A A
B B
DCCC 1401/2024
C [2026] HKDC 50 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1401 OF 2024
F F
G ———————— G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LO WING PING I
————————
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court K
Date: 5 January 2026
L L
Present: Ms Chung W S Natalie, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Mr Lau C M Clement, Counsel instructed by Messrs A Lee & M
Partners
N N
Offences: [1] - [9] Fraud (欺詐罪)
O O
P ———————————————— P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
————————————————
R R
1. Before me, Ms Lo faces a Charge Sheet containing 9 charges
S S
of Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
2. Ms Lo pleaded guilty to Charges 1 to 6, 8 to 9 (total 8 charges)
C but not guilty to Charge 7. C
D D
3. Prosecution asked that Charge 7 be left on court file not to be
E proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal. E
Upon Ms Lo’s conviction of those 8 charges, I so ordered.
F F
G 4. Particulars of Charges 1 to 6, and Charge 9, are that Ms Lo, G
between A and B, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely
H H
by falsely representing to V that she (Ms Lo) was in need of money to solve
I E, and with intent to defraud, induced V to commit acts or a series of acts, I
namely making a loan/loans in F Hong Kong currency to Ms Lo, which
J J
resulted in benefit to Ms Lo, or in prejudice or a substantial risk of
K prejudice to V. K
L L
5. For Charge 1, A is a day unknown in April 2014; B is 15 July
M 2016; V is Ko Fong Mui; E is problems encountered by her brother’s M
company; F is the total sum of $490,000.
N N
O 6. For Charge 2, A is on or about 16 July 2014; B is 23 January O
2016; V is So Sze Man; E is urgent problems and problems encountered
P P
by her brother’s company; F is the total sum of $50,000.
Q Q
R
7. For Charge 3, A is 23 July 2014; B is 23 January 2016; V is R
Chan Hoi Lun; E is problems encountered by her brother’s company; F is
S S
the total sum of $60,000.
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
8. For Charge 4, A is 9 August 2014; B is 19 March 2016; V is
C Chan Po Na; E is problems encountered by her family and her brother’s C
company; F is the total sum of $85,000.
D D
E 9. For Charge 5, A is on or about 22 June 2016; B is 24 June E
2016; V is Chan Siu Hung, Susan; E is problems encountered by her
F F
brother’s company; F is the sum of $300,000.
G G
10. For Charge 6, A is on or about 15 August 2016; B is 16 August
H H
2016; V is Lau Chi Hung; E is family problems; F is the sum of $250,000.
I I
11. For Charge 9, A is on or about 14 September 2016; B is 15
J J
September 2016; V is Lau Wing Suet; E is family problems; F is the sum
K of $150,000. K
L L
12. Particulars of Charge 8 are that Ms Lo, on or about 14
M September 2016, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing M
to Cheung Tsui Yuk that she (Ms Lo) was in need of money to solve
N N
problems encountered by her brother’s company, and with intent to
O defraud, induced Cheung Tsui Yuk to commit acts or a series of acts, O
namely making a loan in the sum of $20,000 Hong Kong currency to Ms
P P
Lo, which resulted in benefit to Ms Lo, or in prejudice or a substantial risk
Q Q
of prejudice to Cheung Tsui Yuk.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Facts admitted by Ms Lo
C C
13. At the time of the offences, Ms Lo was teaching at a secondary
D D
school. The other persons named in Charges 1 to 6, 8 to 9 were her teaching
E colleagues at the school (respectively PW1 to PW8). E
F F
14. Ms Lo used various false pretexts to borrow money from PW1
G to PW8 in the total sum of $1,405,000. G
H H
Charge 1
I I
15. On a day unknown in April 2014, PW1 received a phone call
J J
from Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial
K problems and asked to borrow money from PW1. Believing in Ms Lo’s K
false representation, PW1 agreed to lend money and transferred $40,000
L L
into Ms Lo’s bank account on 6 April 2014.
M M
16. Between 7 April 2014 and 15 July 2016, PW1 further lent
N N
monies to Ms Lo either by bank transfer or by cash. The total amount of
O the loans including the first one on 6 April 2014 came to $490,000. O
P P
Charge 2
Q Q
R
17. On or about 16 July 2014, PW2 received a phone call from R
Ms Lo. Ms Lo was crying over the phone. Ms Lo claimed she was in need
S S
of money to solve urgent problems and she asked PW2 to lend her money.
T
Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW2 agreed to lend money and T
transferred $30,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 28 July 2014.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 18. On 22 January 2016, PW2 received a further phone call from C
Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial
D D
problems and asked to borrow money from PW2. As Ms Lo had not made
E any repayment for her previous loan, PW2 was only willing to and did E
transfer $20,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 23 January 2016.
F F
G 19. In total, PW2 had lent $50,000 to Ms Lo. G
H H
Charge 3
I I
20. On or about 23 July 2014, PW3 received a phone call from
J J
Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial
K problems and asked to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false K
representation, PW3 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and she transferred
L L
$50,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 23 July 2014.
M M
21. On 22 January 2016, Ms Lo called PW3 again, claiming her
N N
brother’s company encountered financial problems and asked to borrow
O money. As Ms Lo had not made any repayment for her previous loan, PW3 O
was only willing to and did transfer $10,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on
P P
23 January 2016.
Q Q
R
22. In total, PW3 had lent $60,000 to Ms Lo. R
S S
Charge 4
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
23. On 9 August 2014, PW4 received a phone call from Ms Lo.
C Ms Lo claimed her family encountered some problems and asked to borrow C
money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW4 agreed to lend
D D
money to Ms Lo and transferred $30,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 9
E August 2014. E
F F
24. On 6 July 2015, PW4 received another phone call from Ms
G Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial problems G
and asked to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation,
H H
PW4 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred $30,000 into Ms Lo’s
I bank account on 6 July 2015. I
J J
25. On 18 March 2016, Ms Lo called PW4 again, claiming her
K brother’s company encountered problems. Even though Ms Lo had not K
made any repayment for the previous loans, believing in Ms Lo’s false
L L
representation, PW4 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred
M $25,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 19 March 2016. M
N N
26. In total, PW4 had lent $85,000 to Ms Lo.
O O
Charge 5
P P
Q Q
27. On or about 22 June 2016, PW5 received a phone call from
R
Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial R
problems and asked to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false
S S
representation, PW5 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred
T
$300,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 24 June 2016. T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
Charge 6
C C
28. On or about 15 August 2016, PW6 received a phone call from
D D
Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her family encountered some problems and asked
E to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW6 agreed E
to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred $250,000 into Ms Lo’s bank
F F
account on 16 August 2016.
G G
Charge 8
H H
I 29. On or about 14 September 2016, PW7 received a phone call I
from Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial
J J
problems and asked to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false
K representation, PW7 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred K
$20,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 14 September 2016.
L L
M Charge 9 M
N N
30. On or about 14 September 2016, PW8 received a phone call
O from Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her family encountered some problems and O
asked to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW8
P P
agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and gave $150,000 to Ms Lo by way of a
Q Q
cheque on 15 September 2016.
R R
Aftermath
S S
T
31. In around November 2016, PW1 to 8 learnt that Ms Lo had T
been borrowing money from various teachers at the school. They reported
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
the matter to the school principal PW10. PW10 met Ms Lo at the
C principal’s office. Ms Lo admitted to PW10 that she borrowed money from C
various teachers but claimed that the money was used for solving problems
D D
encountered by her brother’s company.
E E
32. PW10 asked Ms Lo not to borrow again. Ms Lo promised to
F F
repay all teachers by late December 2016.
G G
33. A teacher PW9 became the teachers’ representative for
H H
pursuing repayments.
I I
34. However, Ms Lo kept using different excuses to delay
J J
repayments. In early December 2016, Ms Lo told PW9 that she would
K repay all the loans to all teachers on 12 December 2016. However, Ms Lo K
claimed she could not do so shortly afterwards.
L L
M 35. On 16 December 2016, Ms Lo and her husband went to school M
and explained to the teachers that the truth was she had some monetary
N N
disputes with a beauty company called “Beauty Care” and needed money . 1
O O
36. Ms Lo ceased to be under the school’s employment on 6
P P
February 2017.
Q Q
R
Arrest and caution R
S S
37. On 11 May 2017, Ms Lo was arrested for fraud. Under
T
caution at the scene, Ms Lo said she did not intentionally cheat the teachers; T
1
U This was admitted to be another lie by defence counsel on behalf of Ms Lo during mitigation. U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
that she encountered cash flow problems so she borrowed money from
C them. C
D D
38. The loan agreements in relation to all the abovementioned
E loans between Ms Lo and PW1 to PW8 were seized from Ms Lo’s home. E
F F
39. In subsequent cautioned VRIs, Ms Lo stated that:
G G
(a) She met a Ms Yiu Chak Kai (“Yiu”) in a beauty parlour
H H
in 2002; between 2011 and 2016, she loaned about $8
I million to Yiu; she borrowed from relatives and banks I
in order to lend money to Yiu; when she could no
J J
longer borrow from banks, she turned to her colleagues;
K K
(b) She used “her brother’s company and her family
L L
encountered problems” as the reasons for borrowing
M money from her colleagues in order to get quick results; M
N N
(c) She did not tell her colleagues the true reason as she
O thought they would decline to lend if it was for the O
benefit of an unrelated party (Yiu);
P P
Q Q
(d) The loan agreements seized from her home were signed
R
by her and the amounts stated represented the monies R
she owed; and
S S
T
(e) Yiu did not repay the loan to her so she did not have the T
means to repay her colleagues.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C Subsequent repayments C
D D
40. Between 31 July and 1 August 2023, PW1 to 2 and PW4 to 8
E received some repayments from Ms Lo in the total sum of $31,606 detailed E
as follows:
F F
G (a) PW1 received $11,382; G
H H
(b) PW2 received $1,161;
I I
(c) PW4 received $1,974;
J J
K (d) PW5 received $6,969; K
L L
(e) PW6 received $5,807;
M M
(f) PW7 received $465; and
N N
O (g) PW8 received $3,848. O
P P
Criminal record
Q Q
R
41. Ms Lo has 6 previous convictions of fraud resulting from one R
previous court appearance (DCCC 184/2022 refers). In fact, the present
S S
case deals with other victims of the same fact scenario not already dealt
T
with in that case. T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Antecedents
C C
42. Ms Lo is aged 51 (42 at the time of the last-in-time offence),
D D
educated to university level. She previously worked as a Chinese teacher
E at a secondary school. She was unemployed at the time of first arrest. Ms E
Lo resides with her husband and two children in private housing in Yuen
F F
Long.
G G
Mitigation
H H
I 43. Mr Clement Lau of counsel mitigated on behalf of Ms Lo. I
The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.
J J
K 44. Ms Lo is living with his husband (supervisor in construction K
site with monthly income of about $40,000), daughter (20, hair salon
L L
apprentice) and son (16, student) in rented premises of size 500-600 square
M feet with 3 bedrooms. M
N N
45. Ms Lo is a tertiary education graduate and holds a Certificate
O in Education for secondary school teaching. She commenced her teaching O
career in 1997. Prior to her arrest, she had been teaching in the subject
P P
secondary school for 19 years.
Q Q
R
46. In this case, Ms Lo was herself a victim of deception. She R
was deceived by Ms Yiu (“Yiu”). Out of compassion to her soulmate, Ms
S S
Lo lent to Yiu her own savings and those of her family members. Ms Lo
T
even borrowed from her colleagues in order to further lend to Yiu. T
Regrettably, Yiu failed to honour her repayment commitment, thereby
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
placing Ms Lo in significant financial difficulty. The total amount lent to
C Yiu came to about $8 million. C
D D
47. When later believing Yiu had not intended to repay the loans
E from the very beginning, Ms Lo reported Yiu’s alleged deception to the E
police in late 2016 and early 2017. Three witness statements had been
F F
taken from Ms Lo.
G G
48. There is no doubt that Ms Lo used false pretexts to borrow
H H
from colleagues. Her decision to cite family difficulties as a pretext was
I not only to secure the loan more quickly, but, more importantly, to avoid I
damaging her reputation by disclosing the true reason.
J J
K 49. Her deception caused distress to her colleagues and friends; K
but this was not her intention. At the time of the loans, she genuinely
L L
believed she would be able to repay promptly. Although the offence of
M fraud is serious, the circumstances of this case are not particularly M
egregious.
N N
O 50. Ms Lo frankly disclosed the truth to the police. Even prior to O
her arrest, Ms Lo had filed a police report regarding how she was deceived
P P
by Yiu. Throughout this process, Ms Lo did not withhold information
Q Q
relating to her borrowing from colleagues.
R R
51. Following her arrest, Ms Lo continued to cooperate fully.
S S
During VRI, she provided a comprehensive account and admitted to the
T
use of misleading pretexts in obtaining loans from her colleagues. Upon T
being charged, she indicated prompt guilty pleas. This conduct reflects her
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
genuine acknowledgement of wrongdoing, demonstrable remorse, and
C willingness to accept responsibility. C
D D
52. In relation to the earlier case against Ms Lo, namely DCCC
E 184/20222, there was already a significant delay between Ms Lo’s arrest on E
11 May 2017 and her being charged on 13 January 2022. This delay was
F F
acknowledged and recognized by the sentencing judge in that case to be an
G unreasonable one. G
H H
53. The delay caused by the prosecution had imposed a significant
I psychological burden on Ms Lo. The profound guilt she experienced in I
connection with this earlier case precipitated the onset of depression in
J J
early 2017. During the period of the earlier delay, Ms Lo has actively
K sought to embark on a constructive new chapter in life and has K
demonstrated a sincere commitment to redressing the consequences of her
L L
action.
M M
54. Despite facing significant mental health challenges, Ms Lo
N N
maintained a proactive and constructive attitude. She entered into
O bankruptcy in 2016, a process which required the surrender of her income O
to the Official Receiver’s Office (ORO). Rather than seeking less
P P
demanding employment to accommodate her treatment, she chose to
Q Q
resume her professional responsibilities, commencing work as a primary
R
school teacher in September 2017. In a further demonstration of her R
commitment to rehabilitation and financial responsibility, she pursued a
S S
Certificate in Primary Education in 2021. This was undertaken for the
T T
2
DCCC 184/2022 related to similar acts of fraud exercised against other teachers and one former
U student of the same school. Those acts took place between October 2012 and October 2016. U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
specific purpose of securing the highest remunerative position within her
C qualifications, thereby enabling her to repay her outstanding debts to her C
colleagues as expediently (sic) as possible. After she was charged in 2022
D D
(for DCCC 184/2022), she promptly reported the same to the school
E principal. She subsequently resigned from her full-time role one month E
later, transitioning to part-time work to ensure a minimal disruption to the
F F
school and to facilitate an orderly handover of her duties. Apart from that,
G she had completed a certificate in Post-natal Care Worker Training in 2022. G
H H
55. Ms Lo was discharged from bankruptcy on 14 February 2021,
I having repaid a portion of the debts through the administration of the ORO. I
Upon the completion of the bankruptcy order, Ms Lo was notified that a
J J
sum from her MPF was available for her unrestricted use. Ms Lo
K immediately expressed her intention to apply these funds toward full K
repayment of the outstanding debts owed to the victims in DCCC
L L
184/2022. Accordingly and eventually, full restitutions (sic) were made to
M all the 6 victims in DCCC 184/2022 by way of a compensation order made M
by Deputy Judge Wai in July 2023 who at the same time sentenced Ms Lo
N N
to concurrent prison terms of 18 months suspended for 3 years.
O O
56. After Ms Lo was sentenced as described, she considered the
P P
matter concluded. Although the conviction record precluded her from
Q Q
resuming work as a teacher in registered schools, she had never given up
R
on finding a new job. Ms Lo has actively engaged in private tutoring work R
with a monthly income of approximately $12,000. She also intends to take
S S
on the new challenge of being a confinement nanny. She is working
T
diligently to repay her parents’ mortgage and has also arranged time to care T
for her elderly parents. At the same time, she has not forgotten to guide
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
her young children. Her relationship with her husband has become more
C stable than before. Initially believing the matters have settled, her mental C
condition has also stabilized.
D D
E 57. However, on 23 September 2024, after more than 7 years and E
4 months since first arrest, Ms Lo was again arrested and charged for the
F F
present offences. Since then, she became concerned about the potential
G impact on prospective clients’ families and therefore did not take up any G
position in post-natal care. Her psychological condition became unstable
H H
due to uncertainty of the outcome of the present case. She was also worried
I about the possible impact on her rehabilitation plan if she was going to lose I
her liberty.
J J
K 58. The delay between Ms Lo’s initial arrest and her being K
charged herein is even more severe and was not caused by her. It was
L L
submitted that there was a reasonable expectation on Ms Lo’s part that the
M case against her was concluded and finalized following her sentence in M
DCCC 184/2022. It was further submitted that by being further prosecuted,
N N
there is a disruption in her rehabilitation process.
O O
59. Regarding compensation, two separate batches of monies had
P P
been repaid by Ms Lo to the victims of Charges 1 to 6, and 8 to 9. First, as
Q Q
an ancillary to the past bankruptcy action, a total sum of $42,203.46 had
R
been repaid. Secondly, between 31 July and 1 August 2023, before Ms Lo R
was again arrested, she voluntarily repaid a total sum of $31,606 from her
S S
remaining savings.
T T
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
60. Ms Lo has consistently intended to make full repayment to all
C victims, but this has not been feasible due to her financial circumstances. C
At present, her husband’s income covers all household expenses, including
D D
rent, utilities, and the children’s cost. Approximately $10,000 out of Ms
E Lo’s own income is allocated towards repaying a mortgage on her parent’s E
residence. Before Ms Lo borrowed monies from the victims, her parents
F F
had mortgaged their residential flat to assist her in repaying her debts
G incurred by the lending to Yiu. G
H H
61. Given her limited income, Ms Lo is currently unable to
I commit to any further restitution (sic) to the victims, unless there is a I
material change in her financial situation in the future.
J J
K 62. It was submitted had this case been heard together with the K
earlier case of DCCC 184/2022, the victims in the present case would have
L L
been compensated more though on a pro rata basis out of the then available
M pool. M
N N
63. Although a full restitution, unlike in the case of Secretary for
O Justice v Hui Siu Man [1999] 2 HKLRD 236, has not been made, the delay O
in the present case is significantly longer.
P P
Q Q
64. In view of the above, the court is invited to impose another
R
suspended sentence, which would allow for the continuation of Ms Lo’s R
rehabilitation. It was submitted this would be an appropriate disposal of
S S
the matter.
T T
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
65. On behalf of Ms Lo, Mr Lau submitted a total of 13 mitigation
C letters (9 of which have been produced to the earlier court in DCCC C
184/2022) all written in Chinese by various parties. I shall not summarize
D D
them but suffice to say that the writers other than Ms Lo all spoke highly
E of her. E
F F
66. Upon the suggestion of the court that a Community Service
G Order (CSO) suitability report might be helpful, Mr Lau submitted that G
CSO might be a possible sentencing option.
H H
I 67. Upon the obtaining of a copy of the said report, Mr Lau further I
submitted that the report has been explained to and understood by Ms Lo;
J J
that she agreed with the report and its recommendations.
K K
CSO Suitability Report
L L
M 68. Before sentencing, I ordered that a CSO suitability report be M
obtained.
N N
O 69. The CSO suitability report that came back has its conclusions O
encapsulated in paras 17 to 19 which are reproduced below:-
P P
Q “17. The Accused, having grown up in a simple, supportive and Q
protective environment, presented as an unsophisticated person.
R She pursued her studies diligently and served as a teacher in one R
secondary school for nearly 20 years before resigning. While
she established her own family with a supportive husband, their
S relationship became strained before and during the material S
time. The Accused had misplaced trust in her beautician, Ms
Yiu, due to her emotional distress in marital relationship, and
T T
engaged in a series of dishonest borrowing out of her initial
simple wish to help Ms Yiu solve her financial difficulties, with
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B a blind belief that repayment from Ms Yiu would be forthcoming B
soon. Her borrowing involved banks and finance companies
C which made the situation more complicated as their loan chasers C
were more aggressive and threatening. Desperate to recoup her
funds, she fabricated various stories to induce victims to lend her
D more, ultimately placing herself, her colleagues, and her family D
in financial jeopardy and legal troubles for her.
E E
18. Although the Accused exhibited confusion when recalling
details of her money borrowing and repayment history, she was
F very cooperative and sincere during the enquiry. Reflecting on F
her wrongdoings, she demonstrated genuine remorse for her
misguided judgements and actions based on her misplaced trust
G G
in Ms Yiu. She acknowledged her responsibility for fabricating
excuses and deceiving her colleagues into lending her money.
H She admitted to have exploited their kindness and trust, harming H
their long-standing friendships, and causing them to financial
losses. The Accused also felt profound guilt for the losses and
I distress she has caused her family and regretted the negative I
impact on her parents. The prolonged court proceedings have
J taught her a painful yet valuable lesson. She promised to J
gradually repay the victims from her earnings and will seek her
husband’s advice to avoid further reckless decisions. Accepting
K the legal consequences of her wrongdoings, she respectfully K
pleaded for leniency and sought a non-custodial sentence. She
L
expressed a strong desire for a CSO as a means of making L
reparation to society, committing to comply fully with the Order
if granted. Her family has expressed unwavering support to her
M and implored Your Honour for leniency. M
19. Given the Accused’s guilty plea, deep remorse, cooperative
N N
attitude, ongoing efforts to repay the victims, willingness to take
legal responsibility, and readiness to fulfil the requirements of a
O CSO, it is appropriate to provide her with the opportunity to O
undertake unpaid community work that will positively
contribute to the society. A medium duration of community
P service under a CSO, as deemed suitable by your Honour, is P
therefore recommended.”
Q Q
Sentence
R R
S 70. Pursuant to my direction, prosecution conducted some S
enquiry and wrote on 24 December 2025 to report that the case with Ms
T T
Lo as informant, and Yiu as suspect, was classified by the police as “Money
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
Dispute” with no criminal element involved; as such, police investigation
C was curtailed and no legal advice was ever sought. C
D D
71. It is a little unfortunate that the alleged case of deception with
E Ms Lo as victim and Yiu as suspect never received the attention of the E
Department of Justice. Because of this, I cannot properly assess the weight
F F
of the mitigation that Ms Lo was herself a victim of fraud. In the premises,
G I will give Ms Lo the benefit of the doubt and accept to the limited extent G
that it is at least her belief that she was deceived of a substantial sum by
H H
Yiu.
I I
72. Prosecution produced a two-page document headed
J J
“Chronology of DCCC 184/2022 and DCCC 1401/2024” which sought to
K explain first, the time lapse from the time when the fraud case was first K
reported in March 2017 to the time when DCCC 184/2022 was concluded
L L
in July 2023; and secondly, the time lapse from the time 9 other victims
M contacted the police with a view to resurrecting the case against Ms Lo M
(culminating in the present case DCCC 1401/2024) in October 2023 to the
N N
time set down for plea and sentence herein in December 2025.
O O
73. From the Chronology, it seems that during the investigative
P P
stage of Ms Lo’s entire criminal activities, in September 2021, only 6
Q Q
victims came forward indicating their willingness to testify in court. They
R
therefore became the 6 listed victims in DCCC 184/2022 and all of them R
got their money (or the bulk of it) back mainly through the mechanism of
S S
a voluntary compensation order.
T T
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
74. It was after the conclusion of the earlier case that the present
C victims suddenly contacted the police with a view to pursuing the case C
again.
D D
E 75. Upon enquiry by the court, prosecution submitted that during E
September 2021, the present victims only verbally indicated to the police
F F
that they were not willing to become witnesses; that in October 2023, they
G changed their minds. G
H H
76. I have to say that splitting the prosecution into two parts in
I this way is highly unsatisfactory. Not only is this a waste of court I
resources, it represents an unnecessary drain on the mental well-being of
J J
the defendant concerned.
K K
77. Alleged victims should generally be given one chance only to
L L
indicate whether they want to proceed or not: they should not be allowed
M to change their minds without good reasons. In this case, I can only suspect M
that the victims here having learned of the earlier compensation order and
N N
knowing Ms Lo will likely plead guilty again want nothing other than a
O speedy way of recovery of their lost money without the need to go through O
a civil action at their own costs.
P P
Q Q
78. I was not therefore surprised when the prosecution submitted
R
a two-page chart entitled “Personal Details of DCCC 1401/2024” setting R
out the personal details of PW1 to PW8. What is more prominent on this
S S
chart is there is a column called “Compensation Amount” which contains
T
the amount remaining outstanding and which is due from Ms Lo to each of T
these eight victims. The total amount outstanding came to $1,331,190.54.
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
C 79. Unfortunately, Mr Lau told me and, in the absence of anything C
to the contrary, I am inclined to accept, that Ms Lo is now financially
D D
incapable of making further compensations to the victims herein.
E E
80. I agree with Mr Lau that had these victims come forward at
F F
the same time as the other 6 victims in DCCC 184/2022, all would have
G been able to share on a pro rata basis the general pool available then. I also G
note that Ms Lo’s capacity to earn has been substantially reduced as a result
H H
of her last recorded conviction. Given the limited financial resources of
I Ms Lo and her family members in the foreseeable future, I am not prepared I
to make another compensation order against Ms Lo.
J J
K 81. As regards what sentence I will impose on Ms Lo, I K
respectfully agree with the general sentiments expressed by the learned
L L
Deputy Judge in respect of Ms Lo’s character and personal circumstances.
M M
82. I merely wish to add that Ms Lo is entitled to have the
N N
legitimate expectation that the whole criminal legal process would have
O ended with her sentencing in DCCC 184/2022, in July 2023. O
Unfortunately, it has dragged on for reasons wholly unattributed to her but
P P
at the expense of breaking her chain of rehabilitation.
Q Q
R
83. In the premises, I cannot possibly sentence her to immediate R
prison terms for that will defeat the whole purpose of earlier suspended
S S
sentences. Nor do I see any benefit in handing down another set of
T
suspended sentences. T
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B B
84. So what I will do is not to disturb the suspended sentence
C orders earlier made and I will simply allow them to run to their expiry. C
D D
85. As regards the sentence for the present case, in light of the
E positive comments and recommendations of the CSO suitability report, and E
of Ms Lo’s satisfaction of most, if not all, of the 6 factors identified in R v
F F
Brown (1981) 2 Cr App R (S) 294,295, the court is minded to impose a
G CSO of 160 work hours on Ms Lo. G
H H
[ I then explained to Ms Lo in ordinary language the purpose and effect of
I the intended Order, the consequences of failure to comply with the I
requisite conditions and requirements, the consequences of re-offence, and
J J
finally the court’s power to review the Order. Ms Lo indicates her consent
K to the making of a CSO] K
L L
86. I am satisfied of the following:-
M M
(a) Ms Lo consents to the making of such an order;
N N
O (b) She is a suitable person to perform work under such an O
order; and
P P
Q Q
(c) Provision can be made for her to perform work under
R
such an order. R
S S
(Ms Lo, please stand)
T T
U U
V V
- 23 -
A A
B B
87. On Charges 1 to 6, and 8 to 9, the sentence for each is a
C Community Service Order of 160 work hours, to be served concurrently. C
D D
E E
( Isaac Tam )
F District Judge F
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 1401/2024
C [2026] HKDC 50 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1401 OF 2024
F F
G ———————— G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LO WING PING I
————————
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court K
Date: 5 January 2026
L L
Present: Ms Chung W S Natalie, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Mr Lau C M Clement, Counsel instructed by Messrs A Lee & M
Partners
N N
Offences: [1] - [9] Fraud (欺詐罪)
O O
P ———————————————— P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
————————————————
R R
1. Before me, Ms Lo faces a Charge Sheet containing 9 charges
S S
of Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
2. Ms Lo pleaded guilty to Charges 1 to 6, 8 to 9 (total 8 charges)
C but not guilty to Charge 7. C
D D
3. Prosecution asked that Charge 7 be left on court file not to be
E proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal. E
Upon Ms Lo’s conviction of those 8 charges, I so ordered.
F F
G 4. Particulars of Charges 1 to 6, and Charge 9, are that Ms Lo, G
between A and B, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely
H H
by falsely representing to V that she (Ms Lo) was in need of money to solve
I E, and with intent to defraud, induced V to commit acts or a series of acts, I
namely making a loan/loans in F Hong Kong currency to Ms Lo, which
J J
resulted in benefit to Ms Lo, or in prejudice or a substantial risk of
K prejudice to V. K
L L
5. For Charge 1, A is a day unknown in April 2014; B is 15 July
M 2016; V is Ko Fong Mui; E is problems encountered by her brother’s M
company; F is the total sum of $490,000.
N N
O 6. For Charge 2, A is on or about 16 July 2014; B is 23 January O
2016; V is So Sze Man; E is urgent problems and problems encountered
P P
by her brother’s company; F is the total sum of $50,000.
Q Q
R
7. For Charge 3, A is 23 July 2014; B is 23 January 2016; V is R
Chan Hoi Lun; E is problems encountered by her brother’s company; F is
S S
the total sum of $60,000.
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
8. For Charge 4, A is 9 August 2014; B is 19 March 2016; V is
C Chan Po Na; E is problems encountered by her family and her brother’s C
company; F is the total sum of $85,000.
D D
E 9. For Charge 5, A is on or about 22 June 2016; B is 24 June E
2016; V is Chan Siu Hung, Susan; E is problems encountered by her
F F
brother’s company; F is the sum of $300,000.
G G
10. For Charge 6, A is on or about 15 August 2016; B is 16 August
H H
2016; V is Lau Chi Hung; E is family problems; F is the sum of $250,000.
I I
11. For Charge 9, A is on or about 14 September 2016; B is 15
J J
September 2016; V is Lau Wing Suet; E is family problems; F is the sum
K of $150,000. K
L L
12. Particulars of Charge 8 are that Ms Lo, on or about 14
M September 2016, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing M
to Cheung Tsui Yuk that she (Ms Lo) was in need of money to solve
N N
problems encountered by her brother’s company, and with intent to
O defraud, induced Cheung Tsui Yuk to commit acts or a series of acts, O
namely making a loan in the sum of $20,000 Hong Kong currency to Ms
P P
Lo, which resulted in benefit to Ms Lo, or in prejudice or a substantial risk
Q Q
of prejudice to Cheung Tsui Yuk.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Facts admitted by Ms Lo
C C
13. At the time of the offences, Ms Lo was teaching at a secondary
D D
school. The other persons named in Charges 1 to 6, 8 to 9 were her teaching
E colleagues at the school (respectively PW1 to PW8). E
F F
14. Ms Lo used various false pretexts to borrow money from PW1
G to PW8 in the total sum of $1,405,000. G
H H
Charge 1
I I
15. On a day unknown in April 2014, PW1 received a phone call
J J
from Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial
K problems and asked to borrow money from PW1. Believing in Ms Lo’s K
false representation, PW1 agreed to lend money and transferred $40,000
L L
into Ms Lo’s bank account on 6 April 2014.
M M
16. Between 7 April 2014 and 15 July 2016, PW1 further lent
N N
monies to Ms Lo either by bank transfer or by cash. The total amount of
O the loans including the first one on 6 April 2014 came to $490,000. O
P P
Charge 2
Q Q
R
17. On or about 16 July 2014, PW2 received a phone call from R
Ms Lo. Ms Lo was crying over the phone. Ms Lo claimed she was in need
S S
of money to solve urgent problems and she asked PW2 to lend her money.
T
Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW2 agreed to lend money and T
transferred $30,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 28 July 2014.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 18. On 22 January 2016, PW2 received a further phone call from C
Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial
D D
problems and asked to borrow money from PW2. As Ms Lo had not made
E any repayment for her previous loan, PW2 was only willing to and did E
transfer $20,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 23 January 2016.
F F
G 19. In total, PW2 had lent $50,000 to Ms Lo. G
H H
Charge 3
I I
20. On or about 23 July 2014, PW3 received a phone call from
J J
Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial
K problems and asked to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false K
representation, PW3 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and she transferred
L L
$50,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 23 July 2014.
M M
21. On 22 January 2016, Ms Lo called PW3 again, claiming her
N N
brother’s company encountered financial problems and asked to borrow
O money. As Ms Lo had not made any repayment for her previous loan, PW3 O
was only willing to and did transfer $10,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on
P P
23 January 2016.
Q Q
R
22. In total, PW3 had lent $60,000 to Ms Lo. R
S S
Charge 4
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
23. On 9 August 2014, PW4 received a phone call from Ms Lo.
C Ms Lo claimed her family encountered some problems and asked to borrow C
money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW4 agreed to lend
D D
money to Ms Lo and transferred $30,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 9
E August 2014. E
F F
24. On 6 July 2015, PW4 received another phone call from Ms
G Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial problems G
and asked to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation,
H H
PW4 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred $30,000 into Ms Lo’s
I bank account on 6 July 2015. I
J J
25. On 18 March 2016, Ms Lo called PW4 again, claiming her
K brother’s company encountered problems. Even though Ms Lo had not K
made any repayment for the previous loans, believing in Ms Lo’s false
L L
representation, PW4 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred
M $25,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 19 March 2016. M
N N
26. In total, PW4 had lent $85,000 to Ms Lo.
O O
Charge 5
P P
Q Q
27. On or about 22 June 2016, PW5 received a phone call from
R
Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial R
problems and asked to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false
S S
representation, PW5 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred
T
$300,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 24 June 2016. T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
Charge 6
C C
28. On or about 15 August 2016, PW6 received a phone call from
D D
Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her family encountered some problems and asked
E to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW6 agreed E
to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred $250,000 into Ms Lo’s bank
F F
account on 16 August 2016.
G G
Charge 8
H H
I 29. On or about 14 September 2016, PW7 received a phone call I
from Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial
J J
problems and asked to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false
K representation, PW7 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred K
$20,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 14 September 2016.
L L
M Charge 9 M
N N
30. On or about 14 September 2016, PW8 received a phone call
O from Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her family encountered some problems and O
asked to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW8
P P
agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and gave $150,000 to Ms Lo by way of a
Q Q
cheque on 15 September 2016.
R R
Aftermath
S S
T
31. In around November 2016, PW1 to 8 learnt that Ms Lo had T
been borrowing money from various teachers at the school. They reported
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
the matter to the school principal PW10. PW10 met Ms Lo at the
C principal’s office. Ms Lo admitted to PW10 that she borrowed money from C
various teachers but claimed that the money was used for solving problems
D D
encountered by her brother’s company.
E E
32. PW10 asked Ms Lo not to borrow again. Ms Lo promised to
F F
repay all teachers by late December 2016.
G G
33. A teacher PW9 became the teachers’ representative for
H H
pursuing repayments.
I I
34. However, Ms Lo kept using different excuses to delay
J J
repayments. In early December 2016, Ms Lo told PW9 that she would
K repay all the loans to all teachers on 12 December 2016. However, Ms Lo K
claimed she could not do so shortly afterwards.
L L
M 35. On 16 December 2016, Ms Lo and her husband went to school M
and explained to the teachers that the truth was she had some monetary
N N
disputes with a beauty company called “Beauty Care” and needed money . 1
O O
36. Ms Lo ceased to be under the school’s employment on 6
P P
February 2017.
Q Q
R
Arrest and caution R
S S
37. On 11 May 2017, Ms Lo was arrested for fraud. Under
T
caution at the scene, Ms Lo said she did not intentionally cheat the teachers; T
1
U This was admitted to be another lie by defence counsel on behalf of Ms Lo during mitigation. U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
that she encountered cash flow problems so she borrowed money from
C them. C
D D
38. The loan agreements in relation to all the abovementioned
E loans between Ms Lo and PW1 to PW8 were seized from Ms Lo’s home. E
F F
39. In subsequent cautioned VRIs, Ms Lo stated that:
G G
(a) She met a Ms Yiu Chak Kai (“Yiu”) in a beauty parlour
H H
in 2002; between 2011 and 2016, she loaned about $8
I million to Yiu; she borrowed from relatives and banks I
in order to lend money to Yiu; when she could no
J J
longer borrow from banks, she turned to her colleagues;
K K
(b) She used “her brother’s company and her family
L L
encountered problems” as the reasons for borrowing
M money from her colleagues in order to get quick results; M
N N
(c) She did not tell her colleagues the true reason as she
O thought they would decline to lend if it was for the O
benefit of an unrelated party (Yiu);
P P
Q Q
(d) The loan agreements seized from her home were signed
R
by her and the amounts stated represented the monies R
she owed; and
S S
T
(e) Yiu did not repay the loan to her so she did not have the T
means to repay her colleagues.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C Subsequent repayments C
D D
40. Between 31 July and 1 August 2023, PW1 to 2 and PW4 to 8
E received some repayments from Ms Lo in the total sum of $31,606 detailed E
as follows:
F F
G (a) PW1 received $11,382; G
H H
(b) PW2 received $1,161;
I I
(c) PW4 received $1,974;
J J
K (d) PW5 received $6,969; K
L L
(e) PW6 received $5,807;
M M
(f) PW7 received $465; and
N N
O (g) PW8 received $3,848. O
P P
Criminal record
Q Q
R
41. Ms Lo has 6 previous convictions of fraud resulting from one R
previous court appearance (DCCC 184/2022 refers). In fact, the present
S S
case deals with other victims of the same fact scenario not already dealt
T
with in that case. T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Antecedents
C C
42. Ms Lo is aged 51 (42 at the time of the last-in-time offence),
D D
educated to university level. She previously worked as a Chinese teacher
E at a secondary school. She was unemployed at the time of first arrest. Ms E
Lo resides with her husband and two children in private housing in Yuen
F F
Long.
G G
Mitigation
H H
I 43. Mr Clement Lau of counsel mitigated on behalf of Ms Lo. I
The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.
J J
K 44. Ms Lo is living with his husband (supervisor in construction K
site with monthly income of about $40,000), daughter (20, hair salon
L L
apprentice) and son (16, student) in rented premises of size 500-600 square
M feet with 3 bedrooms. M
N N
45. Ms Lo is a tertiary education graduate and holds a Certificate
O in Education for secondary school teaching. She commenced her teaching O
career in 1997. Prior to her arrest, she had been teaching in the subject
P P
secondary school for 19 years.
Q Q
R
46. In this case, Ms Lo was herself a victim of deception. She R
was deceived by Ms Yiu (“Yiu”). Out of compassion to her soulmate, Ms
S S
Lo lent to Yiu her own savings and those of her family members. Ms Lo
T
even borrowed from her colleagues in order to further lend to Yiu. T
Regrettably, Yiu failed to honour her repayment commitment, thereby
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
placing Ms Lo in significant financial difficulty. The total amount lent to
C Yiu came to about $8 million. C
D D
47. When later believing Yiu had not intended to repay the loans
E from the very beginning, Ms Lo reported Yiu’s alleged deception to the E
police in late 2016 and early 2017. Three witness statements had been
F F
taken from Ms Lo.
G G
48. There is no doubt that Ms Lo used false pretexts to borrow
H H
from colleagues. Her decision to cite family difficulties as a pretext was
I not only to secure the loan more quickly, but, more importantly, to avoid I
damaging her reputation by disclosing the true reason.
J J
K 49. Her deception caused distress to her colleagues and friends; K
but this was not her intention. At the time of the loans, she genuinely
L L
believed she would be able to repay promptly. Although the offence of
M fraud is serious, the circumstances of this case are not particularly M
egregious.
N N
O 50. Ms Lo frankly disclosed the truth to the police. Even prior to O
her arrest, Ms Lo had filed a police report regarding how she was deceived
P P
by Yiu. Throughout this process, Ms Lo did not withhold information
Q Q
relating to her borrowing from colleagues.
R R
51. Following her arrest, Ms Lo continued to cooperate fully.
S S
During VRI, she provided a comprehensive account and admitted to the
T
use of misleading pretexts in obtaining loans from her colleagues. Upon T
being charged, she indicated prompt guilty pleas. This conduct reflects her
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
genuine acknowledgement of wrongdoing, demonstrable remorse, and
C willingness to accept responsibility. C
D D
52. In relation to the earlier case against Ms Lo, namely DCCC
E 184/20222, there was already a significant delay between Ms Lo’s arrest on E
11 May 2017 and her being charged on 13 January 2022. This delay was
F F
acknowledged and recognized by the sentencing judge in that case to be an
G unreasonable one. G
H H
53. The delay caused by the prosecution had imposed a significant
I psychological burden on Ms Lo. The profound guilt she experienced in I
connection with this earlier case precipitated the onset of depression in
J J
early 2017. During the period of the earlier delay, Ms Lo has actively
K sought to embark on a constructive new chapter in life and has K
demonstrated a sincere commitment to redressing the consequences of her
L L
action.
M M
54. Despite facing significant mental health challenges, Ms Lo
N N
maintained a proactive and constructive attitude. She entered into
O bankruptcy in 2016, a process which required the surrender of her income O
to the Official Receiver’s Office (ORO). Rather than seeking less
P P
demanding employment to accommodate her treatment, she chose to
Q Q
resume her professional responsibilities, commencing work as a primary
R
school teacher in September 2017. In a further demonstration of her R
commitment to rehabilitation and financial responsibility, she pursued a
S S
Certificate in Primary Education in 2021. This was undertaken for the
T T
2
DCCC 184/2022 related to similar acts of fraud exercised against other teachers and one former
U student of the same school. Those acts took place between October 2012 and October 2016. U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
specific purpose of securing the highest remunerative position within her
C qualifications, thereby enabling her to repay her outstanding debts to her C
colleagues as expediently (sic) as possible. After she was charged in 2022
D D
(for DCCC 184/2022), she promptly reported the same to the school
E principal. She subsequently resigned from her full-time role one month E
later, transitioning to part-time work to ensure a minimal disruption to the
F F
school and to facilitate an orderly handover of her duties. Apart from that,
G she had completed a certificate in Post-natal Care Worker Training in 2022. G
H H
55. Ms Lo was discharged from bankruptcy on 14 February 2021,
I having repaid a portion of the debts through the administration of the ORO. I
Upon the completion of the bankruptcy order, Ms Lo was notified that a
J J
sum from her MPF was available for her unrestricted use. Ms Lo
K immediately expressed her intention to apply these funds toward full K
repayment of the outstanding debts owed to the victims in DCCC
L L
184/2022. Accordingly and eventually, full restitutions (sic) were made to
M all the 6 victims in DCCC 184/2022 by way of a compensation order made M
by Deputy Judge Wai in July 2023 who at the same time sentenced Ms Lo
N N
to concurrent prison terms of 18 months suspended for 3 years.
O O
56. After Ms Lo was sentenced as described, she considered the
P P
matter concluded. Although the conviction record precluded her from
Q Q
resuming work as a teacher in registered schools, she had never given up
R
on finding a new job. Ms Lo has actively engaged in private tutoring work R
with a monthly income of approximately $12,000. She also intends to take
S S
on the new challenge of being a confinement nanny. She is working
T
diligently to repay her parents’ mortgage and has also arranged time to care T
for her elderly parents. At the same time, she has not forgotten to guide
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
her young children. Her relationship with her husband has become more
C stable than before. Initially believing the matters have settled, her mental C
condition has also stabilized.
D D
E 57. However, on 23 September 2024, after more than 7 years and E
4 months since first arrest, Ms Lo was again arrested and charged for the
F F
present offences. Since then, she became concerned about the potential
G impact on prospective clients’ families and therefore did not take up any G
position in post-natal care. Her psychological condition became unstable
H H
due to uncertainty of the outcome of the present case. She was also worried
I about the possible impact on her rehabilitation plan if she was going to lose I
her liberty.
J J
K 58. The delay between Ms Lo’s initial arrest and her being K
charged herein is even more severe and was not caused by her. It was
L L
submitted that there was a reasonable expectation on Ms Lo’s part that the
M case against her was concluded and finalized following her sentence in M
DCCC 184/2022. It was further submitted that by being further prosecuted,
N N
there is a disruption in her rehabilitation process.
O O
59. Regarding compensation, two separate batches of monies had
P P
been repaid by Ms Lo to the victims of Charges 1 to 6, and 8 to 9. First, as
Q Q
an ancillary to the past bankruptcy action, a total sum of $42,203.46 had
R
been repaid. Secondly, between 31 July and 1 August 2023, before Ms Lo R
was again arrested, she voluntarily repaid a total sum of $31,606 from her
S S
remaining savings.
T T
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
60. Ms Lo has consistently intended to make full repayment to all
C victims, but this has not been feasible due to her financial circumstances. C
At present, her husband’s income covers all household expenses, including
D D
rent, utilities, and the children’s cost. Approximately $10,000 out of Ms
E Lo’s own income is allocated towards repaying a mortgage on her parent’s E
residence. Before Ms Lo borrowed monies from the victims, her parents
F F
had mortgaged their residential flat to assist her in repaying her debts
G incurred by the lending to Yiu. G
H H
61. Given her limited income, Ms Lo is currently unable to
I commit to any further restitution (sic) to the victims, unless there is a I
material change in her financial situation in the future.
J J
K 62. It was submitted had this case been heard together with the K
earlier case of DCCC 184/2022, the victims in the present case would have
L L
been compensated more though on a pro rata basis out of the then available
M pool. M
N N
63. Although a full restitution, unlike in the case of Secretary for
O Justice v Hui Siu Man [1999] 2 HKLRD 236, has not been made, the delay O
in the present case is significantly longer.
P P
Q Q
64. In view of the above, the court is invited to impose another
R
suspended sentence, which would allow for the continuation of Ms Lo’s R
rehabilitation. It was submitted this would be an appropriate disposal of
S S
the matter.
T T
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
65. On behalf of Ms Lo, Mr Lau submitted a total of 13 mitigation
C letters (9 of which have been produced to the earlier court in DCCC C
184/2022) all written in Chinese by various parties. I shall not summarize
D D
them but suffice to say that the writers other than Ms Lo all spoke highly
E of her. E
F F
66. Upon the suggestion of the court that a Community Service
G Order (CSO) suitability report might be helpful, Mr Lau submitted that G
CSO might be a possible sentencing option.
H H
I 67. Upon the obtaining of a copy of the said report, Mr Lau further I
submitted that the report has been explained to and understood by Ms Lo;
J J
that she agreed with the report and its recommendations.
K K
CSO Suitability Report
L L
M 68. Before sentencing, I ordered that a CSO suitability report be M
obtained.
N N
O 69. The CSO suitability report that came back has its conclusions O
encapsulated in paras 17 to 19 which are reproduced below:-
P P
Q “17. The Accused, having grown up in a simple, supportive and Q
protective environment, presented as an unsophisticated person.
R She pursued her studies diligently and served as a teacher in one R
secondary school for nearly 20 years before resigning. While
she established her own family with a supportive husband, their
S relationship became strained before and during the material S
time. The Accused had misplaced trust in her beautician, Ms
Yiu, due to her emotional distress in marital relationship, and
T T
engaged in a series of dishonest borrowing out of her initial
simple wish to help Ms Yiu solve her financial difficulties, with
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B a blind belief that repayment from Ms Yiu would be forthcoming B
soon. Her borrowing involved banks and finance companies
C which made the situation more complicated as their loan chasers C
were more aggressive and threatening. Desperate to recoup her
funds, she fabricated various stories to induce victims to lend her
D more, ultimately placing herself, her colleagues, and her family D
in financial jeopardy and legal troubles for her.
E E
18. Although the Accused exhibited confusion when recalling
details of her money borrowing and repayment history, she was
F very cooperative and sincere during the enquiry. Reflecting on F
her wrongdoings, she demonstrated genuine remorse for her
misguided judgements and actions based on her misplaced trust
G G
in Ms Yiu. She acknowledged her responsibility for fabricating
excuses and deceiving her colleagues into lending her money.
H She admitted to have exploited their kindness and trust, harming H
their long-standing friendships, and causing them to financial
losses. The Accused also felt profound guilt for the losses and
I distress she has caused her family and regretted the negative I
impact on her parents. The prolonged court proceedings have
J taught her a painful yet valuable lesson. She promised to J
gradually repay the victims from her earnings and will seek her
husband’s advice to avoid further reckless decisions. Accepting
K the legal consequences of her wrongdoings, she respectfully K
pleaded for leniency and sought a non-custodial sentence. She
L
expressed a strong desire for a CSO as a means of making L
reparation to society, committing to comply fully with the Order
if granted. Her family has expressed unwavering support to her
M and implored Your Honour for leniency. M
19. Given the Accused’s guilty plea, deep remorse, cooperative
N N
attitude, ongoing efforts to repay the victims, willingness to take
legal responsibility, and readiness to fulfil the requirements of a
O CSO, it is appropriate to provide her with the opportunity to O
undertake unpaid community work that will positively
contribute to the society. A medium duration of community
P service under a CSO, as deemed suitable by your Honour, is P
therefore recommended.”
Q Q
Sentence
R R
S 70. Pursuant to my direction, prosecution conducted some S
enquiry and wrote on 24 December 2025 to report that the case with Ms
T T
Lo as informant, and Yiu as suspect, was classified by the police as “Money
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
Dispute” with no criminal element involved; as such, police investigation
C was curtailed and no legal advice was ever sought. C
D D
71. It is a little unfortunate that the alleged case of deception with
E Ms Lo as victim and Yiu as suspect never received the attention of the E
Department of Justice. Because of this, I cannot properly assess the weight
F F
of the mitigation that Ms Lo was herself a victim of fraud. In the premises,
G I will give Ms Lo the benefit of the doubt and accept to the limited extent G
that it is at least her belief that she was deceived of a substantial sum by
H H
Yiu.
I I
72. Prosecution produced a two-page document headed
J J
“Chronology of DCCC 184/2022 and DCCC 1401/2024” which sought to
K explain first, the time lapse from the time when the fraud case was first K
reported in March 2017 to the time when DCCC 184/2022 was concluded
L L
in July 2023; and secondly, the time lapse from the time 9 other victims
M contacted the police with a view to resurrecting the case against Ms Lo M
(culminating in the present case DCCC 1401/2024) in October 2023 to the
N N
time set down for plea and sentence herein in December 2025.
O O
73. From the Chronology, it seems that during the investigative
P P
stage of Ms Lo’s entire criminal activities, in September 2021, only 6
Q Q
victims came forward indicating their willingness to testify in court. They
R
therefore became the 6 listed victims in DCCC 184/2022 and all of them R
got their money (or the bulk of it) back mainly through the mechanism of
S S
a voluntary compensation order.
T T
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
74. It was after the conclusion of the earlier case that the present
C victims suddenly contacted the police with a view to pursuing the case C
again.
D D
E 75. Upon enquiry by the court, prosecution submitted that during E
September 2021, the present victims only verbally indicated to the police
F F
that they were not willing to become witnesses; that in October 2023, they
G changed their minds. G
H H
76. I have to say that splitting the prosecution into two parts in
I this way is highly unsatisfactory. Not only is this a waste of court I
resources, it represents an unnecessary drain on the mental well-being of
J J
the defendant concerned.
K K
77. Alleged victims should generally be given one chance only to
L L
indicate whether they want to proceed or not: they should not be allowed
M to change their minds without good reasons. In this case, I can only suspect M
that the victims here having learned of the earlier compensation order and
N N
knowing Ms Lo will likely plead guilty again want nothing other than a
O speedy way of recovery of their lost money without the need to go through O
a civil action at their own costs.
P P
Q Q
78. I was not therefore surprised when the prosecution submitted
R
a two-page chart entitled “Personal Details of DCCC 1401/2024” setting R
out the personal details of PW1 to PW8. What is more prominent on this
S S
chart is there is a column called “Compensation Amount” which contains
T
the amount remaining outstanding and which is due from Ms Lo to each of T
these eight victims. The total amount outstanding came to $1,331,190.54.
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
C 79. Unfortunately, Mr Lau told me and, in the absence of anything C
to the contrary, I am inclined to accept, that Ms Lo is now financially
D D
incapable of making further compensations to the victims herein.
E E
80. I agree with Mr Lau that had these victims come forward at
F F
the same time as the other 6 victims in DCCC 184/2022, all would have
G been able to share on a pro rata basis the general pool available then. I also G
note that Ms Lo’s capacity to earn has been substantially reduced as a result
H H
of her last recorded conviction. Given the limited financial resources of
I Ms Lo and her family members in the foreseeable future, I am not prepared I
to make another compensation order against Ms Lo.
J J
K 81. As regards what sentence I will impose on Ms Lo, I K
respectfully agree with the general sentiments expressed by the learned
L L
Deputy Judge in respect of Ms Lo’s character and personal circumstances.
M M
82. I merely wish to add that Ms Lo is entitled to have the
N N
legitimate expectation that the whole criminal legal process would have
O ended with her sentencing in DCCC 184/2022, in July 2023. O
Unfortunately, it has dragged on for reasons wholly unattributed to her but
P P
at the expense of breaking her chain of rehabilitation.
Q Q
R
83. In the premises, I cannot possibly sentence her to immediate R
prison terms for that will defeat the whole purpose of earlier suspended
S S
sentences. Nor do I see any benefit in handing down another set of
T
suspended sentences. T
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B B
84. So what I will do is not to disturb the suspended sentence
C orders earlier made and I will simply allow them to run to their expiry. C
D D
85. As regards the sentence for the present case, in light of the
E positive comments and recommendations of the CSO suitability report, and E
of Ms Lo’s satisfaction of most, if not all, of the 6 factors identified in R v
F F
Brown (1981) 2 Cr App R (S) 294,295, the court is minded to impose a
G CSO of 160 work hours on Ms Lo. G
H H
[ I then explained to Ms Lo in ordinary language the purpose and effect of
I the intended Order, the consequences of failure to comply with the I
requisite conditions and requirements, the consequences of re-offence, and
J J
finally the court’s power to review the Order. Ms Lo indicates her consent
K to the making of a CSO] K
L L
86. I am satisfied of the following:-
M M
(a) Ms Lo consents to the making of such an order;
N N
O (b) She is a suitable person to perform work under such an O
order; and
P P
Q Q
(c) Provision can be made for her to perform work under
R
such an order. R
S S
(Ms Lo, please stand)
T T
U U
V V
- 23 -
A A
B B
87. On Charges 1 to 6, and 8 to 9, the sentence for each is a
C Community Service Order of 160 work hours, to be served concurrently. C
D D
E E
( Isaac Tam )
F District Judge F
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