區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Peony Wong27/8/2025[2025] HKDC 1236
DCCC461/2023
A A
B B
DCCC 461/2023
C [2025] HKDC 1236 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 461 OF 2023
F F
G --------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I TSUI KING WA (D2) I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Peony Wong K
Date: 28 August 2025
L L
Present: Mr David Boyton, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr CHAN Chun Hei Ryan, instructed by T.H. Wong & Co., M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd defendant
N N
Offence: [1] to [12] Conspiracy to defraud（串謀詐騙）
O O
P
--------------------------------------- P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
---------------------------------------
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The 2nd Defendant (D2) was convicted after trial of Charges 1
C to 12, all being conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law and C
punishable under section 159C(6) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. The
D D
1st and 2nd Defendants were jointly charged in Charges 1 to 12 for
E conspiring with each other together with other person(s) unknown to E
defraud 1 victim for each of those charges.
F F
G 2. Each charge involves an individual victim who had sold G
through online platforms different kinds of goods ranging from mobile
H H
phone, iPads, special edition sneakers, luxury watch, Japanese whisky, and
I had received or had been shown photographic images of ATM deposit slips I
as proof of payment or notification of deposits made into their bank
J J
accounts, and thereupon parted with possession of the goods. 2 of the
K victims (PW1 and PW11 for Charges 1 and 11 respectively), apart from K
being cheated to part possession of their goods, were further contacted after
L L
the transaction whereby they received requests for return of a second
M mistaken payment. M
N N
3. All victims were later informed that the alleged payment
O amounts were not honoured, and that the actual payment deposits were O
made by D2 using gift certificates of $10 each through the ATM machines,
P P
while an amount equivalent to the sale price (which is much higher than
Q $10) had been keyed in by D2 when the deposits were made. Q
R R
4. The value of the goods involved and the return of payment
S under the pretence of mistaken double payment for each charge are as S
follows:
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Charge 1 $12,000 mobile phone
C $10,000 return payment (frauster asked for C
$12,000)
D D
Charge 2 $18,000 MacBook Pro
E Charge 3 $45,500 Watch E
Charge 4 $43,000 sneakers
F F
Charge 5 $5,100 iPad Air
G Charge 6 $74,900 sneakers G
Charge 7 $44,000 8 bottles of whisky
H H
Charge 8 $178,800 26 bottles of whisky
I Charge 9 $15,000 MacBook Pro I
Charge 10 $53,800 sneakers
J J
Charge 11 $36,800 Leica camera
K $25,000 return payment K
Charge 12 $90,000 sneakers
L L
Total amount involved $653,900
M M
D2’s Antecedent Statement and Mitigation
N N
O 5. D2 is 36 years old and single. He had studied up to Form 4 or O
5, and was a warehouse worker.
P P
Q 6. He has 10 conviction records, which include 9 charges of Q
theft, 2 charges of fraud, 4 charges of conspiracy to deal with property
R R
known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence, 2 charges
S of conspiracy to blackmail, 1 charge of blackmail, and 1 charge of S
conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. He was last sentenced
T T
on 7 April 2020 for a total sentence of 36 months.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 7. The Defence urges the Court to consider D2’s cooperation C
with investigators, the fact that he did not have knowledge of the frauds
D D
practiced on the victims, and that he was not the mastermind.
E E
Sentencing Considerations
F F
G 8. I have considered the mitigation and facts of this case. D2 G
was convicted after trial, and the Court does not agree that D2 had been
H H
cooperative with the investigators. The documentary exhibits were all
I along present when he was arrested, and his so called ‘cooperation’ merely I
involves his non-denial of the presence of those documents found at his
J J
home.
K K
9. Even though the Court agrees that there is no evidence that
L L
D2 knew of the frauds on the 12 victims, and that he was not the
M mastermind in that he was following instructions, his role was a crucial M
one. His job was to buy some of the $10 gift certificates used, and to
N N
deposit them into the victims’ designated accounts only upon D1 giving
O instructions to do so at a specific time, while keying in substantially larger O
amounts as the deposit amounts. His role also involved immediately taking
P P
pictures of the deposit slips after the deposit, and to send them back to the
Q group which consisted of himself, D1 and another unknown person. He Q
was also involved in taking some of the sneakers, which were subject
R R
matters of some charges, to shops to check the second hand price. There
S were many more gift certificates found at his home. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
10. This is a typical e-commerce crime. The scheme involved
C using the time gap between deposit of gift certificates to clearance as a C
loophole for benefit. The 12 charges were committed within a period of
D D
less than 2 weeks, and there were 12 victims. The amounts involved in
E each charge range from $5,100 to $178,800, and the total amount involved E
was $653,900. The goods were all expensive items that could be easily
F F
sold in the market, and whiskies, luxury watch and limited edition sneakers
G could be the subject matter of seriously inflated prices upon resale. For G
charges 1 and 11, the fraud involved not just the deceit to obtain the goods
H H
in question, but also a second lie that money was mistakenly deposited
I twice, and thereby obtaining transfer of a sum of money, all with aid of the I
minimal value of the gift certificates.
J J
K 11. There was a certain degree of planning, as gift certificates of K
low value had to be acquired beforehand, and a network of personnel were
L L
involved, including D1 and the unknown male who gave orders over phone
M or on WhatsApp, PW17 who was responsible for picking up the goods, and M
D2 who was responsible for purchasing some of the gift certificates,
N N
making the deposits, sending back photos of the deposit slips, and bringing
O some goods to shops for resale price checking. The present case also O
presents with the aggravating factor of D2 committing the offences with 2
P P
others, and frequent communications between the parties through
Q WhatsApp was involved. Q
R R
12. As stated by HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai CACC 100/2014,
S concerning offences that target the public, and which were ruthless, S
disgusting and despicable fraud cases, the Court will adopt strict sentences
T T
in order to have sufficient deterrent effect, and to protect the general public.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Even where the amounts involved were not very high, and even
C considering the clear record of defendants, the Court will still adopt starting C
points of 3 to 4 years.
D D
E 13. In Leung Yiu Fai, the applicant had 2 previous conviction E
records consisting of 19 dishonesty related charges. The single charge in
F F
that case was committed within 2 months and involves 36 victims and
G $63,180. Each victim had been scammed out of relatively small amounts G
ranging between $650 and $6,340, in circumstances described as not very
H H
sophisticated, where the applicant sold Halloween event tickets which were
I not in existence and had the victims deposit money to third parties who I
conduct online sales of inexpensive items, thereafter claiming to the third
J J
parties that money had been mistakenly deposited and asked for ‘return’.
K It was held that the starting point of 30 months before enhancement was K
appropriate, and that the enhancement under section 27 of the Organized
L L
and Serious Crimes Ordinance by 1/3 was reasonable.
M M
14. In HKSAR v Wong Ming Chun [2025] HKCA 275, the
N N
appellant pleaded guilty to 9 charges in 2 separate cases, involving a total
O of 4 conspiracy to defraud charges amongst others. The Deputy District O
Judge in that case considered that there were 4 transactions, and adopted
P P
for the conspiracy to defraud charges a starting point of 3.5 years for each
Q charge, and increased them by 3 months each, for the reason that they had Q
been committed within one month. 1/3 discount was applied for the guilty
R R
plea, and thereupon enhancement of 20% was made on the conspiracy to
S defraud charges. The appellant was sentenced to an overall term of 5 years’ S
imprisonment. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence on these
T T
charges were appropriate. In particular, the Court of Appeal stated that
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
“committing multiple similar offences within a month is a very serious
C matter in itself and far more serious than committing one offence on a C
single occasion.”
D D
E 15. The facts of Wong Ming Chun are also very similar to the E
present case, i.e. bounced cheques as purchase price of luxury goods
F F
belonging to the victims and bogus requests for allegedly mistaken double
G payment; and a number of people were also involved in the organized G
syndicated crime, with the appellant playing an essential and prominent
H H
role. The 4 transactions in Wong Ming Chun are committed within 1
I month, whereas the present 12 charges were committed in less than 2 I
weeks.
J J
K 16. In Wong Ming Chun, the total amount stolen in that case K
amounted to $925,000, and the unrecovered loss being $744,500; 4
L L
Facebook accounts and a number of telephone numbers were used. When
M the police raided the Defendant’s hotel room, 6 SIM cards and $70,041 M
were found. The appellant in that case has 13 previous conviction record
N N
which includes some charges of dishonesty. Whereas in the present case,
O the total amount of money involved was $653,900; and Facebook, O
Carousell and WhatsApp accounts were used. D2 has an even worse
P P
criminal record than the appellant in Wong Ming Chun. D2’s poor criminal
Q record consisting mostly of dishonesty offences presents itself as an Q
aggravating factor for each of the 12 charges. I am therefore of the view
R R
D2’s case falls in between Leung Yiu Fai and Wong Ming Chun in terms
S of seriousness. S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
Enhancement of Sentence
C C
17. The Prosecution has filed a Notice of Intention to Furnish
D D
Information Pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes
E Ordinance, Cap 455 on 1 June 2023. The Defence does not object to the E
enhancement application. The witness statement of WSIP Chan Ching Mei
F F
dated 3 July 2025 had been filed on 4 July 2025, in support of the
G application for enhancement of sentence, on the grounds of: G
H H
(1) Prevalence of this specified offence; and
I I
(2) The nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or
J J
indirect, caused to the community by recent
K occurrences of this specified offence. K
L L
18. I find that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
M doubt that the content of the witness statement of WSIP Chan Ching Mei M
represents the truth. Considering the authorities stated above, I am of the
N N
view that a 1/4 ORSO enhancement is appropriate.
O O
Sentence
P P
Q 19. The following are the starting points and the aggravating Q
factor of poor criminal record, and the ORSO enhancement for each
R R
charge:
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Charge Starting Point Aggravation Total After ORSO
Aggravation enhancement ¼
C C
Charge 1 24 months 2 months 26 months 32.5 months
D Charge 2 24 months 2 months 26 months 32.5 months D
Charge 3 30 months 2 months 32 months 40 months
E Charge 4 30 months 2 months 32 months 40 months E
Charge 5 20 months 2 months 22 months 27.5 months
F F
Charge 6 30 months 2 months 32 months 40 months
G Charge 7 30 months 2 months 32 months 40 months G
Charge 8 36 months 3 months 39 months 48 months
H Charge 9 24 months 2 months 26 months 32.5 months H
Charge 10 30 months 2 months 32 months 40 months
I I
Charge 11 30 months 2 months 32 months 40 months
J Charge 12 36 months 3 months 39 months 48 months J
K K
20. After considering the totality principle, as the 12 charges
L involve different transactions and victims, partially concurrent sentences L
should be imposed. I decide that an overall starting point of 72 months
M M
after ¼ enhancement is appropriate. I shall order that 2 months each of the
N sentences for Charges 1 to 7 and 9 to 11, and 4 months of the sentence for N
Charge 8, shall be served consecutively to the sentence of Charge 12. The
O O
total sentence for Charges 1 to 12 shall be 6 years’ imprisonment.
P P
Q Q
R R
( Peony Wong )
S Deputy District Judge S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 461/2023
C [2025] HKDC 1236 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 461 OF 2023
F F
G --------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I TSUI KING WA (D2) I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Peony Wong K
Date: 28 August 2025
L L
Present: Mr David Boyton, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr CHAN Chun Hei Ryan, instructed by T.H. Wong & Co., M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd defendant
N N
Offence: [1] to [12] Conspiracy to defraud（串謀詐騙）
O O
P
--------------------------------------- P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
---------------------------------------
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The 2nd Defendant (D2) was convicted after trial of Charges 1
C to 12, all being conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law and C
punishable under section 159C(6) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. The
D D
1st and 2nd Defendants were jointly charged in Charges 1 to 12 for
E conspiring with each other together with other person(s) unknown to E
defraud 1 victim for each of those charges.
F F
G 2. Each charge involves an individual victim who had sold G
through online platforms different kinds of goods ranging from mobile
H H
phone, iPads, special edition sneakers, luxury watch, Japanese whisky, and
I had received or had been shown photographic images of ATM deposit slips I
as proof of payment or notification of deposits made into their bank
J J
accounts, and thereupon parted with possession of the goods. 2 of the
K victims (PW1 and PW11 for Charges 1 and 11 respectively), apart from K
being cheated to part possession of their goods, were further contacted after
L L
the transaction whereby they received requests for return of a second
M mistaken payment. M
N N
3. All victims were later informed that the alleged payment
O amounts were not honoured, and that the actual payment deposits were O
made by D2 using gift certificates of $10 each through the ATM machines,
P P
while an amount equivalent to the sale price (which is much higher than
Q $10) had been keyed in by D2 when the deposits were made. Q
R R
4. The value of the goods involved and the return of payment
S under the pretence of mistaken double payment for each charge are as S
follows:
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Charge 1 $12,000 mobile phone
C $10,000 return payment (frauster asked for C
$12,000)
D D
Charge 2 $18,000 MacBook Pro
E Charge 3 $45,500 Watch E
Charge 4 $43,000 sneakers
F F
Charge 5 $5,100 iPad Air
G Charge 6 $74,900 sneakers G
Charge 7 $44,000 8 bottles of whisky
H H
Charge 8 $178,800 26 bottles of whisky
I Charge 9 $15,000 MacBook Pro I
Charge 10 $53,800 sneakers
J J
Charge 11 $36,800 Leica camera
K $25,000 return payment K
Charge 12 $90,000 sneakers
L L
Total amount involved $653,900
M M
D2’s Antecedent Statement and Mitigation
N N
O 5. D2 is 36 years old and single. He had studied up to Form 4 or O
5, and was a warehouse worker.
P P
Q 6. He has 10 conviction records, which include 9 charges of Q
theft, 2 charges of fraud, 4 charges of conspiracy to deal with property
R R
known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence, 2 charges
S of conspiracy to blackmail, 1 charge of blackmail, and 1 charge of S
conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. He was last sentenced
T T
on 7 April 2020 for a total sentence of 36 months.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 7. The Defence urges the Court to consider D2’s cooperation C
with investigators, the fact that he did not have knowledge of the frauds
D D
practiced on the victims, and that he was not the mastermind.
E E
Sentencing Considerations
F F
G 8. I have considered the mitigation and facts of this case. D2 G
was convicted after trial, and the Court does not agree that D2 had been
H H
cooperative with the investigators. The documentary exhibits were all
I along present when he was arrested, and his so called ‘cooperation’ merely I
involves his non-denial of the presence of those documents found at his
J J
home.
K K
9. Even though the Court agrees that there is no evidence that
L L
D2 knew of the frauds on the 12 victims, and that he was not the
M mastermind in that he was following instructions, his role was a crucial M
one. His job was to buy some of the $10 gift certificates used, and to
N N
deposit them into the victims’ designated accounts only upon D1 giving
O instructions to do so at a specific time, while keying in substantially larger O
amounts as the deposit amounts. His role also involved immediately taking
P P
pictures of the deposit slips after the deposit, and to send them back to the
Q group which consisted of himself, D1 and another unknown person. He Q
was also involved in taking some of the sneakers, which were subject
R R
matters of some charges, to shops to check the second hand price. There
S were many more gift certificates found at his home. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
10. This is a typical e-commerce crime. The scheme involved
C using the time gap between deposit of gift certificates to clearance as a C
loophole for benefit. The 12 charges were committed within a period of
D D
less than 2 weeks, and there were 12 victims. The amounts involved in
E each charge range from $5,100 to $178,800, and the total amount involved E
was $653,900. The goods were all expensive items that could be easily
F F
sold in the market, and whiskies, luxury watch and limited edition sneakers
G could be the subject matter of seriously inflated prices upon resale. For G
charges 1 and 11, the fraud involved not just the deceit to obtain the goods
H H
in question, but also a second lie that money was mistakenly deposited
I twice, and thereby obtaining transfer of a sum of money, all with aid of the I
minimal value of the gift certificates.
J J
K 11. There was a certain degree of planning, as gift certificates of K
low value had to be acquired beforehand, and a network of personnel were
L L
involved, including D1 and the unknown male who gave orders over phone
M or on WhatsApp, PW17 who was responsible for picking up the goods, and M
D2 who was responsible for purchasing some of the gift certificates,
N N
making the deposits, sending back photos of the deposit slips, and bringing
O some goods to shops for resale price checking. The present case also O
presents with the aggravating factor of D2 committing the offences with 2
P P
others, and frequent communications between the parties through
Q WhatsApp was involved. Q
R R
12. As stated by HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai CACC 100/2014,
S concerning offences that target the public, and which were ruthless, S
disgusting and despicable fraud cases, the Court will adopt strict sentences
T T
in order to have sufficient deterrent effect, and to protect the general public.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Even where the amounts involved were not very high, and even
C considering the clear record of defendants, the Court will still adopt starting C
points of 3 to 4 years.
D D
E 13. In Leung Yiu Fai, the applicant had 2 previous conviction E
records consisting of 19 dishonesty related charges. The single charge in
F F
that case was committed within 2 months and involves 36 victims and
G $63,180. Each victim had been scammed out of relatively small amounts G
ranging between $650 and $6,340, in circumstances described as not very
H H
sophisticated, where the applicant sold Halloween event tickets which were
I not in existence and had the victims deposit money to third parties who I
conduct online sales of inexpensive items, thereafter claiming to the third
J J
parties that money had been mistakenly deposited and asked for ‘return’.
K It was held that the starting point of 30 months before enhancement was K
appropriate, and that the enhancement under section 27 of the Organized
L L
and Serious Crimes Ordinance by 1/3 was reasonable.
M M
14. In HKSAR v Wong Ming Chun [2025] HKCA 275, the
N N
appellant pleaded guilty to 9 charges in 2 separate cases, involving a total
O of 4 conspiracy to defraud charges amongst others. The Deputy District O
Judge in that case considered that there were 4 transactions, and adopted
P P
for the conspiracy to defraud charges a starting point of 3.5 years for each
Q charge, and increased them by 3 months each, for the reason that they had Q
been committed within one month. 1/3 discount was applied for the guilty
R R
plea, and thereupon enhancement of 20% was made on the conspiracy to
S defraud charges. The appellant was sentenced to an overall term of 5 years’ S
imprisonment. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence on these
T T
charges were appropriate. In particular, the Court of Appeal stated that
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
“committing multiple similar offences within a month is a very serious
C matter in itself and far more serious than committing one offence on a C
single occasion.”
D D
E 15. The facts of Wong Ming Chun are also very similar to the E
present case, i.e. bounced cheques as purchase price of luxury goods
F F
belonging to the victims and bogus requests for allegedly mistaken double
G payment; and a number of people were also involved in the organized G
syndicated crime, with the appellant playing an essential and prominent
H H
role. The 4 transactions in Wong Ming Chun are committed within 1
I month, whereas the present 12 charges were committed in less than 2 I
weeks.
J J
K 16. In Wong Ming Chun, the total amount stolen in that case K
amounted to $925,000, and the unrecovered loss being $744,500; 4
L L
Facebook accounts and a number of telephone numbers were used. When
M the police raided the Defendant’s hotel room, 6 SIM cards and $70,041 M
were found. The appellant in that case has 13 previous conviction record
N N
which includes some charges of dishonesty. Whereas in the present case,
O the total amount of money involved was $653,900; and Facebook, O
Carousell and WhatsApp accounts were used. D2 has an even worse
P P
criminal record than the appellant in Wong Ming Chun. D2’s poor criminal
Q record consisting mostly of dishonesty offences presents itself as an Q
aggravating factor for each of the 12 charges. I am therefore of the view
R R
D2’s case falls in between Leung Yiu Fai and Wong Ming Chun in terms
S of seriousness. S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
Enhancement of Sentence
C C
17. The Prosecution has filed a Notice of Intention to Furnish
D D
Information Pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes
E Ordinance, Cap 455 on 1 June 2023. The Defence does not object to the E
enhancement application. The witness statement of WSIP Chan Ching Mei
F F
dated 3 July 2025 had been filed on 4 July 2025, in support of the
G application for enhancement of sentence, on the grounds of: G
H H
(1) Prevalence of this specified offence; and
I I
(2) The nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or
J J
indirect, caused to the community by recent
K occurrences of this specified offence. K
L L
18. I find that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
M doubt that the content of the witness statement of WSIP Chan Ching Mei M
represents the truth. Considering the authorities stated above, I am of the
N N
view that a 1/4 ORSO enhancement is appropriate.
O O
Sentence
P P
Q 19. The following are the starting points and the aggravating Q
factor of poor criminal record, and the ORSO enhancement for each
R R
charge:
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Charge Starting Point Aggravation Total After ORSO
Aggravation enhancement ¼
C C
Charge 1 24 months 2 months 26 months 32.5 months
D Charge 2 24 months 2 months 26 months 32.5 months D
Charge 3 30 months 2 months 32 months 40 months
E Charge 4 30 months 2 months 32 months 40 months E
Charge 5 20 months 2 months 22 months 27.5 months
F F
Charge 6 30 months 2 months 32 months 40 months
G Charge 7 30 months 2 months 32 months 40 months G
Charge 8 36 months 3 months 39 months 48 months
H Charge 9 24 months 2 months 26 months 32.5 months H
Charge 10 30 months 2 months 32 months 40 months
I I
Charge 11 30 months 2 months 32 months 40 months
J Charge 12 36 months 3 months 39 months 48 months J
K K
20. After considering the totality principle, as the 12 charges
L involve different transactions and victims, partially concurrent sentences L
should be imposed. I decide that an overall starting point of 72 months
M M
after ¼ enhancement is appropriate. I shall order that 2 months each of the
N sentences for Charges 1 to 7 and 9 to 11, and 4 months of the sentence for N
Charge 8, shall be served consecutively to the sentence of Charge 12. The
O O
total sentence for Charges 1 to 12 shall be 6 years’ imprisonment.
P P
Q Q
R R
( Peony Wong )
S Deputy District Judge S
T T
U U
V V