000. During the same period of time, PW1 had received small sums
F F
of purported profit totaling $199,500 from D.
G G
The 1st and the 2nd Charges – forgo a debt repayment of $100,000 and
H H
payment of $350,000
I I
3. On 23 November 2020, D told PW1 that he was a manager of
J J
a logistics company. D made false representations to PW1 that the business
K was profitable. The total investment was $200,000. PW1 and D would K
each contribute $100,000. The investment would be kept by the logistics
L L
company as deposit only and would be returned to them when they ceased
M to operate the business. M
N N
4. PW1 was interested in the bogus proposal and agreed to make
O the investment. As PW1 had previously lent $100,000 to D, PW1 agreed O
to D’s suggestion that D was not required make repayment of the debt to
P P
PW1 and the debt would be offset by PW1’s share for the warehouse
Q business. PW1 also agreed to let D take charge of the warehouse business. Q
R R
5. After PW1 had agreed to forgo the debt repayment of
S $100,000 involved in the 1st Charge, D made further false representations S
to PW1 that there was genuine business of undertaking 2 further
T T
warehouses owned by the logistics company. The purported investments
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
for the 2 warehouses would be $200,000 and $150,000 respectively. D
C emphasized that these sums of money would be kept as deposits only, and C
would be returned to them when they ceased to carry on the business. D
D D
asked PW1 to pay for his share of the investment for the time being. PW1
E agreed. Hence, PW1 transferred a total sum of $350,000 into D’s bank E
account.
F F
G 6. D had transferred a total sum of $77,000 into PW1’s bank G
account as the purported profit.
H H
I The 3rd Charge – payment of HK$150,000 I
J J
7. On 11 January 2021, D told PW1 that his elder brother “Ah
K Man” was a manager of a cleansing company. Since the cleaning company K
decided not to take up the cleansing service at the quarantine area in the
L L
Asia World Expo, D made false representations to PW1 that they could
M undertake this cleansing business and the investment was in the sum of M
$150,000. D further claimed that the investment was only a deposit, and
N N
would be returned to PW1 after the cleansing business had ended. The
O expected profit was $20,000 per month. O
P P
8. PW1 was interested in the bogus proposal and agreed to invest.
Q PW1 thus paid a total sum of $150,000 to D. PW1 received a total of Q
$51,000 from D as the purported profit.
R R
S The 4th Charge – payment of $109,000 S
T 9. In January 2021, D made a false representation to PW1 that T
there was genuine logistics business involving delivery of goods. The
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
business was profitable and they could earn $33,000 per week.PW1 was
C interested in the said business and paid a total sum of $109,000 into the C
bank accounts. D had returned a total sum of $71,500 to PW1 as the
D D
purported profit.
E E
The 5th Charge – forgo payment of $40,000
F F
G 10. On a day unknown in February 2021, D made a false G
representation to PW1 that there was genuine logistics business. D
H H
proposed PW1 to make investment in this logistics business for the
I delivery of electronic cigarettes. D alleged that PW1 only needed to invest I
a sum of $40,000 as the deposit and carried on the business of delivering
J J
the cigarettes to a warehouse in Tsuen Wan. PW1 would earn a profit of
K $10,000 per month. K
L L
11. PW1 did not have to make any actual payment for this
M investment because the sum could be deducted from the profits that he M
made from the investment involved in the 1st to the 4th Charges. PW1 was
N N
interested in the proposal and agreed with D’s arrangement.
O O
th
The 6 Charge – payment of $210,000
P P
12. In March 2021, D made a false representation to PW1 that
Q Q
there was genuine logistics business involving delivery of goods for
R Taobao. D proposed PW1 to invest in this logistics business for delivering R
goods for Taobao to the airport and sending the goods to Taiwan by a
S S
courier flight. D told PW1 that he only needed to pay a sum of money to
T the Airport Authority Hong Kong as the deposit, and the investment would T
be refunded if they decided to cease the business. The estimated profit
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
would be $30,000 per week. Acting on D’s representations, PW1
C transferred a total of $210,000 to D’s bank account. PW1 did not receive C
any profit or money from D for this investment.
D D
E The 7th Charge – payment of $62,000 E
F F
13. In June 2021, D made a false representation to PW1 that there
G was genuine logistics business involving delivery of goods for Huawei. D G
explained that the business was to provide cross-border logistics services
H H
between Hong Kong and the Mainland for Huawei. D requested PW1 to
I invest $62,000 in the business and, in return, PW1 would get a profit of I
$10,000 each month. PW1 was interested in the purported proposal and
J J
paid cash of $62,000 to D on 17 June 2021.
K K
14. On 15 July 2021, PW1 asked D to hand over the full business
L L
records of the above-mentioned investments for inspection. D went to
M PW1’s home for discussion and signed an “IOU”, which stated that D owed M
a total sum of $2,100,000 to PW1. D undertook to return the sum by 30
N N
September 2021, or otherwise D had to pay an interest of 5% of the
O outstanding debt. At the end, no repayment was made. The case was thus O
reported to the police.
P P
Q Criminal record Q
R R
15. D has one criminal record for theft in 2010 and was sentenced
S to 160 hours of community service and a fine of $1,000. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Background and Mitigation
C C
16. D is now 41 years old, single and lives with his elderly mother.
D D
She suffers from dementia. Although D has three elder siblings, he is the
E only child living with his mother. Prior to his arrest, he was the main care E
giver to his mother on a day to day basis in all aspects of daily life. Since
F F
D’s incarceration, the care of his mother is therefore left with his two elder
G sisters. G
H H
17. D committed the offence out of financial desperation. He had
I accumulated a large amount of debt due to his loss of full time employment I
in April 2020 as a result of the pandemic of Covid-19. At the time of arrest,
J J
D was working part-time at a dispensary earning HK$8,000 per month,
K unfortunately this was insufficient to meet the household needs and debt K
repayments.
L L
M 18. Prior to the D’s arrest he has contributed to charity M
contributions with a total of $1,000 on five occasions in 2022.
N N
O 19. D emphasized his remorse but he is unable to make any O
restitution to PW1.
P P
Q 20. His siblings have written a mitigation letter for D. They all Q
support him and hope for leniency.
R R
S 21. Defence relies on HKSAR v Cheung Mei Kiu CACC 99/2006 S
and submits that for the net loss of $821,500 suffered by PW1, the
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
appropriate starting point is 33 months’ imprisonment according to the
C guidelines on a pure mathematical calculation. C
D D
Discussion
E E
22. Fraud is a very serious offence. The maximum sentence is 14
F F
years’ imprisonment.
G G
23. In this case, D made various bogus business proposals to PW1.
H H
Relying on the representations made by D, PW1 was lured to make
I investments involving a total sum of $1,021,000 to D in the span of I
approximately 7 months.
J J
K 24. In HKSAR v Chong Hung Shek [2019] 2 HKLRD 937, the K
Court of Appeal stated that the amount of the fraud particularized in the
L L
charges should determine the appropriate sentencing band while the actual
M loss was simply a matter of mitigation. M
N
25. Therefore, I reject Defence’s submission to sentence D on the N
O
basis of PW1’s actual loss of $821,500. O
P 26. In my view, the sentence should be based on the total sum of P
$1,021,000 instead on the net loss of $821,500. In Charges 2, 3 and 4, D
Q Q
initially distributed profits of $199,500 to PW1 which effectively
R encouraged and enticed him to continue to invest further. D was thus able R
to perpetuate more fraud. In Charges 1, 5, 6 and 7, PW1 never received
S S
anything in return at any stage.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
27. The sentencing guidelines for the offence of theft involving
C breach of trust cases laid down by the Court in Cheung Mei Kiu involving C
$1 million to $3 million is 3 to 5 years.
D D
E 28. However, I do not agree the guidelines in Cheung Mei Kiu E
apply in this case. In cases involving deception, the sentence depends on
F F
the nature of the fraud exercised on the victim. Each case or each sentence
G shall be determined on a case to case basis. G
H H
29. In this case, it was not a breach of trust scenario. D befriended
I PW1 but was in reality deceiving him. D breached the trust placed in him I
by PW1 who expected him to invest his money. D never invested as
J J
promised.
K K
30. There was a degree of sophistication in the fraud exercised on
L L
PW1 in the short time span of 7 months. The court must take into account
M that D was acting with premeditation and persistence. D made 7 bogus M
business proposals to PW1. As a result, PW1 had paid $1,021,000 to D.
N N
The actual substantial loss sustained by PW1 was $820,000.
O O
31. It is likely that PW1 is unable to recover his loss.
P P
Q 32. I note that D’s mother suffers from dementia. D should have Q
taken this into consideration before committing these offences and so his
R R
family plight could not be of assistance to him in mitigation.
S S
33. Having considered the facts of this case and the factors
T mentioned above, I am going to adopt a starting point for each charge as T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
below. D’s guilty plea entitles him to receive a one-third reduction in his
C sentence. C
D D
Charge Loss of PW1 Starting point of Sentence after 1/3
sentence (months) discount (months)
E E
1 $100,000 9 6
F 2 $350,000 21 14 F
3 $150,000 10.5 7
G G
4 $109,000 9 6
H H
5 $40,000 3 2
I 6 $210,000 12 8 I
7 $62,000 4.5 3
J J
K 34. Having taken into account D’s background and all that was K
said on his behalf in mitigation, I find there is nothing which warrant any
L L
further reduction in sentence.
M M
35. The offences were committed on different occasions. They
N N
were separate and distinct acts. The sentences should, in principle, run
O consecutively. I have taken into consideration for the duration of the O
offences, the total amount of money that PW1 was deceived and his actual
P P
loss. Applying the totality principle, I consider that an overall term of 26
Q months should sufficiently reflect the criminality involved in this case. Q
R R
36. I therefore order a 2 months in respect of Charge (1), Charge
S (3) to Charge (7) are to run consecutively to the term of 14 months in S
respect of Charge (2), with the remaining terms to run concurrently,
T T
making a total of 26 months’ imprisonment (14 + 2 x 6).
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
37. D is to serve a total of 26 months’ imprisonment.
C C
D D
E E
( Amy Chan )
F F
Deputy District Judge
G G
H H
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