區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge K K Leung4/1/2026[2026] HKDC 33
DCCC1319/2025
A A
B B
DCCC 1319/2025
C [2026] HKDC 33 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1319 OF 2025
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LEUNG Sin-kan I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge K K Leung K
Date: 5 January 2026
L L
Present: Mr Victor Lee, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Jonathan Kwan, instructed by Tung & Associates, M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: [1] – [11] Fraud (欺詐罪)
O O
P P
---------------------------------------
Q Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R
--------------------------------------- R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The Defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to 11 charges of Fraud,
C contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. C
D D
SUMMARY OF FACTS
E E
2. At all material times, D was the holder of Tap & Go account
F F
numbered 141542591155 (“D’s Tap & Go Account”) and PAO bank
G account numbered 7522000464990 (“D’s PAO Bank Account”). G
Between 2 July 2024 and 1 October 2024, D’s Tap & Go Account was
H H
linked to FPS with the mobile number 9021 0997 (“Mobile Number”),
I which was registered under M/LEUNG Wing-ki, D’s father (“D’s FPS”). I
Since 18 October 2024, D’s PAO Bank Account was linked to D’s FPS.
J J
K Charge 1 K
L L
3. On 21 July 2024, M/LAM Wai-leung (“PW1”) came across a
M M
post on social media application Facebook by an account named “Kensin
N kensin” offering letting of parking spaces in village houses. Feeling N
interested, PW1 contacted the user of the said Facebook account, which
O O
was later known to be belonged to D (“D’s Facebook Account”), and later
P received a call from mobile phone number 9021 0997, which was later P
known to be used by D and registered under his father (“D’s Number”),
Q Q
where D represented that he had a parking space in Wong Nai Tau Village
R for letting. PW1 then went to Wong Nai Tau Village for site inspection R
and confirmed the location of the parking space with D. Acting on such
S S
representation, PW1 made payments for the rent of the parking space to
T D’s FPS as requested and met up with D at Wong Nai Tau Village on 22 T
July 2024 who confirmed the location of the parking space. Subsequently,
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
D demanded further payments for various reasons including that PW1 was
C not a villager, a deposit was needed, the deposit had increased etc, and PW1 C
complied. PW1 and D met again on 6 August 2025 to sign the contract.
D D
E 4. On 24 August 2024, D claimed to PW1 that the agreed E
parking space was not available for parking due to construction work and
F F
provided an alternative parking space outside the public toilet of Wong Nai
G Tau Village. Later, D claimed to PW1 that the parking space outside the G
public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village was no longer available for parking
H H
due to construction work and provided an alternative parking space in Tai
I Che Village. The scam was unveiled when PW1 was told by a I
representative of Tai Che Village that he was not permitted to park therein
J J
anymore and D defaulted on rental payments for the parking space at Tai
K Che Village. D then became out of reach. Case was reported. K
L L
5. All along, PW1 paid D under his representation and parted
M with a total sum of HKD 18,400 (with the last payment made on 6 August M
2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.
N N
O O
Charge 2
P P
Q 6. On 26 August 2024, F/CHAN Hiu-lam (“PW2”) came across Q
a post on Facebook by D’s Facebook Account offering letting of parking
R R
spaces in Shatin District. Feeling interested, PW2 contacted D and agreed
S to meet up with D. On 16 September 2024, PW2 met up with D at Kwong S
Wing Lane where D represented that PW2 could rent a parking space at
T T
Kwong Wing Lane. PW2 and D then signed the contract. Acting on such
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
representation, PW2 made payments for the rent of the parking space to
C D’s FPS as requested. Later that night, PW2 received a call from D that he C
had already informed the village head who permitted PW2 to park her car
D D
at the parking space but required one-year lease period. PW2 complied
E and made further payments to D. E
F F
7. On 25 October 2024, D claimed to PW2 that the agreed
G parking space was no longer available for parking due to construction work G
and provided an alternative parking space upon paying the difference in
H H
rent. PW2 complied and made further payments to D. D claimed to PW2
I that the alternative parking space would be in the vicinity of Tai Nam Liu I
Village which was not yet available and asked PW2 to park her car at the
J J
meter-parking space at Kwong Sin Street. The scam was unveiled when
K PW2 received further fixed penalty tickets for illegal parking and D K
became out of reach. Case was reported.
L L
M 8. All along, PW2 paid D under his representation and parted M
with a total sum of HKD 12,600 (with the last payment made on 8
N N
November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.
O O
Charge 3
P P
Q Q
9. On 15 September 2024, M/DONG Yuhao (“PW3”) created a
R post on Facebook asking for parking spaces in the vicinity of Kwong Yuen. R
Later in that night, PW3 received a WhatsApp message from D’s Number
S S
where the sender represented that he had a parking space in the vicinity of
T Kwong Yuen for letting. Feeling interested, PW3 agreed to meet up with T
the sender. PW3 met up with D that night to confirm the location of the
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
parking space for letting, which was situated at Tai Lam Liu Village. D
C stated to PW3 that he could let the parking space to PW3. D and PW3 then C
signed a contract. Acting on such representation, PW3 made payments for
D D
the rent of the parking space to D’s FPS.
E E
10. In October 2024, D claimed to PW3 that the agreed parking
F F
space was not available for parking due to construction work and provided
G an alternative parking space in Tai Che Village. D demanded further G
payments for the alternative parking space and PW3 complied. The scam
H H
was unveiled when PW3 was told by a representative of Tai Che Village
I that D defaulted on rental payments for the parking space at Tai Che I
Village. D then became out of reach. Case was reported.
J J
K 11. All along, PW3 paid D under his representation and parted K
with a total sum of HKD 8,800 (with the last payment made on 24
L L
November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.
M M
Charge 4
N N
O O
12. In August 2024, M/CHAN Li-tat, Ryan (“PW4”) was referred
P by his friend to contact D for rental of parking spaces. On 19 October P
2024, PW4 and D met up and confirmed the location of the parking space
Q Q
to be near Lamppost VE4675 of Tai Nam Liu Village, which D confirmed
R that he would let the parking space to PW4. A contract was signed between R
PW4 and D. Acting on D’s representation, PW4 made payments for the
S S
rental of the parking space to D’s FPS. The scam was unveiled when D
T became out of reach. Case was reported. T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
13. All along, PW4 paid D under his representation and parted
C with a total sum of HKD 24,000 (with the last payment made on 23 October C
2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.
D D
E Charge 5 E
F F
14. On 21 October 2024, M/CHAN Sheung-yin, Marco (“PW5”)
G G
parked his car at Kwong Wing Lane and left his mobile phone number at
H the windscreen of the car. On 22 October 2024, he received a call from H
D’s Number where D stated that PW5’s car was parked at a parking space
I I
which belonged to D. D stated to PW5 that the parking space would be
J available for letting. Feeling interested, PW5 met up with D outside the J
public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village on 23 October 2024 and signed the
K K
contract. Acting on D’s representation, PW5 made payments for the rent
L of the parking space to D’s FPS. Subsequently, D demanded for further L
payments with various reasons including that the agreed parking space
M M
would no longer be available due to construction work and that D had to
N pay extra for the alternative parking space at Tai Che Village, the rent for N
Kwong Wing Lane would increase after construction etc., and PW5
O O
complied. The scam was unveiled when PW5 failed to receive
P reimbursement of deposits from D as promised and D became out of reach. P
Case was reported.
Q Q
R 15. All along, PW5 paid D under his representation and parted R
with a total sum of HKD 17,800 (with the last payment made on 7
S S
November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
Charge 6
C C
16. At the material time, M/WONG King-chi (“PW6”) parked his
D D
car near the public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village and left his mobile
E phone number on the windscreen of his car. On 23 October 2024, PW6 E
received a WhatsApp message from D’s Number that asking PW6 not to
F F
park his car near the public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village as the car
G blocked the way. The sender further claimed that he was surnamed LAU G
and was a villager of Tai Nam Liu Village. He asked PW6 if PW6 was
H H
interested to rent a parking space and he was responsible for managing the
I parking spaces in the vicinity on behalf of the village head. Feeling I
J
interested, PW6 met up with D outside the public toilet of Wong Nai Tau J
Village to confirm the location of the parking space situated near Lamppost
K K
VE3544 of Tai Nam Liu Village. D stated to PW6 that he was responsible
L
for managing the parking spaces of village houses. Acting on D’s L
representation, PW6 made payments for the rental of the parking space to
M M
D’s FPS. The scam was unveiled when D became out of reach. Case was
N reported. N
O O
17. All along, PW6 paid D under his representation and parted
P with a sum of HKD 9,600 on 23 October 2024 as a result of D’s P
representation, which was false.
Q Q
R Charge 7 R
S S
18. On 29 October 2024, M/LEE Ka-chun (“PW7”) was told by
T his friend that D could recommend parking places. PW7 then sent a T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
WhatsApp message to D’s Number asking about the details of renting
C parking spaces and a meeting between PW7 and D was arranged on the C
same day. D first brought PW7 to inspect a parking space at Tai Nam Liu
D D
Village and stated to PW7 that the same could be rented to PW7. PW7
E rejected D’s offer as he saw that there were fixed penalty tickets issued to E
the cars parked therein. D then brought PW7 to another parking space in
F F
Siu Lik Yuen Village. Acting on D’s representation and believing that D
G was an agent on behalf of the villager of Siu Liu Yuen Village, PW7 made G
payments for the rent of the parking space to D’s FPS. Subsequently, D
H H
demanded further payments for various reasons including that a deposit
I was needed and the deposit was insufficient, and PW7 complied. The scam I
was unveiled when PW7 received a call where the caller stated that the
J J
parking space occupied by PW7’s car belonged to the caller. PW7
K contacted D who suggested PW7 to park his car at Tam Nam Liu Village. K
PW7 declined D’s suggestion and D became out of reach. Case was
L L
reported.
M M
19. All along, PW7 paid D under his representation and parted
N N
with a total sum of HKD 14,400 (with the last payment made on 26
O November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false. O
P P
Charge 8
Q Q
R 20. On 11 November 2024, F/WONG Yin-ching, Ivy (“PW8”) R
came across a post on Facebook offering letting of parking spaces in
S S
Charming Garden. Feeling interested, PW8 responded to the post and
T communicated with D. Later that day PW8 met up with D and confirmed T
the location of the parking space to be the parking space of No. 413,
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Charming Garden and signed the contract. Acting on such representation,
C PW8 made a payment for the rental of the parking space to D’s FPS. C
Subsequently, D demanded for further payments with various reasons
D D
including that he could offer discount if PW8 paid more deposits and that
E a handling fee was required, and PW8 complied. The scam was unveiled E
when PW8 failed to receive updates from D regarding the use of the
F F
parking space and D became out of reach. Case was reported.
G G
21. All along, PW8 paid D under his representation and parted
H H
with a total sum of HKD 12,500 (with the last payment made on 28
I November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false. I
J J
Charge 9
K K
L
22. In November 2024, M/WONG Tsz-wai (“PW9”) created a L
post on Facebook asking for parking spaces in Garden Rivera. On 16
M M
November 2024, PW9 received a Facebook message where the sender
N represented that he had a parking space in Garden Rivera for letting. N
Feeling interested, PW9 agreed to meet up with the sender having
O O
communicated with the sender in WhatsApp who used D’s Number. On
P 20 November 2024, PW9 met up with D to confirm the location of the P
parking space, which was the parking space of No. 88, Garden Rivera and
Q Q
signed the contract. Acting on such representation, PW9 made payments
R for the rent of the parking space both by cash and by transfer to D’s FPS. R
The scam was unveiled when PW9 failed to receive updates from D
S S
regarding the use of the parking space and D became out of reach. Case
T was reported. M/NG Kin-sun (“PW10”), the owner of the parking space, T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
confirmed that he did not let the parking space to D or authorize D to let
C the same to anyone. C
D D
23. All along, PW9 paid D under his representation and parted
E with a total sum of HKD 8,900 (with the last payment made on 24 E
November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.
F F
G Charge 10 G
H H
24. On 18 November 2024, M/HON Hoi-kin (“PW11”) came
I across a post on Facebook by D’s Facebook Account offering letting of I
J
parking spaces. Feeling interested, PW11 contacted D where D J
represented that he had a parking space in Garden Rivera for letting. On
K K
19 November 2024, PW11 and D (who was also the ex-boyfriend of D’s
L
ex-girlfriend) met up in Garden Rivera, confirmed the location of the L
parking space to be the parking space of No. 107, Garden Rivera and signed
M M
the contract for its rental. Acting on such representation, PW11 made a
N payment for the rent of the parking space to D’s FPS. The scam was N
unveiled when PW11 failed to receive updates from D regarding the use of
O O
the parking space and D became out of reach. Case was reported.
P M/TSANG Leung-ching (“PW12”), the owner of the parking space, P
confirmed that he did not let the parking space to D or authorize D to let
Q Q
the same to anyone.
R R
25. All along, PW11 paid D under his representation and parted
S S
with a sum of HKD 7,200 on 19 November 2024 as a result of D’s
T representation, which was false. T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Charge 11
C C
26. On 24 November 2024, M/CHUNG King-lok (“PW13”)
D D
came across a post on Facebook offering letting of parking spaces in Hing
E Tin Estate, Lam Tin. Feeling interested, PW13 contacted the author of the E
post and communicated with D with D’s Number. D later confirmed the
F F
location of the parking space to be the parking space of No. B10, Sky City
G and met up with PW13 on 25 November 2025 and signed the contract for G
the letting. Acting on such representation, PW13 made a payment for the
H H
rental of the parking space to D’s FPS. The scam was unveiled when PW13
I failed to receive updates from D regarding the use of the parking space and I
J
D became out of reach. Case was reported. M/WONG Kwok-shing J
(“PW14”), the owner of the parking space, confirmed that he did not let
K K
the parking space to D or authorize D to let the same to anyone.
L L
27. All along, PW13 paid D under his representation and parted
M M
with a sum of HKD 2,200 on 25 November 2024 as a result of D’s
N representation, which was false. N
O O
Arrest and Caution
P P
28. On 11 December 2024, D was arrested in his residence in Tai
Q Q
Nam Liu Village for the offence of “Fraud”. Under caution, D stated, inter
R alia, that he was heavily indebted so he deceived the car owners by stating R
that they could park their cars. The parking spaces were government land.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
29. In subsequent video-recorded interviews, D stated, inter alia,
C the following under caution:- C
D D
Charge 1
E E
(a) D was not authorized to let the parking space in Wong
F F
Nai Tau Village;
G (b) D’s Facebook Account was registered by D. He created G
the Facebook post on 21 July 2024 offering letting of
H H
parking spaces in village houses as he was indebted;
I (c) D used D’s Number to communicate with PW1. He I
met up with PW1 on 22 July 2024 and 6 August 2024;
J J
(d) D used the rental payments he received from PW1 to
K repay his debts; K
L L
Charge 2
M M
(a) D’s Facebook Account was registered by D. He created
N N
the Facebook post offering letting of parking spaces in
O Shatin; O
(b) D met up with PW2 at Kwong Wing Lane on 16
P P
September 2024 and represented to PW2 that a parking
Q space at Wong Nai Tau Village was available for letting. Q
He falsely represented to PW2 that he was an agent to
R R
deceive her;
S (c) D later realized that the parking space was government S
land when fixed penalty tickets for illegal parking were
T T
received. He falsely represented to PW2 that the
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
parking space belonged to the village. As he had
C already received the rent from PW2, he decided to C
continue to deceive her;
D D
(d) D was not authorized to let the parking space in Wong
E Nai Tau Village; E
(e) D used D’s Number to communicate with PW2;
F F
(f) D used the rental payments he received from PW2 to
G repay his debts; G
H H
Charge 3
I I
(a) D was not authorized to let the parking space in Tai
J J
Lam Liu Village;
K (b) D used D’s Facebook Account to contact PW3. He K
stated to PW3 that he had a parking space in the vicinity
L L
of Kwong Yuen for letting;
M (c) When D met up with PW3 on 15 September 2024, D M
did not tell PW3 whether the parking space in Tai Lam
N N
Liu Village was government land or private land. PW3
O might not be aware that Tai Lam Liu Village was O
government land;
P P
(d) D used the rental payments he received from PW3 to
Q repay his debts; Q
R R
Charge 4
S S
(a) D and PW4 met up with on 19 October 2024 near
T T
Lamppost VE4675 in Tai Nam Liu Village. D knew
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
that the parking space belonged to government land but
C he stated to PW4 that the parking space belonged to C
private land and that PW4 could park his car thereat
D D
upon paying rents. He was not authorized by the
E village head of Tai Nam Liu Village to let the parking E
space;
F F
(b) D used the rental payments he received from PW4 to
G repay his debts. He deceived monies from others to G
repay his debts.
H H
I Charge 5 I
J J
(a) D called PW5 as D saw PW5’s mobile phone number
K on PW5’s car. He stated to PW5 that the parking space K
occupied by PW5 at Kwong Wing Lane belonged to
L L
villagers and monies were needed to park PW5’s car
M therein. He stated so and deceived PW5 because he was M
in need of money;
N N
(b) D used the rental payments he received from PW5 to
O repay his debts; O
P P
Charge 6
Q Q
(a) D called PW6 as D saw PW6’s mobile phone number
R R
on PW6’s car. He stated to PW6 that PW6 could park
S his car upon payment of rental; S
(b) D was not the owner of the parking space at Tai Nam
T T
Liu Village and was not authorized to let the parking
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
space to PW6;
C (c) D used the rental payments he received from PW6 to C
repay his debts;
D D
E Charge 7 E
F F
(a) D met up with PW7 to inspect the parking spaces at Tai
G Nam Liu Village and Siu Lik Yuen Village; G
(b) D deceived PW7 by representing to him that the
H H
parking spaces at both Tai Nam Liu Village and Siu Lik
I Yuen Village were private land so as to collect rents. I
He was not authorized to let the parking space at Tai
J J
Nam Liu Village;
K (c) D used the rental payments he received from PW7 to K
repay his debts;
L L
M Charge 8 M
N N
(a) D responded to PW8’s post on Facebook asking to rent
O a parking space in Charming Garden and stated to her O
that a parking space at Charming Garden was available;
P P
(b) D met up with PW8 on 11 November 2024 and stated
Q to PW8 that the parking space at No. 413, Charming Q
Garden belonged to him. He was not acquainted with
R R
the owner of the parking space and was not authorized
S to let the same; S
(c) D used the rental payments he received from PW8 to
T T
repay his debts. He deceived monies from others to
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
repay his debts;
C C
Charge 9
D D
E (a) D responded to PW9’s post on Facebook with D’s E
Facebook Account in mid-November 2024. When they
F F
met up, D represented to PW9 that the parking space at
G No 88, Garden Rivera was available for letting; G
(b) D was not the owner of the parking space and was not
H H
authorized to let the same. He deceived others with this
I method as he was indebted; I
(c) D used the rental payments he received from PW9 to
J J
repay his debts;
K K
Charge 10
L L
M (a) D met up with PW11 on 19 November 2024. He M
pretended to be the owner of the parking space at No.
N N
107, Garden Rivera and was not authorized to let the
O same; O
(b) D used D’s Facebook Account to create a post about
P P
the letting of parking spaces at Garden Rivera;
Q (c) D used the rental payments he received from PW11 to Q
repay his debts;
R R
S Charge 11 S
T T
(a) D met up with PW13 on 25 November 2024 and stated
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
to PW13 that the parking space at No. B10, Sky City
C was available for letting. He was not the owner of the C
parking space and was not authorized to let the same;
D D
(b) D created a post on Facebook on 24 November 2024
E asking others to rent parking spaces. He communicated E
with PW13 with D’s Number;
F F
(c) D used the rental payments he received from PW13 to
G repay his debts. G
H H
Other Investigations
I I
30. Transaction and messaging records with D were provided by
J J
PW1 to PW9, PW11 and PW13 to substantiate their allegations, which
K corroborated records from D’s Tap & Go Account and D’s PAO Account. K
L L
31. In subsequent identification parades, PW1 to PW3, PW5 to
M PW9, PW11 and PW13 positively identified D as the culprit they met in M
the incidents.
N N
O 32. Enquiry with the Lands Department revealed that the relevant O
parking spaces in Wong Nai Tau Village, Kwong Wing Lane, Siu Lek
P P
Yuen Village and Tai Lam Liu Village were government land.
Q Q
CRIMINAL RECORD AND BACKGROUND OF THE DEFENDANT
R R
S 33. D had been sentenced by court on 3 occasions involving a S
total of 11 criminal charges. All of them are related to dishonesty. His last
T T
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
conviction involving 8 charges in 2021 are similar to the present charge ie
C fraud. He was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment. C
D D
34. D is now aged 27 and single. Prior to his arrest, D resided with
E his parents. D received education in Hong Kong up to Form 2 level. D E
worked as a casual worker, earing around HK$12,000 – 15,000 per month.
F F
G 35. It was submitted that D started gambling since he was 20 years G
old as he wished to earn more money to improve the lives of his family.
H H
However, D could not control himself and became heavily indebted for a
I loan of around $500,000. D was declared bankrupt in 2020. However, the I
loan sharks and debt collectors did not stop to harass D and his family.
J J
Under these circumstances, D foolishly resorted to make quick money with
K a view to pay off his debts. K
L L
MITIGATION
M M
36. In mitigation, it was submitted D was cooperative with the
N N
police during investigation. D had made full admission upon interrogation.
O D had demonstrated genuine remorse. Mitigation letters of D and his O
mother were submitted.
P P
Q 37. It was submitted by Mr Kwan that the culpability of D is Q
comparable to those who committed fraud online repeatedly, having regard
R R
to the modus operandi in the present case. Mr Kwan referred the court to
S the following cases: S
T T
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
(a) In HKSAR v Lam See Chung Stephen [2021] HKDC
C 236, the defendant pleaded guilty to, inter alia, 5 C
charges of fraud. In Charge 3, the defendant defrauded
D D
the victims in 16 incidents by falsely representing to
E them online that he would deliver vehicles to them after E
payment by these victims. The amount involved was
F F
$140,400. There are a total 16 victims involved and the
G duration of the offence is 6½ months 1 . The Court G
adopted a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment
H H
and enhanced the same by 3 months as the defendant
I was a persistent offender and further 3 as the offence I
was committed whilst he was on bail/jumped bail2.
J J
K (b) In 香港特別行政區 訴 王亦夫 [2022] HKDC 712, the K
defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of 14
L L
3
(out of 18) counts of fraud as a result of plea bargain .
M All 18 counts were concert / show ticket fraud. In M
Charge 12, 12 victims and a sum of HK$140,190 were
N N
4
involved . The court adopted 19.5 months
O O
imprisonment for Charge 125;
P P
(c) In 香港特別行政區 訴 何家俊 [2019] HKDC 1341,
Q Q
the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of fraud 6 .
R This case was a concert / show ticket fraud. 26 victims R
S 1
S
Paragraph 8 of the Reasons for Sentence
2
Paragraphs 51-52 of the Reasons for Sentence
3
Paragraph 1 of the Reasons for Sentence
T 4 T
Paragraphs 2-4 and 16 of the Reasons for Sentence
5
Paragraph 16 of the Reasons for Sentence
6
Paragraph 1 of the Reasons for Sentence
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
were involved and the deceived amount was
C HK$329,815 in total 7 . The court adopted a starting C
point of 39 months’ imprisonment. The sentence was
D D
reduced to 26 months’ imprisonment on guilty plea8.
E E
38. The Defence submitted that the present case is not the most
F F
serious of its kind. D did not use the entirety of the deceived sums on
G himself / to repay his debt, part of the sums was used to (i) pay for parking G
fees (for a short period of time); or (ii) pay for the fixed penalty tickets
H H
received by the victims as a result of illegal parking. D had demonstrated
I genuine remorse, the defence asked the court to exercise leniency towards I
D.
J J
K SENTENCE K
L L
39. The maximum penalty for the offence of fraud is 14 years’
M imprisonment. There is no sentencing tariff for this offence. The sentence M
depends on the facts of each case.
N N
O 40. I have carefully considered the nature of the offences that D O
were facing, the facts of the case admitted, the background of D and the
P P
mitigation submitted by the defence.
Q Q
41. In all the 11 charges that D pleaded guilty to, D falsely
R R
represented to the 11 different victims that parking spaces (s) in village
S S
T T
7
Paragraphs 2-11 of the Reasons for Sentence
8
Paragraphs 50-51 of the Reasons for Sentence
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
areas, housing estates of various districts etc were available for rent or for
C letting. C
D D
42. The defence submitted that the act committed by D is
E comparable to those who committed fraud online repeatedly9. The defence E
had referred to this court three District Court cases for reference.
F F
G 43. In HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai CACC 100/2014, it is concerned G
with online fraud. The defendant had falsely represented that he had
H H
admission tickets for Ocean Park for sale. Some 36 victims were deceived
I over a period of slightly more than a month, with a total loss to them of I
$63,180. The Court of Appeal approved a starting point of 2½ years’
J J
imprisonment before considering an enhancement under the Organized and
K Serious Crimes Ordinance. In para 43-45: K
L L
“43. … First, the fraud was practised on the general public at
large, any public member would have the risk of falling into his
M prey and the number of victims could be very high. Second, the M
applicant’s offence has serious negative effects on the growing
N
trend of online trading activities, rendering the public wary of N
the same and affecting the interests of people acting in good faith
in these activities. Third, cyber frauds are easy to imitate and
O easy to put into practice. The absence of deterrence may open O
floodgates to numerous similar offences. Fourth, since online
trading does not involve face-to-face transactions, offenders
P P
may disguise their identities by various means and it makes
detection of these crimes very difficult. Fifth, the loss of the
Q victims is in general very difficult to recover. Q
44. The court will impose heavier sentences on some immoral,
R abhorrent and despicable offences targeting at the public, like R
street deception and phone deception, in order to deter such
S offences and protect the innocent public from harm. The amount S
of money involved in this type of offences is not necessarily
large. Even if the defendant has no criminal record, a starting
T point as high as 3 to 4 years will be adopted. (See cases T
9
Para 5 of the mitigation submission.
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B like HKSAR v Liang Ya Qiong & others [2009] 1 HKLRD B
334, HKSAR v Wu Mudi [2008] 5 HKLRD 179, HKSAR v Hung
C Yung Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 167, HKSAR v Cen Huakuo [2015] C
2 HKLRD 945, etc.).”
D D
44. In HKSAR v KONG Chi Kiu (江智喬) CAAR 5/2022, para 46,
E E
“This was an internet fraud, which by its very nature has unlimited reach,
F
is relatively easy to perpetrate but difficult to detect and from which it is F
often impossible to recover losses. As such, there must be a significant
G G
element of deterrence for those contemplating committing such offences.”
H H
45. In this case, it is noted in the agreed facts, D had met up with
I I
the victims and signed the contract. Nevertheless, in KONG Chi Kiu, para
J 46, “…We were not impressed by the respondent’s argument that since she J
had met some of the victims in person, it could not be said to be an internet
K K
fraud in its strict sense.”
L L
46. Though as submitted by defence that the act D committed in
M M
this case is similar to online fraud, I am aware that in respect of charges 1-
N 3, 8-11 (7 charges), the victims were lured via online social media platform N
Facebook posted by D or by D responding to victims’ messages on the
O O
platform. As for charges 4-7 (4 charges), the victims were either referred
P by their friends to D or received phone messages/calls from D using the P
phone numbers victims left on windscreen of car.
Q Q
R 47. I have considered the modus operandi of the fraud in this case, R
it was well planned. There were 11 known victims identified. The total
S S
deceit amount in this case was $136,400. A table of breakdown of the
T summary of the amount deceived is in Appendix 1. T
U U
V V
- 23 -
A A
B B
48. This was not a single incidence of fraud. There were multiple
C victims who were defrauded over period of around 4-5 months. Each C
charge of the case concerned a separate transaction with a new victim,
D D
taking place on a different date. The gravity of the present case is the D
E committed the same nature of offence using a similar modus operandi E
repeatedly. Though in defence mitigation, D had paid for parking tickets
F F
fee for some of the victims totaling $5,640, all the victims of the charges
G involved were never paid back. I am also aware that D has one similar G
previous conviction i.e. fraud (involving 8 charges) not long before
H H
committing the present case (involving 11 charges).
I I
49. I have also considered that D committed the present offence
J J
alone. I accepted defence mitigation that D used his own account to
K commit the offence showing that D’s plan was not sophisticated, as that K
would give trace to police investigation.
L L
M 50. For all the 11 charges, the sentence is as follows: M
N N
Charge Starting point (Months) After plea (Months)
O 1 12 8 O
2 9 6
P 3 6 4 P
4 15 10
Q 5 12 8 Q
6 6 4
R 7 9 6 R
8 7.5 5
S S
9 6 4
10 6 4
T T
11 3 2
U U
V V
- 24 -
A A
B B
51. Given the duration of the fraud, the number of victims, the
C amount involved and the planning necessary for its execution, I have also C
considered the overall culpability of D. Having considered all the
D D
circumstances and the totality principle, I ordered that the sentence of
E charges 2 and 4 to run consecutively and others concurrently, the sentence E
is therefore 16 months’ imprisonment, which is equivalent to adopting a
F F
starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment for all the charges and after a
G discount of one-third for the guilty plea. G
H H
52. There is no other mitigating factor which justifies a further
I reduction of sentence. I
J J
CONCLUSION
K K
53. The sentence is 16 months’ imprisonment.
L L
M M
N N
( K K Leung )
O
Deputy District Judge O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 25 -
A A
B B
Appendix 1
C Summary of deceived amount C
D D
Charge Amount (HK$)
E 1 18,400 E
2 12,600
F F
3 8,800
G 4 24,000 G
5 17,800
H H
6 9,600
I 7 14,400 I
8 12,500
J J
9 8,900
K K
10 7,200
L
11 2,200 L
Total 136,400
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 1319/2025
C [2026] HKDC 33 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1319 OF 2025
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LEUNG Sin-kan I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge K K Leung K
Date: 5 January 2026
L L
Present: Mr Victor Lee, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Jonathan Kwan, instructed by Tung & Associates, M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: [1] – [11] Fraud (欺詐罪)
O O
P P
---------------------------------------
Q Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R
--------------------------------------- R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The Defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to 11 charges of Fraud,
C contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. C
D D
SUMMARY OF FACTS
E E
2. At all material times, D was the holder of Tap & Go account
F F
numbered 141542591155 (“D’s Tap & Go Account”) and PAO bank
G account numbered 7522000464990 (“D’s PAO Bank Account”). G
Between 2 July 2024 and 1 October 2024, D’s Tap & Go Account was
H H
linked to FPS with the mobile number 9021 0997 (“Mobile Number”),
I which was registered under M/LEUNG Wing-ki, D’s father (“D’s FPS”). I
Since 18 October 2024, D’s PAO Bank Account was linked to D’s FPS.
J J
K Charge 1 K
L L
3. On 21 July 2024, M/LAM Wai-leung (“PW1”) came across a
M M
post on social media application Facebook by an account named “Kensin
N kensin” offering letting of parking spaces in village houses. Feeling N
interested, PW1 contacted the user of the said Facebook account, which
O O
was later known to be belonged to D (“D’s Facebook Account”), and later
P received a call from mobile phone number 9021 0997, which was later P
known to be used by D and registered under his father (“D’s Number”),
Q Q
where D represented that he had a parking space in Wong Nai Tau Village
R for letting. PW1 then went to Wong Nai Tau Village for site inspection R
and confirmed the location of the parking space with D. Acting on such
S S
representation, PW1 made payments for the rent of the parking space to
T D’s FPS as requested and met up with D at Wong Nai Tau Village on 22 T
July 2024 who confirmed the location of the parking space. Subsequently,
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
D demanded further payments for various reasons including that PW1 was
C not a villager, a deposit was needed, the deposit had increased etc, and PW1 C
complied. PW1 and D met again on 6 August 2025 to sign the contract.
D D
E 4. On 24 August 2024, D claimed to PW1 that the agreed E
parking space was not available for parking due to construction work and
F F
provided an alternative parking space outside the public toilet of Wong Nai
G Tau Village. Later, D claimed to PW1 that the parking space outside the G
public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village was no longer available for parking
H H
due to construction work and provided an alternative parking space in Tai
I Che Village. The scam was unveiled when PW1 was told by a I
representative of Tai Che Village that he was not permitted to park therein
J J
anymore and D defaulted on rental payments for the parking space at Tai
K Che Village. D then became out of reach. Case was reported. K
L L
5. All along, PW1 paid D under his representation and parted
M with a total sum of HKD 18,400 (with the last payment made on 6 August M
2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.
N N
O O
Charge 2
P P
Q 6. On 26 August 2024, F/CHAN Hiu-lam (“PW2”) came across Q
a post on Facebook by D’s Facebook Account offering letting of parking
R R
spaces in Shatin District. Feeling interested, PW2 contacted D and agreed
S to meet up with D. On 16 September 2024, PW2 met up with D at Kwong S
Wing Lane where D represented that PW2 could rent a parking space at
T T
Kwong Wing Lane. PW2 and D then signed the contract. Acting on such
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
representation, PW2 made payments for the rent of the parking space to
C D’s FPS as requested. Later that night, PW2 received a call from D that he C
had already informed the village head who permitted PW2 to park her car
D D
at the parking space but required one-year lease period. PW2 complied
E and made further payments to D. E
F F
7. On 25 October 2024, D claimed to PW2 that the agreed
G parking space was no longer available for parking due to construction work G
and provided an alternative parking space upon paying the difference in
H H
rent. PW2 complied and made further payments to D. D claimed to PW2
I that the alternative parking space would be in the vicinity of Tai Nam Liu I
Village which was not yet available and asked PW2 to park her car at the
J J
meter-parking space at Kwong Sin Street. The scam was unveiled when
K PW2 received further fixed penalty tickets for illegal parking and D K
became out of reach. Case was reported.
L L
M 8. All along, PW2 paid D under his representation and parted M
with a total sum of HKD 12,600 (with the last payment made on 8
N N
November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.
O O
Charge 3
P P
Q Q
9. On 15 September 2024, M/DONG Yuhao (“PW3”) created a
R post on Facebook asking for parking spaces in the vicinity of Kwong Yuen. R
Later in that night, PW3 received a WhatsApp message from D’s Number
S S
where the sender represented that he had a parking space in the vicinity of
T Kwong Yuen for letting. Feeling interested, PW3 agreed to meet up with T
the sender. PW3 met up with D that night to confirm the location of the
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
parking space for letting, which was situated at Tai Lam Liu Village. D
C stated to PW3 that he could let the parking space to PW3. D and PW3 then C
signed a contract. Acting on such representation, PW3 made payments for
D D
the rent of the parking space to D’s FPS.
E E
10. In October 2024, D claimed to PW3 that the agreed parking
F F
space was not available for parking due to construction work and provided
G an alternative parking space in Tai Che Village. D demanded further G
payments for the alternative parking space and PW3 complied. The scam
H H
was unveiled when PW3 was told by a representative of Tai Che Village
I that D defaulted on rental payments for the parking space at Tai Che I
Village. D then became out of reach. Case was reported.
J J
K 11. All along, PW3 paid D under his representation and parted K
with a total sum of HKD 8,800 (with the last payment made on 24
L L
November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.
M M
Charge 4
N N
O O
12. In August 2024, M/CHAN Li-tat, Ryan (“PW4”) was referred
P by his friend to contact D for rental of parking spaces. On 19 October P
2024, PW4 and D met up and confirmed the location of the parking space
Q Q
to be near Lamppost VE4675 of Tai Nam Liu Village, which D confirmed
R that he would let the parking space to PW4. A contract was signed between R
PW4 and D. Acting on D’s representation, PW4 made payments for the
S S
rental of the parking space to D’s FPS. The scam was unveiled when D
T became out of reach. Case was reported. T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
13. All along, PW4 paid D under his representation and parted
C with a total sum of HKD 24,000 (with the last payment made on 23 October C
2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.
D D
E Charge 5 E
F F
14. On 21 October 2024, M/CHAN Sheung-yin, Marco (“PW5”)
G G
parked his car at Kwong Wing Lane and left his mobile phone number at
H the windscreen of the car. On 22 October 2024, he received a call from H
D’s Number where D stated that PW5’s car was parked at a parking space
I I
which belonged to D. D stated to PW5 that the parking space would be
J available for letting. Feeling interested, PW5 met up with D outside the J
public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village on 23 October 2024 and signed the
K K
contract. Acting on D’s representation, PW5 made payments for the rent
L of the parking space to D’s FPS. Subsequently, D demanded for further L
payments with various reasons including that the agreed parking space
M M
would no longer be available due to construction work and that D had to
N pay extra for the alternative parking space at Tai Che Village, the rent for N
Kwong Wing Lane would increase after construction etc., and PW5
O O
complied. The scam was unveiled when PW5 failed to receive
P reimbursement of deposits from D as promised and D became out of reach. P
Case was reported.
Q Q
R 15. All along, PW5 paid D under his representation and parted R
with a total sum of HKD 17,800 (with the last payment made on 7
S S
November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
Charge 6
C C
16. At the material time, M/WONG King-chi (“PW6”) parked his
D D
car near the public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village and left his mobile
E phone number on the windscreen of his car. On 23 October 2024, PW6 E
received a WhatsApp message from D’s Number that asking PW6 not to
F F
park his car near the public toilet of Wong Nai Tau Village as the car
G blocked the way. The sender further claimed that he was surnamed LAU G
and was a villager of Tai Nam Liu Village. He asked PW6 if PW6 was
H H
interested to rent a parking space and he was responsible for managing the
I parking spaces in the vicinity on behalf of the village head. Feeling I
J
interested, PW6 met up with D outside the public toilet of Wong Nai Tau J
Village to confirm the location of the parking space situated near Lamppost
K K
VE3544 of Tai Nam Liu Village. D stated to PW6 that he was responsible
L
for managing the parking spaces of village houses. Acting on D’s L
representation, PW6 made payments for the rental of the parking space to
M M
D’s FPS. The scam was unveiled when D became out of reach. Case was
N reported. N
O O
17. All along, PW6 paid D under his representation and parted
P with a sum of HKD 9,600 on 23 October 2024 as a result of D’s P
representation, which was false.
Q Q
R Charge 7 R
S S
18. On 29 October 2024, M/LEE Ka-chun (“PW7”) was told by
T his friend that D could recommend parking places. PW7 then sent a T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
WhatsApp message to D’s Number asking about the details of renting
C parking spaces and a meeting between PW7 and D was arranged on the C
same day. D first brought PW7 to inspect a parking space at Tai Nam Liu
D D
Village and stated to PW7 that the same could be rented to PW7. PW7
E rejected D’s offer as he saw that there were fixed penalty tickets issued to E
the cars parked therein. D then brought PW7 to another parking space in
F F
Siu Lik Yuen Village. Acting on D’s representation and believing that D
G was an agent on behalf of the villager of Siu Liu Yuen Village, PW7 made G
payments for the rent of the parking space to D’s FPS. Subsequently, D
H H
demanded further payments for various reasons including that a deposit
I was needed and the deposit was insufficient, and PW7 complied. The scam I
was unveiled when PW7 received a call where the caller stated that the
J J
parking space occupied by PW7’s car belonged to the caller. PW7
K contacted D who suggested PW7 to park his car at Tam Nam Liu Village. K
PW7 declined D’s suggestion and D became out of reach. Case was
L L
reported.
M M
19. All along, PW7 paid D under his representation and parted
N N
with a total sum of HKD 14,400 (with the last payment made on 26
O November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false. O
P P
Charge 8
Q Q
R 20. On 11 November 2024, F/WONG Yin-ching, Ivy (“PW8”) R
came across a post on Facebook offering letting of parking spaces in
S S
Charming Garden. Feeling interested, PW8 responded to the post and
T communicated with D. Later that day PW8 met up with D and confirmed T
the location of the parking space to be the parking space of No. 413,
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Charming Garden and signed the contract. Acting on such representation,
C PW8 made a payment for the rental of the parking space to D’s FPS. C
Subsequently, D demanded for further payments with various reasons
D D
including that he could offer discount if PW8 paid more deposits and that
E a handling fee was required, and PW8 complied. The scam was unveiled E
when PW8 failed to receive updates from D regarding the use of the
F F
parking space and D became out of reach. Case was reported.
G G
21. All along, PW8 paid D under his representation and parted
H H
with a total sum of HKD 12,500 (with the last payment made on 28
I November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false. I
J J
Charge 9
K K
L
22. In November 2024, M/WONG Tsz-wai (“PW9”) created a L
post on Facebook asking for parking spaces in Garden Rivera. On 16
M M
November 2024, PW9 received a Facebook message where the sender
N represented that he had a parking space in Garden Rivera for letting. N
Feeling interested, PW9 agreed to meet up with the sender having
O O
communicated with the sender in WhatsApp who used D’s Number. On
P 20 November 2024, PW9 met up with D to confirm the location of the P
parking space, which was the parking space of No. 88, Garden Rivera and
Q Q
signed the contract. Acting on such representation, PW9 made payments
R for the rent of the parking space both by cash and by transfer to D’s FPS. R
The scam was unveiled when PW9 failed to receive updates from D
S S
regarding the use of the parking space and D became out of reach. Case
T was reported. M/NG Kin-sun (“PW10”), the owner of the parking space, T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
confirmed that he did not let the parking space to D or authorize D to let
C the same to anyone. C
D D
23. All along, PW9 paid D under his representation and parted
E with a total sum of HKD 8,900 (with the last payment made on 24 E
November 2024) as a result of D’s representation, which was false.
F F
G Charge 10 G
H H
24. On 18 November 2024, M/HON Hoi-kin (“PW11”) came
I across a post on Facebook by D’s Facebook Account offering letting of I
J
parking spaces. Feeling interested, PW11 contacted D where D J
represented that he had a parking space in Garden Rivera for letting. On
K K
19 November 2024, PW11 and D (who was also the ex-boyfriend of D’s
L
ex-girlfriend) met up in Garden Rivera, confirmed the location of the L
parking space to be the parking space of No. 107, Garden Rivera and signed
M M
the contract for its rental. Acting on such representation, PW11 made a
N payment for the rent of the parking space to D’s FPS. The scam was N
unveiled when PW11 failed to receive updates from D regarding the use of
O O
the parking space and D became out of reach. Case was reported.
P M/TSANG Leung-ching (“PW12”), the owner of the parking space, P
confirmed that he did not let the parking space to D or authorize D to let
Q Q
the same to anyone.
R R
25. All along, PW11 paid D under his representation and parted
S S
with a sum of HKD 7,200 on 19 November 2024 as a result of D’s
T representation, which was false. T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Charge 11
C C
26. On 24 November 2024, M/CHUNG King-lok (“PW13”)
D D
came across a post on Facebook offering letting of parking spaces in Hing
E Tin Estate, Lam Tin. Feeling interested, PW13 contacted the author of the E
post and communicated with D with D’s Number. D later confirmed the
F F
location of the parking space to be the parking space of No. B10, Sky City
G and met up with PW13 on 25 November 2025 and signed the contract for G
the letting. Acting on such representation, PW13 made a payment for the
H H
rental of the parking space to D’s FPS. The scam was unveiled when PW13
I failed to receive updates from D regarding the use of the parking space and I
J
D became out of reach. Case was reported. M/WONG Kwok-shing J
(“PW14”), the owner of the parking space, confirmed that he did not let
K K
the parking space to D or authorize D to let the same to anyone.
L L
27. All along, PW13 paid D under his representation and parted
M M
with a sum of HKD 2,200 on 25 November 2024 as a result of D’s
N representation, which was false. N
O O
Arrest and Caution
P P
28. On 11 December 2024, D was arrested in his residence in Tai
Q Q
Nam Liu Village for the offence of “Fraud”. Under caution, D stated, inter
R alia, that he was heavily indebted so he deceived the car owners by stating R
that they could park their cars. The parking spaces were government land.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
29. In subsequent video-recorded interviews, D stated, inter alia,
C the following under caution:- C
D D
Charge 1
E E
(a) D was not authorized to let the parking space in Wong
F F
Nai Tau Village;
G (b) D’s Facebook Account was registered by D. He created G
the Facebook post on 21 July 2024 offering letting of
H H
parking spaces in village houses as he was indebted;
I (c) D used D’s Number to communicate with PW1. He I
met up with PW1 on 22 July 2024 and 6 August 2024;
J J
(d) D used the rental payments he received from PW1 to
K repay his debts; K
L L
Charge 2
M M
(a) D’s Facebook Account was registered by D. He created
N N
the Facebook post offering letting of parking spaces in
O Shatin; O
(b) D met up with PW2 at Kwong Wing Lane on 16
P P
September 2024 and represented to PW2 that a parking
Q space at Wong Nai Tau Village was available for letting. Q
He falsely represented to PW2 that he was an agent to
R R
deceive her;
S (c) D later realized that the parking space was government S
land when fixed penalty tickets for illegal parking were
T T
received. He falsely represented to PW2 that the
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
parking space belonged to the village. As he had
C already received the rent from PW2, he decided to C
continue to deceive her;
D D
(d) D was not authorized to let the parking space in Wong
E Nai Tau Village; E
(e) D used D’s Number to communicate with PW2;
F F
(f) D used the rental payments he received from PW2 to
G repay his debts; G
H H
Charge 3
I I
(a) D was not authorized to let the parking space in Tai
J J
Lam Liu Village;
K (b) D used D’s Facebook Account to contact PW3. He K
stated to PW3 that he had a parking space in the vicinity
L L
of Kwong Yuen for letting;
M (c) When D met up with PW3 on 15 September 2024, D M
did not tell PW3 whether the parking space in Tai Lam
N N
Liu Village was government land or private land. PW3
O might not be aware that Tai Lam Liu Village was O
government land;
P P
(d) D used the rental payments he received from PW3 to
Q repay his debts; Q
R R
Charge 4
S S
(a) D and PW4 met up with on 19 October 2024 near
T T
Lamppost VE4675 in Tai Nam Liu Village. D knew
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
that the parking space belonged to government land but
C he stated to PW4 that the parking space belonged to C
private land and that PW4 could park his car thereat
D D
upon paying rents. He was not authorized by the
E village head of Tai Nam Liu Village to let the parking E
space;
F F
(b) D used the rental payments he received from PW4 to
G repay his debts. He deceived monies from others to G
repay his debts.
H H
I Charge 5 I
J J
(a) D called PW5 as D saw PW5’s mobile phone number
K on PW5’s car. He stated to PW5 that the parking space K
occupied by PW5 at Kwong Wing Lane belonged to
L L
villagers and monies were needed to park PW5’s car
M therein. He stated so and deceived PW5 because he was M
in need of money;
N N
(b) D used the rental payments he received from PW5 to
O repay his debts; O
P P
Charge 6
Q Q
(a) D called PW6 as D saw PW6’s mobile phone number
R R
on PW6’s car. He stated to PW6 that PW6 could park
S his car upon payment of rental; S
(b) D was not the owner of the parking space at Tai Nam
T T
Liu Village and was not authorized to let the parking
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
space to PW6;
C (c) D used the rental payments he received from PW6 to C
repay his debts;
D D
E Charge 7 E
F F
(a) D met up with PW7 to inspect the parking spaces at Tai
G Nam Liu Village and Siu Lik Yuen Village; G
(b) D deceived PW7 by representing to him that the
H H
parking spaces at both Tai Nam Liu Village and Siu Lik
I Yuen Village were private land so as to collect rents. I
He was not authorized to let the parking space at Tai
J J
Nam Liu Village;
K (c) D used the rental payments he received from PW7 to K
repay his debts;
L L
M Charge 8 M
N N
(a) D responded to PW8’s post on Facebook asking to rent
O a parking space in Charming Garden and stated to her O
that a parking space at Charming Garden was available;
P P
(b) D met up with PW8 on 11 November 2024 and stated
Q to PW8 that the parking space at No. 413, Charming Q
Garden belonged to him. He was not acquainted with
R R
the owner of the parking space and was not authorized
S to let the same; S
(c) D used the rental payments he received from PW8 to
T T
repay his debts. He deceived monies from others to
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
repay his debts;
C C
Charge 9
D D
E (a) D responded to PW9’s post on Facebook with D’s E
Facebook Account in mid-November 2024. When they
F F
met up, D represented to PW9 that the parking space at
G No 88, Garden Rivera was available for letting; G
(b) D was not the owner of the parking space and was not
H H
authorized to let the same. He deceived others with this
I method as he was indebted; I
(c) D used the rental payments he received from PW9 to
J J
repay his debts;
K K
Charge 10
L L
M (a) D met up with PW11 on 19 November 2024. He M
pretended to be the owner of the parking space at No.
N N
107, Garden Rivera and was not authorized to let the
O same; O
(b) D used D’s Facebook Account to create a post about
P P
the letting of parking spaces at Garden Rivera;
Q (c) D used the rental payments he received from PW11 to Q
repay his debts;
R R
S Charge 11 S
T T
(a) D met up with PW13 on 25 November 2024 and stated
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
to PW13 that the parking space at No. B10, Sky City
C was available for letting. He was not the owner of the C
parking space and was not authorized to let the same;
D D
(b) D created a post on Facebook on 24 November 2024
E asking others to rent parking spaces. He communicated E
with PW13 with D’s Number;
F F
(c) D used the rental payments he received from PW13 to
G repay his debts. G
H H
Other Investigations
I I
30. Transaction and messaging records with D were provided by
J J
PW1 to PW9, PW11 and PW13 to substantiate their allegations, which
K corroborated records from D’s Tap & Go Account and D’s PAO Account. K
L L
31. In subsequent identification parades, PW1 to PW3, PW5 to
M PW9, PW11 and PW13 positively identified D as the culprit they met in M
the incidents.
N N
O 32. Enquiry with the Lands Department revealed that the relevant O
parking spaces in Wong Nai Tau Village, Kwong Wing Lane, Siu Lek
P P
Yuen Village and Tai Lam Liu Village were government land.
Q Q
CRIMINAL RECORD AND BACKGROUND OF THE DEFENDANT
R R
S 33. D had been sentenced by court on 3 occasions involving a S
total of 11 criminal charges. All of them are related to dishonesty. His last
T T
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
conviction involving 8 charges in 2021 are similar to the present charge ie
C fraud. He was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment. C
D D
34. D is now aged 27 and single. Prior to his arrest, D resided with
E his parents. D received education in Hong Kong up to Form 2 level. D E
worked as a casual worker, earing around HK$12,000 – 15,000 per month.
F F
G 35. It was submitted that D started gambling since he was 20 years G
old as he wished to earn more money to improve the lives of his family.
H H
However, D could not control himself and became heavily indebted for a
I loan of around $500,000. D was declared bankrupt in 2020. However, the I
loan sharks and debt collectors did not stop to harass D and his family.
J J
Under these circumstances, D foolishly resorted to make quick money with
K a view to pay off his debts. K
L L
MITIGATION
M M
36. In mitigation, it was submitted D was cooperative with the
N N
police during investigation. D had made full admission upon interrogation.
O D had demonstrated genuine remorse. Mitigation letters of D and his O
mother were submitted.
P P
Q 37. It was submitted by Mr Kwan that the culpability of D is Q
comparable to those who committed fraud online repeatedly, having regard
R R
to the modus operandi in the present case. Mr Kwan referred the court to
S the following cases: S
T T
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
(a) In HKSAR v Lam See Chung Stephen [2021] HKDC
C 236, the defendant pleaded guilty to, inter alia, 5 C
charges of fraud. In Charge 3, the defendant defrauded
D D
the victims in 16 incidents by falsely representing to
E them online that he would deliver vehicles to them after E
payment by these victims. The amount involved was
F F
$140,400. There are a total 16 victims involved and the
G duration of the offence is 6½ months 1 . The Court G
adopted a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment
H H
and enhanced the same by 3 months as the defendant
I was a persistent offender and further 3 as the offence I
was committed whilst he was on bail/jumped bail2.
J J
K (b) In 香港特別行政區 訴 王亦夫 [2022] HKDC 712, the K
defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of 14
L L
3
(out of 18) counts of fraud as a result of plea bargain .
M All 18 counts were concert / show ticket fraud. In M
Charge 12, 12 victims and a sum of HK$140,190 were
N N
4
involved . The court adopted 19.5 months
O O
imprisonment for Charge 125;
P P
(c) In 香港特別行政區 訴 何家俊 [2019] HKDC 1341,
Q Q
the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of fraud 6 .
R This case was a concert / show ticket fraud. 26 victims R
S 1
S
Paragraph 8 of the Reasons for Sentence
2
Paragraphs 51-52 of the Reasons for Sentence
3
Paragraph 1 of the Reasons for Sentence
T 4 T
Paragraphs 2-4 and 16 of the Reasons for Sentence
5
Paragraph 16 of the Reasons for Sentence
6
Paragraph 1 of the Reasons for Sentence
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
were involved and the deceived amount was
C HK$329,815 in total 7 . The court adopted a starting C
point of 39 months’ imprisonment. The sentence was
D D
reduced to 26 months’ imprisonment on guilty plea8.
E E
38. The Defence submitted that the present case is not the most
F F
serious of its kind. D did not use the entirety of the deceived sums on
G himself / to repay his debt, part of the sums was used to (i) pay for parking G
fees (for a short period of time); or (ii) pay for the fixed penalty tickets
H H
received by the victims as a result of illegal parking. D had demonstrated
I genuine remorse, the defence asked the court to exercise leniency towards I
D.
J J
K SENTENCE K
L L
39. The maximum penalty for the offence of fraud is 14 years’
M imprisonment. There is no sentencing tariff for this offence. The sentence M
depends on the facts of each case.
N N
O 40. I have carefully considered the nature of the offences that D O
were facing, the facts of the case admitted, the background of D and the
P P
mitigation submitted by the defence.
Q Q
41. In all the 11 charges that D pleaded guilty to, D falsely
R R
represented to the 11 different victims that parking spaces (s) in village
S S
T T
7
Paragraphs 2-11 of the Reasons for Sentence
8
Paragraphs 50-51 of the Reasons for Sentence
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
areas, housing estates of various districts etc were available for rent or for
C letting. C
D D
42. The defence submitted that the act committed by D is
E comparable to those who committed fraud online repeatedly9. The defence E
had referred to this court three District Court cases for reference.
F F
G 43. In HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai CACC 100/2014, it is concerned G
with online fraud. The defendant had falsely represented that he had
H H
admission tickets for Ocean Park for sale. Some 36 victims were deceived
I over a period of slightly more than a month, with a total loss to them of I
$63,180. The Court of Appeal approved a starting point of 2½ years’
J J
imprisonment before considering an enhancement under the Organized and
K Serious Crimes Ordinance. In para 43-45: K
L L
“43. … First, the fraud was practised on the general public at
large, any public member would have the risk of falling into his
M prey and the number of victims could be very high. Second, the M
applicant’s offence has serious negative effects on the growing
N
trend of online trading activities, rendering the public wary of N
the same and affecting the interests of people acting in good faith
in these activities. Third, cyber frauds are easy to imitate and
O easy to put into practice. The absence of deterrence may open O
floodgates to numerous similar offences. Fourth, since online
trading does not involve face-to-face transactions, offenders
P P
may disguise their identities by various means and it makes
detection of these crimes very difficult. Fifth, the loss of the
Q victims is in general very difficult to recover. Q
44. The court will impose heavier sentences on some immoral,
R abhorrent and despicable offences targeting at the public, like R
street deception and phone deception, in order to deter such
S offences and protect the innocent public from harm. The amount S
of money involved in this type of offences is not necessarily
large. Even if the defendant has no criminal record, a starting
T point as high as 3 to 4 years will be adopted. (See cases T
9
Para 5 of the mitigation submission.
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B like HKSAR v Liang Ya Qiong & others [2009] 1 HKLRD B
334, HKSAR v Wu Mudi [2008] 5 HKLRD 179, HKSAR v Hung
C Yung Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 167, HKSAR v Cen Huakuo [2015] C
2 HKLRD 945, etc.).”
D D
44. In HKSAR v KONG Chi Kiu (江智喬) CAAR 5/2022, para 46,
E E
“This was an internet fraud, which by its very nature has unlimited reach,
F
is relatively easy to perpetrate but difficult to detect and from which it is F
often impossible to recover losses. As such, there must be a significant
G G
element of deterrence for those contemplating committing such offences.”
H H
45. In this case, it is noted in the agreed facts, D had met up with
I I
the victims and signed the contract. Nevertheless, in KONG Chi Kiu, para
J 46, “…We were not impressed by the respondent’s argument that since she J
had met some of the victims in person, it could not be said to be an internet
K K
fraud in its strict sense.”
L L
46. Though as submitted by defence that the act D committed in
M M
this case is similar to online fraud, I am aware that in respect of charges 1-
N 3, 8-11 (7 charges), the victims were lured via online social media platform N
Facebook posted by D or by D responding to victims’ messages on the
O O
platform. As for charges 4-7 (4 charges), the victims were either referred
P by their friends to D or received phone messages/calls from D using the P
phone numbers victims left on windscreen of car.
Q Q
R 47. I have considered the modus operandi of the fraud in this case, R
it was well planned. There were 11 known victims identified. The total
S S
deceit amount in this case was $136,400. A table of breakdown of the
T summary of the amount deceived is in Appendix 1. T
U U
V V
- 23 -
A A
B B
48. This was not a single incidence of fraud. There were multiple
C victims who were defrauded over period of around 4-5 months. Each C
charge of the case concerned a separate transaction with a new victim,
D D
taking place on a different date. The gravity of the present case is the D
E committed the same nature of offence using a similar modus operandi E
repeatedly. Though in defence mitigation, D had paid for parking tickets
F F
fee for some of the victims totaling $5,640, all the victims of the charges
G involved were never paid back. I am also aware that D has one similar G
previous conviction i.e. fraud (involving 8 charges) not long before
H H
committing the present case (involving 11 charges).
I I
49. I have also considered that D committed the present offence
J J
alone. I accepted defence mitigation that D used his own account to
K commit the offence showing that D’s plan was not sophisticated, as that K
would give trace to police investigation.
L L
M 50. For all the 11 charges, the sentence is as follows: M
N N
Charge Starting point (Months) After plea (Months)
O 1 12 8 O
2 9 6
P 3 6 4 P
4 15 10
Q 5 12 8 Q
6 6 4
R 7 9 6 R
8 7.5 5
S S
9 6 4
10 6 4
T T
11 3 2
U U
V V
- 24 -
A A
B B
51. Given the duration of the fraud, the number of victims, the
C amount involved and the planning necessary for its execution, I have also C
considered the overall culpability of D. Having considered all the
D D
circumstances and the totality principle, I ordered that the sentence of
E charges 2 and 4 to run consecutively and others concurrently, the sentence E
is therefore 16 months’ imprisonment, which is equivalent to adopting a
F F
starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment for all the charges and after a
G discount of one-third for the guilty plea. G
H H
52. There is no other mitigating factor which justifies a further
I reduction of sentence. I
J J
CONCLUSION
K K
53. The sentence is 16 months’ imprisonment.
L L
M M
N N
( K K Leung )
O
Deputy District Judge O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 25 -
A A
B B
Appendix 1
C Summary of deceived amount C
D D
Charge Amount (HK$)
E 1 18,400 E
2 12,600
F F
3 8,800
G 4 24,000 G
5 17,800
H H
6 9,600
I 7 14,400 I
8 12,500
J J
9 8,900
K K
10 7,200
L
11 2,200 L
Total 136,400
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V