DCCC612/2015 HKSAR v. HE JIANFU AND ANOTHER - LawHero
DCCC612/2015
區域法院（刑事）HH Judge Woodcock15/9/2015
DCCC612/2015
A A
DCCC 612/2015
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 612 OF 2015
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
He Jianfu (D1)
F Liang Jianchao (D2) F
G ---------------------- G
Before: HH Judge Woodcock
H Date: 16 September 2015 at 10.01 am H
Present: Mr Alan Chan Tin-lok, PP of the Department of Justice,
for HKSAR
I Mr Li Chi-ngon, Peter, of Poon & Cheung, assigned by I
the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant
J Mr Yeung Wan-fung, of Wan Yeung Hau & Co, assigned by J
the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd defendant
Offence: (1) to (5) Dealing with property known or believed to
K represent proceeds of an indictable offence K
(處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產)
L
(6) Conspiracy to deal with property known or L
believed to represent proceeds of an indictable
offence
M (串謀處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) M
---------------------
N N
Reasons for Sentence
O O
---------------------
P P
1. The 1st defendant has pleaded guilty to five counts of
Q dealing with property known or believed to represent the Q
proceeds of an indictable offence as well as one count of
R conspiracy to deal with the very same. R
S S
2. The 2nd defendant has pleaded guilty to three counts
of dealing with the very same, jointly charged with the
T T
1st defendant in Charges 2, 3 and 5, as well as one count of
U U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 1 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
conspiracy to deal with the very same, jointly charged with the
1st defendant (Count 6).
B B
C 3. This case involves five telephone deception scams and C
five victims where the 1st defendant is concerned, and three
D victims involved with three telephone deception scams as far as D
the 2nd defendant is concerned. All the victims were elderly
E E
and subject to the prevalent scam of receiving telephone calls
from distressed people they believed were their children and
F F
complying with a demand to pay a ransom for their release.
G G
4. In Charge 1, the victim was a 68-year-old lady who
H received a phone call from a man she believed to be one of her H
sons who told her he was being beaten because he owed a debt.
I I
Another male came on the phone and threatened to kill her son.
A ransom was demanded, and ultimately she agreed to pay $50,000
J J
for his release. This victim, PW1, told the extortionist that
K
she needed to borrow that money before she could hand it over. K
L 5. Whilst he stayed on the phone, she called her sister L
and asked to borrow this money. Her sister transferred the
M money from her bank to the victim’s bank account. Her sister M
did ask her if she was being threatened, and all she could say
N N
was yes but could give no further details because the
extortionist was listening.
O O
P 6. She then went to the bank, took out the cash of P
$50,000 and took a taxi as directed to Tuen Mun Park. There,
Q the 1st defendant approached her and asked her to hand over the Q
money. She gave him $50,000. He told her to wait for a phone
R R
call. 20 minutes later, she received a phone call from the same
extortionist who told her to withdraw more money. PW1 told the
S S
man on the phone she had no more money. She was told to go home
T and wait for a phone call from her son. By the time she got T
home, the police were waiting for her. Her sister had
U ascertained that her son was safe and called the police. U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 2 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
7. In Charge 2, the victim was a 79-year-old man. He
B B
received a phone call from someone claiming to be his son and
C that he was in trouble because he owed a debt of $200,000. He C
believed it. Another man came on the phone, threatened to harm
D his son, and a ransom of $50,000 was negotiated. This victim, D
PW2, was told where to go with the money. When he arrived
E E
there, both the 1st and the 2nd defendants approached him and
asked for the money. It was a scam. Obviously, his son was
F F
never kidnapped nor owed anyone that amount of money.
G G
8. Charge 3 was an offence that was not reported to the
H police. The 1st defendant admitted under caution that on 13 H
May, he was told to go to Yan Chai Hospital to collect money
I I
from an old man. Both the 1st and 2nd defendants went there and
took $7,000 from an old man. They kept $1,000 and remitted
J J
$6,000 to China on the same day. The 1st defendant knew that
K
the $7,000 was from a telephone scam and that the old man K
thought his relative was in trouble.
L L
9. Similarly, Charge 4 was an offence not reported to the
M police. The 1st defendant admitted under caution that on that M
same day, 13 May, he was told by his boss to go to Kowloon City
N N
ferry pier and collect money from an old lady. She paid $22,000
to the 1st defendant because she thought this would ensure the
O O
release of her son who had been kidnapped. The 1st defendant
P knew this when he took the money from her. The 1st defendant P
kept $3,000 and remitted the rest to China that day.
Q Q
10. For Charges 5 and 6, the victim, PW3, was a 70-year-
R R
old man. He got a call from a man he thought was his son who
said he was in trouble. He told the victim that he owed a debt
S S
of RMB200,000. Another male, the extortionist, came on the
T phone and told PW3 that he had to pay RMB230,000 on behalf of T
his son. The victim told the man that he only had RMB20,000 at
U U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 3 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
home but he had RMB130,000 in his bank account. He was told to
withdraw all and hand it over.
B B
C 11. PW3 went to the bank immediately to do this, and he C
would have withdrawn all that money but for the bank being
D unable to give him that large amount until after lunch. The D
extortionist told him to withdraw as much as possible at that
E E
particular time. PW3, the victim, withdrew RMB30,000. He then
at a meeting point designated handed over RMB50,000 to the 1st
F F
and 2nd defendants. During this time, the extortionist remained
G on the phone to the victim. G
H 12. The victim was then told to go back to the bank and H
withdraw the rest to give the defendants. On the way back to
I I
the bank, the victim’s son called him and he realised that his
son was safe and he had been deceived. The police were informed
J J
and met the victim at the bank. They then set up a sting
K
operation. The police gave PW3, the victim, a bag containing K
dummy money and followed the extortionist’s instructions to meet
L the defendants. L
M 13. Obviously, the police followed PW3 to the meeting M
place and spotted the 1st and 2nd defendants. The police saw
N N
the 1st defendant approach PW3 whilst the 2nd defendant stood
near the stairs. The police watched the 1st defendant take
O O
money from the victim and put it in his bag. Both men were then
P intercepted and arrested. P
Q 14. Both the 1st and 2nd defendants made full admissions Q
under caution.
R R
15. Before meeting PW3 for the second time, the defendants
S S
told the police that they had already remitted RMB43,500 to
T China. They had kept RMB6,500 to split between them as their T
reward.
U U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 4 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
16. The 1st defendant under caution admitted to the police
that he had been doing this for his boss in China since
B B
July 2014. He knew that his boss scammed victims over the
C telephone, and his job was to collect the ill-gotten gains. His C
reward was 13 per cent of any amount collected. He explained
D that he was short of money and agreed to commit these crimes. D
E E
17. According to the immigration records, the
1st defendant has been in Hong Kong nine times since 2012. This
F F
was the 2nd defendant’s first trip to Hong Kong. The
G 2nd defendant told the police that he knew the 1st defendant G
from school, and it was the 1st defendant who asked him to join
H him in Hong Kong to collect money deceived from old people. He H
agreed to come to Hong Kong and agreed to act with the
I I
1st defendant in particular as a lookout.
J J
18. The prosecution has applied to enhance the sentences
K
of all six charges under section 27 of OSCO, of the Organised K
and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 450. I have been supplied
L with a statement from Detective Chief Inspector Lam Cheuk-ho to L
support this application. It is marked as MFI1. This
M application to enhance sentence is not challenged by the M
defence.
N N
19. What is relevant in sentencing is firstly the
O O
defendants’ pleas. Their pleas of guilty are their best
P mitigation. Both have clear records in Hong Kong. However, P
that carries little weight when they are not Hong Kong
Q residents. The crimes are cruel. These offences are cruel Q
because they target old people who are vulnerable. These
R R
telephone calls scare them witless, and they often are so
frightened that they pay over as much money as they have. Such
S S
crimes will attract deterrent sentences.
T T
20. What is an aggravating factor is the defendants have
U come from China to Hong Kong for the sole purpose of committing U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 5 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
these offences. They both knew the predicate offence. They
knew that old people were tricked into handing over money. I
B B
will also take into account the amount of loss suffered by the
C victims. PW3, the victim of Charges 5 and 6, could have C
suffered a significantly higher loss if the bank had been able
D to give him all his money when he first arrived there. As it D
is, the loss of RMB50,000 is significant but at least he did not
E E
withdraw the additional RMB100,000 to hand over.
F F
21. I have heard full mitigation on behalf of both
G defendants. The 1st defendant is 21 years old and single. I G
have had letters of mitigation from a teacher and his parents.
H All ask for leniency on his behalf. H
I I
22. I adjourned sentence to today because the
1st defendant offered information to the police. Nothing has
J J
come of that exercise. An offer does not attract a reduction in
K
sentence in itself. K
L 23. I have heard mitigation on behalf of the 2nd defendant L
today. He is also 21 years old and single, lives with his
M father. He is a chef in China, earning $2,500. He was asked by M
his friend, the 1st defendant, to come to Hong Kong to commit
N N
these crimes. He was well aware of what they were and accepted
the offer. The first time he came to Hong Kong to commit these
O O
offences, he was caught red-handed. The 2nd defendant is 21
P years old, old enough to decide for himself whether or not he P
took the risk.
Q Q
24. I consider the roles played by the defendants and in
R R
between them, I do not distinguish their roles. They are
equally culpable.
S S
T 25. There are many authorities to assist me with T
sentencing for offences of this nature. HKSAR v Wu Jianbing
U CACC 32 of 2011 is most often submitted. In that authority, a U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 6 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
3-year starting point adopted for the facts of that telephone
scam was found to be appropriate.
B B
C 26. On the previous occasion, prosecution supplied a more C
recent authority, HKSAR v Chen Jianchao CACC 184 of 2014. In
D that case, an 80-year-old was scammed into handing over $230,000 D
to have her son released. When she went to the bank to withdraw
E E
the money, the bank teller became suspicious and ascertained for
her on the quiet that her son was in fact safe. The police were
F F
called and a sting operation arranged. That defendant was
G arrested when he tried to collect money from this victim, and G
his reward for coming from China to pick up this money was 8
H per cent of any proceeds plus his travelling expenses. He H
admitted to the police that he had been the legman in a similar
I I
scam only the day before when he collected money from another
elderly victim. He faced two charges.
J J
K
27. In that case, for both charges, a 4-year starting K
point had been adopted by the sentencing judge. In that
L authority, the Court of Appeal analysed many similar recent L
sentences and concluded for Charge 1, which involved $230,000, a
M 4-year starting point was indeed appropriate in the M
circumstances of that offence. However, the Court of Appeal
N N
held that 3 years, not 4 years, was an appropriate starting
point for the second offence where significantly less money was
O O
involved. I have taken into account this authority.
P P
28. Defendants, please stand up. I also take into
Q account, in coming to an appropriate starting point, your pleas, Q
mitigation put forward, the amount of money involved in each
R R
charge, the fact that both defendants knew what the predicate
offences were, and I accept that they were not the masterminds
S S
but legmen sent to collect ill-gotten gains.
T T
U U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 7 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
29. The 1st defendant clearly was happy to do it time and
time again. At the time of the offences, he felt no remorse.
B B
He does now since he was arrested.
C C
30. I also take into account the authorities submitted.
D As I said earlier, I do not distinguish between the defendants’ D
roles. I find them equally culpable.
E E
31. Accordingly, for every charge here, I will take a
F F
starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. If the amount of money
G actually lost had been any higher, I would have taken a higher G
starting point. As both defendants have pleaded guilty, they
H are entitled to a discount of one-third from the 3-year starting H
point. Therefore, I impose a sentence of 2 years for each
I I
charge.
J J
32. However, pursuant to the prosecution’s application to
K
enhance the sentence I impose, I will add a further 8 months to K
that 2 years. I have read the statement of DCI Lam and accept
L his opinion that these offences are prevalent crimes in L
Hong Kong. Obviously, they concern the society of Hong Kong in
M terms of the harm caused to the community and their repeated M
occurrence.
N N
33. Therefore, defendants, for Charge 1, 1st defendant
O O
sentenced to 2 years and 8 months; Charge 2, both defendants
P sentenced to 2 years and 8 months; Charge 3, both defendants are P
sentenced to 2 years and 8 months; Charge 4, the 1st defendant
Q sentenced to 2 years and 8 months; Charge 5, both defendants are Q
sentenced to 2 years and 8 months; Charge 6, both defendants are
R R
sentenced to 2 years and 8 months.
S S
34. I will take into account the totality principle. I
T also take into account that Charges 5 and 6 occurred on the same T
day, involving the same victim. Therefore, I order where the
U 1st defendant is concerned, 3 months of the sentence imposed in U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 8 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
Charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 to be served consecutively to Charge 1,
the balance concurrent. Charge 6 will be served concurrently to
B B
Charge 1. Therefore, the 1st defendant’s total sentence is
C 3 years and 8 months. C
D 35. 2nd defendant: I order 3 months of the sentences of D
Charges 3 and 5 to be served consecutively to Charge 2 and the
E E
balance concurrently to Charge 2. Charge 6 will be served
concurrently to Charge 2. Therefore, the 2nd defendant’s total
F F
sentence is 3 years and 2 months.
G G
H H
I A. J. Woodcock I
District Judge
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 9 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
DCCC 612/2015
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 612 OF 2015
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
He Jianfu (D1)
F Liang Jianchao (D2) F
G ---------------------- G
Before: HH Judge Woodcock
H Date: 16 September 2015 at 10.01 am H
Present: Mr Alan Chan Tin-lok, PP of the Department of Justice,
for HKSAR
I Mr Li Chi-ngon, Peter, of Poon & Cheung, assigned by I
the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant
J Mr Yeung Wan-fung, of Wan Yeung Hau & Co, assigned by J
the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd defendant
Offence: (1) to (5) Dealing with property known or believed to
K represent proceeds of an indictable offence K
(處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產)
L
(6) Conspiracy to deal with property known or L
believed to represent proceeds of an indictable
offence
M (串謀處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) M
---------------------
N N
Reasons for Sentence
O O
---------------------
P P
1. The 1st defendant has pleaded guilty to five counts of
Q dealing with property known or believed to represent the Q
proceeds of an indictable offence as well as one count of
R conspiracy to deal with the very same. R
S S
2. The 2nd defendant has pleaded guilty to three counts
of dealing with the very same, jointly charged with the
T T
1st defendant in Charges 2, 3 and 5, as well as one count of
U U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 1 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
conspiracy to deal with the very same, jointly charged with the
1st defendant (Count 6).
B B
C 3. This case involves five telephone deception scams and C
five victims where the 1st defendant is concerned, and three
D victims involved with three telephone deception scams as far as D
the 2nd defendant is concerned. All the victims were elderly
E E
and subject to the prevalent scam of receiving telephone calls
from distressed people they believed were their children and
F F
complying with a demand to pay a ransom for their release.
G G
4. In Charge 1, the victim was a 68-year-old lady who
H received a phone call from a man she believed to be one of her H
sons who told her he was being beaten because he owed a debt.
I I
Another male came on the phone and threatened to kill her son.
A ransom was demanded, and ultimately she agreed to pay $50,000
J J
for his release. This victim, PW1, told the extortionist that
K
she needed to borrow that money before she could hand it over. K
L 5. Whilst he stayed on the phone, she called her sister L
and asked to borrow this money. Her sister transferred the
M money from her bank to the victim’s bank account. Her sister M
did ask her if she was being threatened, and all she could say
N N
was yes but could give no further details because the
extortionist was listening.
O O
P 6. She then went to the bank, took out the cash of P
$50,000 and took a taxi as directed to Tuen Mun Park. There,
Q the 1st defendant approached her and asked her to hand over the Q
money. She gave him $50,000. He told her to wait for a phone
R R
call. 20 minutes later, she received a phone call from the same
extortionist who told her to withdraw more money. PW1 told the
S S
man on the phone she had no more money. She was told to go home
T and wait for a phone call from her son. By the time she got T
home, the police were waiting for her. Her sister had
U ascertained that her son was safe and called the police. U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 2 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
7. In Charge 2, the victim was a 79-year-old man. He
B B
received a phone call from someone claiming to be his son and
C that he was in trouble because he owed a debt of $200,000. He C
believed it. Another man came on the phone, threatened to harm
D his son, and a ransom of $50,000 was negotiated. This victim, D
PW2, was told where to go with the money. When he arrived
E E
there, both the 1st and the 2nd defendants approached him and
asked for the money. It was a scam. Obviously, his son was
F F
never kidnapped nor owed anyone that amount of money.
G G
8. Charge 3 was an offence that was not reported to the
H police. The 1st defendant admitted under caution that on 13 H
May, he was told to go to Yan Chai Hospital to collect money
I I
from an old man. Both the 1st and 2nd defendants went there and
took $7,000 from an old man. They kept $1,000 and remitted
J J
$6,000 to China on the same day. The 1st defendant knew that
K
the $7,000 was from a telephone scam and that the old man K
thought his relative was in trouble.
L L
9. Similarly, Charge 4 was an offence not reported to the
M police. The 1st defendant admitted under caution that on that M
same day, 13 May, he was told by his boss to go to Kowloon City
N N
ferry pier and collect money from an old lady. She paid $22,000
to the 1st defendant because she thought this would ensure the
O O
release of her son who had been kidnapped. The 1st defendant
P knew this when he took the money from her. The 1st defendant P
kept $3,000 and remitted the rest to China that day.
Q Q
10. For Charges 5 and 6, the victim, PW3, was a 70-year-
R R
old man. He got a call from a man he thought was his son who
said he was in trouble. He told the victim that he owed a debt
S S
of RMB200,000. Another male, the extortionist, came on the
T phone and told PW3 that he had to pay RMB230,000 on behalf of T
his son. The victim told the man that he only had RMB20,000 at
U U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 3 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
home but he had RMB130,000 in his bank account. He was told to
withdraw all and hand it over.
B B
C 11. PW3 went to the bank immediately to do this, and he C
would have withdrawn all that money but for the bank being
D unable to give him that large amount until after lunch. The D
extortionist told him to withdraw as much as possible at that
E E
particular time. PW3, the victim, withdrew RMB30,000. He then
at a meeting point designated handed over RMB50,000 to the 1st
F F
and 2nd defendants. During this time, the extortionist remained
G on the phone to the victim. G
H 12. The victim was then told to go back to the bank and H
withdraw the rest to give the defendants. On the way back to
I I
the bank, the victim’s son called him and he realised that his
son was safe and he had been deceived. The police were informed
J J
and met the victim at the bank. They then set up a sting
K
operation. The police gave PW3, the victim, a bag containing K
dummy money and followed the extortionist’s instructions to meet
L the defendants. L
M 13. Obviously, the police followed PW3 to the meeting M
place and spotted the 1st and 2nd defendants. The police saw
N N
the 1st defendant approach PW3 whilst the 2nd defendant stood
near the stairs. The police watched the 1st defendant take
O O
money from the victim and put it in his bag. Both men were then
P intercepted and arrested. P
Q 14. Both the 1st and 2nd defendants made full admissions Q
under caution.
R R
15. Before meeting PW3 for the second time, the defendants
S S
told the police that they had already remitted RMB43,500 to
T China. They had kept RMB6,500 to split between them as their T
reward.
U U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 4 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
16. The 1st defendant under caution admitted to the police
that he had been doing this for his boss in China since
B B
July 2014. He knew that his boss scammed victims over the
C telephone, and his job was to collect the ill-gotten gains. His C
reward was 13 per cent of any amount collected. He explained
D that he was short of money and agreed to commit these crimes. D
E E
17. According to the immigration records, the
1st defendant has been in Hong Kong nine times since 2012. This
F F
was the 2nd defendant’s first trip to Hong Kong. The
G 2nd defendant told the police that he knew the 1st defendant G
from school, and it was the 1st defendant who asked him to join
H him in Hong Kong to collect money deceived from old people. He H
agreed to come to Hong Kong and agreed to act with the
I I
1st defendant in particular as a lookout.
J J
18. The prosecution has applied to enhance the sentences
K
of all six charges under section 27 of OSCO, of the Organised K
and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 450. I have been supplied
L with a statement from Detective Chief Inspector Lam Cheuk-ho to L
support this application. It is marked as MFI1. This
M application to enhance sentence is not challenged by the M
defence.
N N
19. What is relevant in sentencing is firstly the
O O
defendants’ pleas. Their pleas of guilty are their best
P mitigation. Both have clear records in Hong Kong. However, P
that carries little weight when they are not Hong Kong
Q residents. The crimes are cruel. These offences are cruel Q
because they target old people who are vulnerable. These
R R
telephone calls scare them witless, and they often are so
frightened that they pay over as much money as they have. Such
S S
crimes will attract deterrent sentences.
T T
20. What is an aggravating factor is the defendants have
U come from China to Hong Kong for the sole purpose of committing U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 5 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
these offences. They both knew the predicate offence. They
knew that old people were tricked into handing over money. I
B B
will also take into account the amount of loss suffered by the
C victims. PW3, the victim of Charges 5 and 6, could have C
suffered a significantly higher loss if the bank had been able
D to give him all his money when he first arrived there. As it D
is, the loss of RMB50,000 is significant but at least he did not
E E
withdraw the additional RMB100,000 to hand over.
F F
21. I have heard full mitigation on behalf of both
G defendants. The 1st defendant is 21 years old and single. I G
have had letters of mitigation from a teacher and his parents.
H All ask for leniency on his behalf. H
I I
22. I adjourned sentence to today because the
1st defendant offered information to the police. Nothing has
J J
come of that exercise. An offer does not attract a reduction in
K
sentence in itself. K
L 23. I have heard mitigation on behalf of the 2nd defendant L
today. He is also 21 years old and single, lives with his
M father. He is a chef in China, earning $2,500. He was asked by M
his friend, the 1st defendant, to come to Hong Kong to commit
N N
these crimes. He was well aware of what they were and accepted
the offer. The first time he came to Hong Kong to commit these
O O
offences, he was caught red-handed. The 2nd defendant is 21
P years old, old enough to decide for himself whether or not he P
took the risk.
Q Q
24. I consider the roles played by the defendants and in
R R
between them, I do not distinguish their roles. They are
equally culpable.
S S
T 25. There are many authorities to assist me with T
sentencing for offences of this nature. HKSAR v Wu Jianbing
U CACC 32 of 2011 is most often submitted. In that authority, a U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 6 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
3-year starting point adopted for the facts of that telephone
scam was found to be appropriate.
B B
C 26. On the previous occasion, prosecution supplied a more C
recent authority, HKSAR v Chen Jianchao CACC 184 of 2014. In
D that case, an 80-year-old was scammed into handing over $230,000 D
to have her son released. When she went to the bank to withdraw
E E
the money, the bank teller became suspicious and ascertained for
her on the quiet that her son was in fact safe. The police were
F F
called and a sting operation arranged. That defendant was
G arrested when he tried to collect money from this victim, and G
his reward for coming from China to pick up this money was 8
H per cent of any proceeds plus his travelling expenses. He H
admitted to the police that he had been the legman in a similar
I I
scam only the day before when he collected money from another
elderly victim. He faced two charges.
J J
K
27. In that case, for both charges, a 4-year starting K
point had been adopted by the sentencing judge. In that
L authority, the Court of Appeal analysed many similar recent L
sentences and concluded for Charge 1, which involved $230,000, a
M 4-year starting point was indeed appropriate in the M
circumstances of that offence. However, the Court of Appeal
N N
held that 3 years, not 4 years, was an appropriate starting
point for the second offence where significantly less money was
O O
involved. I have taken into account this authority.
P P
28. Defendants, please stand up. I also take into
Q account, in coming to an appropriate starting point, your pleas, Q
mitigation put forward, the amount of money involved in each
R R
charge, the fact that both defendants knew what the predicate
offences were, and I accept that they were not the masterminds
S S
but legmen sent to collect ill-gotten gains.
T T
U U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 7 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
29. The 1st defendant clearly was happy to do it time and
time again. At the time of the offences, he felt no remorse.
B B
He does now since he was arrested.
C C
30. I also take into account the authorities submitted.
D As I said earlier, I do not distinguish between the defendants’ D
roles. I find them equally culpable.
E E
31. Accordingly, for every charge here, I will take a
F F
starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. If the amount of money
G actually lost had been any higher, I would have taken a higher G
starting point. As both defendants have pleaded guilty, they
H are entitled to a discount of one-third from the 3-year starting H
point. Therefore, I impose a sentence of 2 years for each
I I
charge.
J J
32. However, pursuant to the prosecution’s application to
K
enhance the sentence I impose, I will add a further 8 months to K
that 2 years. I have read the statement of DCI Lam and accept
L his opinion that these offences are prevalent crimes in L
Hong Kong. Obviously, they concern the society of Hong Kong in
M terms of the harm caused to the community and their repeated M
occurrence.
N N
33. Therefore, defendants, for Charge 1, 1st defendant
O O
sentenced to 2 years and 8 months; Charge 2, both defendants
P sentenced to 2 years and 8 months; Charge 3, both defendants are P
sentenced to 2 years and 8 months; Charge 4, the 1st defendant
Q sentenced to 2 years and 8 months; Charge 5, both defendants are Q
sentenced to 2 years and 8 months; Charge 6, both defendants are
R R
sentenced to 2 years and 8 months.
S S
34. I will take into account the totality principle. I
T also take into account that Charges 5 and 6 occurred on the same T
day, involving the same victim. Therefore, I order where the
U 1st defendant is concerned, 3 months of the sentence imposed in U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 8 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
Charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 to be served consecutively to Charge 1,
the balance concurrent. Charge 6 will be served concurrently to
B B
Charge 1. Therefore, the 1st defendant’s total sentence is
C 3 years and 8 months. C
D 35. 2nd defendant: I order 3 months of the sentences of D
Charges 3 and 5 to be served consecutively to Charge 2 and the
E E
balance concurrently to Charge 2. Charge 6 will be served
concurrently to Charge 2. Therefore, the 2nd defendant’s total
F F
sentence is 3 years and 2 months.
G G
H H
I A. J. Woodcock I
District Judge
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT25/16.9.2015/SC 9 DCCC 612/2015/Sentence
V V