A A
B B
DCCC 1318/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1718 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1318 OF 2024
F F
G ———————— G
HKSAR
H H
v
I YEUNG HO YU I
————————
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court K
Date: 6 October 2025
L L
Present: Ms. Wong Yin Yee, Christy, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Mr. Chan Kwok Wai, Kay, Counsel instructed by Messrs M
Anthony Siu & Co., assigned by DLA
N N
Offences: [1], [3] & [24] – [28] Theft （盜竊罪）
O O
[2] Inhaling and ingesting dangerous drugs （吸服及服食危
P 險藥物） P
[4] – [23] Fraud （欺詐罪）
Q Q
[29] Possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation
R R
of a dangerous drug（管有適合於及擬用作吸服危險藥物
S 的器具） S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
————————————————
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
————————————————
D D
E 1. Mr Yeung pleaded guilty before me to a total of 29 charges E
on a Charge Sheet as follows.
F F
G 2. Charge 1 is Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft G
Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that he, on 6 December 2023, at Room
H H
702, Mei Cheung House, Mei Tin Estate, Sha Tin, New Territories, in
I Hong Kong, stole 3 watches, 3 rings, 4 wrist chains, two pendants, one I
necklace, two handbags, 3 iPhones and two credit cards, property
J J
belonging to Au Wing Ho.
K K
3. Charge 2 is Inhaling and ingesting dangerous drugs, contrary
L L
to section 8(1)(b) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.
M Particulars are that he, on or about 7 January 2024, at Flat A, 5th Floor, Arts M
Building, Nos 36-40 Robinson Road, Mid-Levels, in Hong Kong, inhaled
N N
and ingested dangerous drugs, namely methamphetamine hydrochloride
O and gamma-hydroxybutyric acid. O
P P
4. Charge 3 is Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft
Q Q
Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that he, on or about 7 January 2024,
R
at Flat A, 5th Floor, Arts Building, Nos 36-40 Robinson Road, Mid-Levels, R
in Hong Kong, stole one watch, two rings, one iPhone, one Hong Kong
S S
Identity Card and 4 credit cards, property belonging to Ho Wai Hung Tony.
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. Charges 4 to 14, and 16 to 22 are each Fraud, contrary to
C section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that he, on C
A, at B, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to staff
D D
of C (“the said company”) that he was authorized and entitled to use one
E DBS E issued in the name of Ho Wai Hung Tony (“the said credit card”), E
and with intent to defraud, induced staff of the said company to commit an
F F
act or a series of acts, namely, to accept the said credit card for payment of
G F, which resulted in benefit to Mr Yeung, or in prejudice or a substantial G
risk of prejudice to the said company.
H H
I 6. For Charge 4, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 7, Ground I
Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels; C is The Diary
J J
Farm Company; E is MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is
K one can of energy drink. K
L L
7. For Charge 5, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 7, Ground
M Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels; C is The Diary M
Farm Company; E is MasterCard numbered 5418-1996-1957-4002; F is
N N
one box of batteries.
O O
8. For Charge 6, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 7, Ground
P P
Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels; C is The Diary
Q Q
Farm Company; E is VISA Card numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one
R
box of batteries. R
S S
9. For Charge 7, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 7, Ground
T
Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels; C is The Diary T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Farm Company; E is MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is
C one box of chocolates, one box of biscuits and one flask. C
D D
10. For Charge 8, A is 8 January 2024; B is Ground Floor, Yu
E Sung Boon Building, Nos 107-111 Des Voeux Road Central, Central; C is E
AS Watson Retail (HK) Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4518-3560-
F F
8582-5035; F is one smart door lock.
G G
11. For Charge 9, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 2096A, IFC
H H
Mall, No 8 Finance Street, Central; C is Lady M Hong Kong Limited; E is
I MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is one meal. I
J J
12. For Charge 10, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop No UG1, UG
K Floor, Temple Mall South, No 103 Ching Tak Street, Wong Tai Sin, K
Kowloon; C is FX Creations International Limited; E is VISA Card
L L
numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one suitcase and one neck pillow.
M M
13. For Charge 11, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop No G12A,
N N
Ground Floor, Temple Mall South, No 103 Ching Tak Street, Wong Tai
O Sin, Kowloon; C is Champion Luck Development Limited; E is VISA Card O
numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one meal.
P P
Q Q
14. For Charge 12, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop UG39, UG
R
Floor, Temple Mall South, No 103 Ching Tak Street, Wong Tai Sin, R
Kowloon; C is Wang Da Communication Co; E is VISA Card numbered
S S
4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one power bank.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
15. For Charge 13, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop No UG1, UG
C Floor, Temple Mall South, No 103 Ching Tak Street, Wong Tai Sin, C
Kowloon; C is FX Creations International Limited; E is VISA Card
D D
numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is two bags.
E E
16. For Charge 14, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop No 45, LG2
F F
Floor, Festival Walk, No 80 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon;
G C is Luk Fook Jewellery & Goldsmith (HK) Co Limited; E is MasterCard G
numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is one gold bar, one ornament and one
H H
pendant.
I I
17. For Charge 15, see below.
J J
K 18. For Charge 16, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop Nos 236 and K
351A, Pacific Place, No 88 Queensway, Central; C is Louis Vuitton Hong
L L
Kong Limited; E is MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is one
M handbag, two passport covers, two necklaces and two rings. M
N N
19. For Charge 17, A is 9 January 2024, B is Shop Nos 236 and
O 351A, Pacific Place, No 88 Queensway, Central; C is Louis Vuitton Hong O
Kong Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014; F is one
P P
belt and two pairs of sneakers.
Q Q
R
20. For Charge 18, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop Nos 236 and R
351A, Pacific Place, No 88 Queensway, Central; C is Louis Vuitton Hong
S S
Kong Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014; F is two
T
pairs of sunglasses. T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
21. For Charge 19, A is 9 January 2024; B is 2nd Floor, No 28
C Russell Street, Causeway Bay; C is Alma Trend Limited; E is VISA Card C
numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is 3 cock rings.
D D
E 22. For Charge 20, A is 10 January 2024; B is Shop H, Ground E
Floor, Yardley Commercial Building, No 3 Connaught Road West, Sheung
F F
Wan; C is Sheung Wan Fung Shing Restaurant Limited; E is VISA Card
G numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one meal. G
H H
23. For Charge 21, A is 10 January 2024; B is Shop Nos 211-212,
I Time Square, No 1 Matheson Street, Causeway Bay; C is Fendi Hong I
Kong Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014; F is one
J J
sweater and one necklace with pendant.
K K
24. For Charge 22, A is 10 January 2024; B is Shop Nos 3 and 5,
L L
Ground Floor, Emperor Watch and Jewellery Centre, No 8 Russell Street,
M Causeway Bay; C is Luk Fook Jewellery & Goldsmith (HK) Co Limited; M
E is VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014; F is one gold bar and
N N
one ornament.
O O
25. Charge 15 is also Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft
P P
Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that he, on 9 January 2024, at Ground
Q Q
Floor, Yu Sung Boon Building, Nos 107-111 Des Voeux Road Central,
R
Central, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to Lok R
Tin Yin that he was authorized and entitled to use one DBS MasterCard
S S
numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007 issued in the name of Ho Wai Hung Tony
T
(“the said credit card”), and with intent to defraud, induced the said Lok T
Tin Yin to commit an act or a series of acts, namely, to accept the said
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
credit card for payment of two pens, which resulted in benefit to Mr Yeung,
C or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said Lok Tin Yin. C
D D
26. Charge 23 is also Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft
E Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that he, on 10 January 2024, at Shop E
Nos 3 and 5, Ground Floor, Emperor Watch and Jewellery Centre, No 8
F F
Russell Street, Causeway Bay, in Hong Kong, on an occasion other than
G that referred to in Charge 22, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to G
staff of Luk Fook Jewellery & Goldsmith (HK) Co Limited (“the said
H H
company”) that he was authorized and entitled to use one DBS VISA Card
I numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014 issued in the name of Ho Wai Hung Tony I
(“the said credit card”), and with intent to defraud, induced staff of the said
J J
company to commit an act or a series of acts, namely, to accept the said
K credit card for payment of one ring, which resulted in benefit to Mr Yeung, K
or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said company.
L L
M 27. Charges 24 to 28 are each Theft, contrary to section 9 of the M
Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
N N
O 28. Particulars of Charge 24 are that he, on or about 10 January O
2024, in Hong Kong, stole one heater, one charger, one iPhone and one
P P
mobile phone, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK) Limited.
Q Q
R
29. Particulars of Charge 25 are that he, on or about 10 January R
2024, in Hong Kong, stole two phone cases, one screen protector and one
S S
light strip, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK) Limited.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
30. Particulars of Charge 26 are that he, on or about 10 January
C 2024, in Hong Kong, on an occasion other than that referred to in Charge C
24, stole one iPhone, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK)
D D
Limited.
E E
31. Particulars of Charge 27 are that he, on or about 10 January
F F
2024, in Hong Kong, on an occasion other than those referred to in Charges
G 24 and 26, stole one iPhone, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK) G
Limited.
H H
I 32. Particulars of Charge 28 are that he, on or about 10 January I
2024, in Hong Kong, on an occasion other than those referred to in Charges
J J
24, 26 and 27, stole one iPhone, property belonging to AS Watson Retail
K (HK) Limited. K
L L
33. Charge 29 is Possession of apparatus fit and intended for the
M inhalation of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 36(1) and (2) of the M
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. Particulars are that he, on 21
N N
th
January 2024, at Room A, 20 Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour
O Road, Mid-Levels, in Hong Kong, had in his possession apparatus, namely O
one inhaling device, fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug,
P P
namely methamphetamine hydrochloride (a salt of methamphetamine).
Q Q
R
Facts admitted by Mr Yeung R
S S
34. In gist, the facts are as follows.
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Charge 1
C C
35. Mr Yeung met PW1 through a mobile dating application
D D
“Grindr” in mid-2023. On 6 December 2023, Mr Yeung arrived at the
E residence of PW1 and stayed overnight. Thereafter, PW1 discovered that E
his property totaling $335,309, including two credit cards, went missing.
F F
However, a total of $219,900 worth of property was subsequently
G recovered at Mr Yeung’s residence. G
H H
Charge 2
I I
36. On or about 7 January 2024, Mr Yeung visited the residence
J J
of Tony Ho and took ICE and GHB there.
K K
Charge 3
L L
M 37. There on the same day, Mr Yeung stole a watch, two rings, M
one iPhone, a Hong Kong Identity Card (which he later used for the
N N
purpose of pawning the stolen watch) and four DBS credit cards from Tony
O Ho’s residence. O
P P
Charges 4 to 28
Q Q
R
38. From 8 to about 10 January 2024, Mr Yeung used Tony Ho’s R
four DBS credit cards (with a combined credit limit of $400,000) that he
S S
had stolen to conduct in-store and online transactions without permission
T
totaling $258,968.30. T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
Charge 29
C C
39. On 21 January 2024, the police searched Mr Yeung’s
D D
residence and found an ICE bottle containing a solid containing 0.33
E gramme of ICE and 218 ml of a liquid which when dried was found to E
contain 0.08 gramme of a solid containing methamphetamine.
F F
G Criminal record G
H H
40. Mr Yeung has through three previous court appearances
I accumulated 32 previous convictions 31 of which are similar to the present I
theft and fraud offences.
J J
K Antecedents K
L L
41. Mr Yeung is aged 32 (29 at the time of the offences), educated
M to Year 1 tertiary level in Hong Kong. Mr Yeung has previously worked M
as a mobile phone salesman. In April 2023, he incorporated a company
N N
and his monthly earnings varied. Mr Yeung is single.
O O
42. Mr Yeung was last discharged from prison on 25 March 2023.
P P
Q Q
Mitigation
R R
43. Mr Kay Chan of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
S S
Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Yeung. The following is a summary of the
T
mitigation submissions. T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
44. Mr Yeung pleaded guilty at the first opportunity showing
C remorse and saving court’s time. He was fully cooperative with the police. C
Defence asked for 1/3 sentencing discount.
D D
E 45. Mr Yeung is the only child of his parents who got divorced E
when he was two years old. Since that time, he lost contact with his
F F
parents. He was raised by his paternal grandparents (now in their 70s) who
G are both in court to give him support. Mr Yeung lived with them until he G
was 20 years old.
H H
I 46. Mr Yeung received formal education in Hong Kong to F4 I
level. Prior to the offences, he was studying for advertising media courses
J J
at HK Baptist University in conjunction with a Taiwan university. He
K worked as a telephone salesperson and legislative assistant. He was K
unemployed beginning 2020. In mid-2023, Mr Yeung established a
L L
company named “Work Done Production Workshop Ltd” – about banner
M design, post-production for music video and other multimedia work. He M
earned around $20,000 to $25,000 per month. He supported his
N N
grandparents giving them about $7,000 per month.
O O
47. Mr Yeung committed cases of similar nature in DCCC
P P
220/2021.
Q Q
R
48. Mr Chan referred to the sentencing guidelines set out in R
HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776, and HKSAR v Ng Kwok
S S
Wing & Anor [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 relating to theft involving breach of
T
trust. T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
49. Regarding the fraud offence, Mr Chan after reminding the
C court of the maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, referred to a case C
of fraud involving credit cards namely R v Chan Sui To and Anor CACC
D D
115/1996 which stated at para 13 the factors that a court may take into
E account when sentencing an offender: E
F F
(a) The size of the operation eg whether it involves large
G sums of money, whether it concerned a large number of G
persons or forged credit cards;
H H
I (b) The planning that has gone into perpetrating the fraud, I
whether it is elaborate or simple, whether technical
J J
skills were used, and to what extent;
K K
(c) Whether there is an international dimension;
L L
M (d) Whether the accused played a major role, eg running a M
syndicate, engaging in actual manufacture, organizing
N N
the use of forged cards, or whether he is a mere “cog in
O the wheel” as a courier or a custodian or keeper; and O
P P
(e) Whether there is a plea of guilty.
Q Q
R
50. In determining whether a large sum of money is involved, R
Chan Sui To regarded the amount below $50,000 is relatively small, an
S S
amount between $50,000 and $150,000 is medium, and an amount
T
exceeding this amount is large. T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
51. In HKSAR v Tu I Lang CACC 464/2006 at paras 9 to 10, the
C Court of Appeal stated that where there is no evidence of links between the C
offender and a bigger criminal organization, a sentence of three years or
D D
less may be appropriate for simple and small-scale crimes involving one or
E a few forged credit cards: E
F F
“9. … Small scale credit card offences cannot be subjected to
strict guidelines. That is because the facts of such offences can
G vary significantly in a number of ways, the number of cards G
possessed or used being perhaps the most obvious factor.
H H
10. Where the facts of the offence point to a small
unsophisticated operation, involving only one or a few forged
I cards uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the I
offender to a larger operation, then a starting point of three
years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate.”
J J
K
52. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Lam See Chung Stephen K
[2013] 5 HKLRD 242 at paras 38 to 40 held that same sentencing principles
L L
are equally applicable to credit card fraud cases involving forged credit
M cards and stolen credit cards. A starting point of three years’ imprisonment M
or less may be appropriate.
N N
O 53. Regarding Charge 2 of Inhaling and ingesting dangerous O
drugs, Mr Chan referred to a District Court sentencing case HKSAR v Yiu
P P
Wah Wai DCCC 629/2017 and the starting point of 6 months’
Q imprisonment adopted therein. Q
R R
54. Regarding Charge 29 of Possession of apparatus fit and
S intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug, Mr Chan referred to two S
cases. In R v Law Sing HCMA 890/1996, Stock J (as Stock NPJ then was)
T T
stated that in the absence of aggravating factors, the typical sentence for
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
such offence is around 3 months. In HKSAR v Lee Siu Pui (transliteration)
C DCCC 1130/2021, Judge Lee noted that the typical sentence for this C
offence ranges from a fine to a short term of imprisonment.
D D
E 55. Mr Chan also referred to two other cases of the District Court E
namely HKSAR v Wong Yu Hin DCCC 19/2023 [2023] HKDC 1836 and
F F
HKSAR v Cheng Bou Gwai & Anor DCCC 970/2018 [2019] HKDC 218.
G In Wong Yu Hin, the court adopted a starting point of 3 months’ G
imprisonment where the defendant was in possession of an instrument that
H H
could be used to inhale methamphetamine. In Cheng Bou Gwai, the court
I adopted a starting point of 4 ½ months’ imprisonment where D1 in that I
case was in possession of instruments that could be used to inhale cocaine.
J J
K 56. Mr Chan submitted that the court may impose a proportionate K
sentence to ensure the overall sentence reflects Mr Yeung’s culpability;
L L
even if the sentence is increased due to any aggravating factor(s), the court
M may impose concurrent sentences for some of the charges. M
N N
57. Mr Yeung committed the offences of theft and fraud out of
O greed and pressure from work. He chose to take drug to escape from reality O
and became addicted again. However, he has now quitted drug during
P P
remand. The amount of dangerous drug found under Charge 29 was not
Q Q
large, only a little more than 0.33 grammes of ICE.
R R
58. It was submitted that the prosecution has no evidence to show
S S
Mr Yeung is involved in any complex criminal organization.
T T
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
59. It was submitted Mr Yeung used a relatively simple method
C when committing the crime, which was to steal the deceased’s credit card C
and remove the SIM card from the deceased’s phone to retrieve the
D D
verification code for credit card transaction authentication.
E E
60. Some of the items under Charge 1, ie the property totaling
F F
$219,900, were subsequently recovered from Mr Yeung’s residence,
G meaning that Mr Yeung did not sell those items. G
H H
61. For Charges 4 to 28 relating to fraud and theft, Mr Chan
I submitted that these were committed within only 4 days, and some I
transactions were made at the same store within a short period of time. Mr
J J
Chan submitted that, in view of the above, the court may consider imposing
K concurrent sentences for these offences. K
L L
62. Mr Yeung took advantage of trust from his friends and
M committed crimes at their houses. Mr Yeung is also a repeated offender. M
These may constitute aggravating factors.
N N
O 63. Mr Yeung promises not to commit any crime again. O
P P
64. Mr Chan submitted on behalf of Mr Yeung three mitigation
Q Q
letters written in Chinese respectively by Mr Yeung himself, his paternal
R
grandparents and his boyfriend. The contents are generally that Mr Yeung R
is regretful for his misdeeds and apologizes to all parties affected; that Mr
S S
Yeung promises not to re-offend. The letter writers all asked for a chance
T
to be given to Mr Yeung and urged the court to pass a lenient sentence on T
him.
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
C Report C
D D
65. Before sentencing, I called for a background report on Mr
E Yeung. The report concluded with the following passage: E
F F
“8. … Prior to the present offences, the Accused had two
previous convictions (sic) with a certain pattern of crime. He
G repeatedly stole the belongings of the victims he got acquainted G
on Grindr over a period of time. Despite two custodial
experiences, he failed to learn his lesson and committed the
H H
present offences again, citing greed and the influence of drugs
as the reasons. However, his actions, such as sending a message
I to the colleague of [Tony Ho] to falsely report sick leave, selling I
out part of the stolen items, … were apparently planned and
premeditated to a certain extent, rather than under the influence
J of drugs…” J
K K
Sentence
L L
66. Prosecution told me after Mr Yeung’s conviction that there
M M
was a typographical error on page 10 of the Amended Summary Facts in
N that in para 23(j), the “One gold ornament and one gold bar” should relate N
to Charge 14 instead of Charge 22. Although it came a bit late, I still
O O
appreciated the prosecution’s effort because it is better by far to be open
P about one’s mistake than simply to hide it under the carpet and hope that P
no one will discover it.
Q Q
R 67. Since the mistake should not affect sentence and would at R
most impact upon the disposal of exhibits, I did not deem it necessary to
S S
ask My Yeung to re-confirm it. I deemed it sufficient to merely mark on
T record that this has happened. T
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
68. Prosecution also confirmed that they would not be seeking
C additional penalty for what is contained in para 4 of the Amended C
Summary of Facts, namely the fact that three unauthorized transactions had
D D
been made with PW1’s two credit cards stolen under Charge 1, for the
E reason that Mr Yeung has not been separately charged in relation to those E
unauthorized transactions.
F F
G 69. Before sentencing Mr Yeung, I should state that I do not G
regard thefts from PW1 and Tony Ho as being offences relating to breach
H H
of trust, at least not relating to the type of breach of trust envisaged in
I Cheung Mee Kiu and Ng Kwok Wing. Hence, the sentencing guidelines set I
out in those cases do not apply to Mr Yeung.
J J
K 70. Charge 1 relates to theft of valuables (and two credit cards) K
from PW1 whom Mr Yeung met through “Grindr”. The theft took place at
L L
the latter’s home with a total value in excess of $335,000 part of which (to
M the total value of about 2/3 of the value stolen) have been recovered. In M
this light, I am of the view that a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment
N N
will be sufficient.
O O
71. For Charge 2 relating to inhaling and ingesting dangerous
P P
drugs, I will adopt a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment.
Q Q
R
72. Charge 3 relates to theft from the residence of Tony Ho, whom R
Mr Yeung met through “Grindr”, of one Rolex watch (value unknown and
S S
later recovered) and two diamond rings (value unknown), one iPhone, one
T
HKID card (which Mr Yeung later used to feign an identity) and 4 DBS T
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
credit cards which Mr Yeung later used for in-store and online transactions.
C For this charge, I will adopt a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment. C
D D
73. For Charges 4 to 28 relating generally to the dishonest use of
E another’s genuine credit card for purchases, I have borne in mind the E
authorities urged upon me. I am satisfied that this case belongs to the
F F
small-scale operation unconnected with any criminal syndicate.
G G
74. However, some simple planning must have been involved
H H
such as was manifested by the testing of the Cards 1 to 3 by small purchases
I in the same convenience store (Charges 4 to 6). I
J J
75. Although the total spending with the 4 stolen DBS credit cards
K amounted to just under $260,000, I note the combined credit limit was K
$400,000. Under caution, Mr Yeung said that after finding from DBS what
L L
that limit was, he intended to use the credit cards until the credit limit was
M exhausted or until the cards were suspended. In the circumstances, I am of M
the view that the sum of money involved is large.
N N
O 76. Given the multiplicity of transactions over a period of about 3 O
days, I intend to adopt a global starting point for these 25 charges relating
P P
to credit card use. The global starting point I shall adopt is 4 years’
Q Q
imprisonment.
R R
77. For Charge 29 relating to possession of dangerous drug
S S
apparatus, I adopt a starting point of 4 ½ months’ imprisonment.
T T
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
78. For the theft and credit card offences, Mr Yeung is a repeat
C offender (see his most recent previous case DCCC 220/2021 [2023] HKDC C
311 involving 27 theft convictions) with his last discharge date being 25
D D
March 2023. A dose of deterrence must be added to the sentences of
E Charge 1, Charge 3, and Charges 4 to 28 herein. For Charges 1 and 3, I E
will add 3 months to each of the respective starting points. For Charges 4
F F
to 28, I will add 6 months to the global starting point.
G G
79. Mr Yeung pleaded guilty to the charges earning for himself
H H
the customary 1/3 sentencing discount. There are no other mitigating
I factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction. I
J J
80. The dangerous drug charges (Charges 2 and 29) are
K completely separate from the rest in terms of their nature and therefore K
ought to attract sentences consecutive to the rest, subject to totality. As
L L
between themselves, these two offences took place on different dates and
M in two different places and, again, ought to attract consecutive sentences, M
subject only to totality.
N N
O 81. Charges 1 and 3, though of the same nature, relate to offences O
that took place on different dates and in different places. In principle, they
P P
ought to attract consecutive sentences, subject again to totality.
Q Q
R
82. For Charges 4 to 28, some of them took place on the same day R
and in the same shop (ie Charges 4-7, Charges 10 & 13, Charges 16-18,
S S
Charges 22-23). Where this is so, the corresponding sentences will be
T
made to run concurrently, otherwise the sentences should be made to run T
consecutively, subject only to totality.
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
C 83. For all of the charges, individual sentences will be imposed. C
For credit card use charges, the individual sentence reflects the dollar value
D D
of the particular transaction.
E E
84. In determining the final aggregate sentence, I will bear in
F F
mind what I have stated above in terms of global starting point, the dose of
G deterrence, concurrency and consecutiveness in the sentences, and the G
principle of totality.
H H
I 85. I will make sure the final aggregate sentence is a balanced one I
free from multiple counting of the dosage of deterrence added for Mr
J J
Yeung’s status as a repeat offender aforesaid.
K K
(Mr Yeung, please stand)
L L
M 86. For Charge 1, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
87. For Charge 2, the sentence is 2 months’ imprisonment.
O O
88. For Charge 3, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
P P
Q 89. For Charge 4, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment. Q
R R
90. For Charge 5, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
S S
T
91. For Charge 6, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment. T
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
92. For Charge 7, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
C C
93. For Charge 8, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E 94. For Charge 9, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment. E
F F
95. For Charge 10, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
G G
96. For Charge 11, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I 97. For Charge 12, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment. I
J J
98. For Charge 13, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
K K
99. For Charge 14, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
L L
M 100. For Charge 15, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
101. For Charge 16, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
O O
102. For Charge 17, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
P P
Q 103. For Charge 18, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment. Q
R R
104. For Charge 19, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
S S
T
105. For Charge 20, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment. T
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B B
106. For Charge 21, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
C C
107. For Charge 22, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E 108. For Charge 23, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment. E
F F
109. For Charge 24, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
G G
110. For Charge 25, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I 111. For Charge 26, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment. I
J J
112. For Charge 27, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
K K
113. For Charge 28, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
L L
M 114. For Charge 29, the sentence is 3 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
115. I order that the sentences of Charges 4 to 7 are to run
O concurrently. This is Group A sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment. O
P P
116. I order that the sentences of Charges 10 and 13 are to run
Q concurrently. This is Group B sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment. Q
R R
117. I order that the sentences of Charges 16 to 18 are to run
S S
concurrently. This is Group C sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment.
T T
U U
V V
- 23 -
A A
B B
118. I order that the sentences of Charges 22 and 23 are to run
C concurrently. This is Group D sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment. C
D D
119. For the remainder of the credit card use charges, namely
E Charges 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, and Charges 24 to 28, by E
application of the totality principle, I order their sentences to run
F F
concurrently. This is Group E sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment.
G G
120. I order that 3 months of Group A sentences, 3 months of
H H
Group B sentences, 5 months of Group C sentences, and 5 months of Group
I D sentences, are each to run consecutively to Group E sentences. The I
resulting aggregate sentence for Charges 4 to 28 is therefore 36 months’
J J
imprisonment.
K K
121. By application of the totality principle, I order that 3 months
L L
of the sentence on Charge 1, 1 month of the sentence on Charge 2, 2 months
M of the sentence on Charge 3, and 1 month of the sentence on Charge 29, M
are each to run consecutively to the sentences on Charges 4 to 28. The
N N
final aggregate sentence for Mr Yeung is therefore 43 months’
O imprisonment. O
P P
Q Q
R
( Isaac Tam ) R
District Judge
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 1318/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1718 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1318 OF 2024
F F
G ———————— G
HKSAR
H H
v
I YEUNG HO YU I
————————
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court K
Date: 6 October 2025
L L
Present: Ms. Wong Yin Yee, Christy, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Mr. Chan Kwok Wai, Kay, Counsel instructed by Messrs M
Anthony Siu & Co., assigned by DLA
N N
Offences: [1], [3] & [24] – [28] Theft （盜竊罪）
O O
[2] Inhaling and ingesting dangerous drugs （吸服及服食危
P 險藥物） P
[4] – [23] Fraud （欺詐罪）
Q Q
[29] Possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation
R R
of a dangerous drug（管有適合於及擬用作吸服危險藥物
S 的器具） S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
————————————————
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
————————————————
D D
E 1. Mr Yeung pleaded guilty before me to a total of 29 charges E
on a Charge Sheet as follows.
F F
G 2. Charge 1 is Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft G
Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that he, on 6 December 2023, at Room
H H
702, Mei Cheung House, Mei Tin Estate, Sha Tin, New Territories, in
I Hong Kong, stole 3 watches, 3 rings, 4 wrist chains, two pendants, one I
necklace, two handbags, 3 iPhones and two credit cards, property
J J
belonging to Au Wing Ho.
K K
3. Charge 2 is Inhaling and ingesting dangerous drugs, contrary
L L
to section 8(1)(b) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.
M Particulars are that he, on or about 7 January 2024, at Flat A, 5th Floor, Arts M
Building, Nos 36-40 Robinson Road, Mid-Levels, in Hong Kong, inhaled
N N
and ingested dangerous drugs, namely methamphetamine hydrochloride
O and gamma-hydroxybutyric acid. O
P P
4. Charge 3 is Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft
Q Q
Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that he, on or about 7 January 2024,
R
at Flat A, 5th Floor, Arts Building, Nos 36-40 Robinson Road, Mid-Levels, R
in Hong Kong, stole one watch, two rings, one iPhone, one Hong Kong
S S
Identity Card and 4 credit cards, property belonging to Ho Wai Hung Tony.
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. Charges 4 to 14, and 16 to 22 are each Fraud, contrary to
C section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that he, on C
A, at B, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to staff
D D
of C (“the said company”) that he was authorized and entitled to use one
E DBS E issued in the name of Ho Wai Hung Tony (“the said credit card”), E
and with intent to defraud, induced staff of the said company to commit an
F F
act or a series of acts, namely, to accept the said credit card for payment of
G F, which resulted in benefit to Mr Yeung, or in prejudice or a substantial G
risk of prejudice to the said company.
H H
I 6. For Charge 4, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 7, Ground I
Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels; C is The Diary
J J
Farm Company; E is MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is
K one can of energy drink. K
L L
7. For Charge 5, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 7, Ground
M Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels; C is The Diary M
Farm Company; E is MasterCard numbered 5418-1996-1957-4002; F is
N N
one box of batteries.
O O
8. For Charge 6, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 7, Ground
P P
Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels; C is The Diary
Q Q
Farm Company; E is VISA Card numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one
R
box of batteries. R
S S
9. For Charge 7, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 7, Ground
T
Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour Road, Mid-Levels; C is The Diary T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Farm Company; E is MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is
C one box of chocolates, one box of biscuits and one flask. C
D D
10. For Charge 8, A is 8 January 2024; B is Ground Floor, Yu
E Sung Boon Building, Nos 107-111 Des Voeux Road Central, Central; C is E
AS Watson Retail (HK) Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4518-3560-
F F
8582-5035; F is one smart door lock.
G G
11. For Charge 9, A is 8 January 2024; B is Shop No 2096A, IFC
H H
Mall, No 8 Finance Street, Central; C is Lady M Hong Kong Limited; E is
I MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is one meal. I
J J
12. For Charge 10, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop No UG1, UG
K Floor, Temple Mall South, No 103 Ching Tak Street, Wong Tai Sin, K
Kowloon; C is FX Creations International Limited; E is VISA Card
L L
numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one suitcase and one neck pillow.
M M
13. For Charge 11, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop No G12A,
N N
Ground Floor, Temple Mall South, No 103 Ching Tak Street, Wong Tai
O Sin, Kowloon; C is Champion Luck Development Limited; E is VISA Card O
numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one meal.
P P
Q Q
14. For Charge 12, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop UG39, UG
R
Floor, Temple Mall South, No 103 Ching Tak Street, Wong Tai Sin, R
Kowloon; C is Wang Da Communication Co; E is VISA Card numbered
S S
4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one power bank.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
15. For Charge 13, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop No UG1, UG
C Floor, Temple Mall South, No 103 Ching Tak Street, Wong Tai Sin, C
Kowloon; C is FX Creations International Limited; E is VISA Card
D D
numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is two bags.
E E
16. For Charge 14, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop No 45, LG2
F F
Floor, Festival Walk, No 80 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon;
G C is Luk Fook Jewellery & Goldsmith (HK) Co Limited; E is MasterCard G
numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is one gold bar, one ornament and one
H H
pendant.
I I
17. For Charge 15, see below.
J J
K 18. For Charge 16, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop Nos 236 and K
351A, Pacific Place, No 88 Queensway, Central; C is Louis Vuitton Hong
L L
Kong Limited; E is MasterCard numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007; F is one
M handbag, two passport covers, two necklaces and two rings. M
N N
19. For Charge 17, A is 9 January 2024, B is Shop Nos 236 and
O 351A, Pacific Place, No 88 Queensway, Central; C is Louis Vuitton Hong O
Kong Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014; F is one
P P
belt and two pairs of sneakers.
Q Q
R
20. For Charge 18, A is 9 January 2024; B is Shop Nos 236 and R
351A, Pacific Place, No 88 Queensway, Central; C is Louis Vuitton Hong
S S
Kong Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014; F is two
T
pairs of sunglasses. T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
21. For Charge 19, A is 9 January 2024; B is 2nd Floor, No 28
C Russell Street, Causeway Bay; C is Alma Trend Limited; E is VISA Card C
numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is 3 cock rings.
D D
E 22. For Charge 20, A is 10 January 2024; B is Shop H, Ground E
Floor, Yardley Commercial Building, No 3 Connaught Road West, Sheung
F F
Wan; C is Sheung Wan Fung Shing Restaurant Limited; E is VISA Card
G numbered 4518-3560-8582-5035; F is one meal. G
H H
23. For Charge 21, A is 10 January 2024; B is Shop Nos 211-212,
I Time Square, No 1 Matheson Street, Causeway Bay; C is Fendi Hong I
Kong Limited; E is VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014; F is one
J J
sweater and one necklace with pendant.
K K
24. For Charge 22, A is 10 January 2024; B is Shop Nos 3 and 5,
L L
Ground Floor, Emperor Watch and Jewellery Centre, No 8 Russell Street,
M Causeway Bay; C is Luk Fook Jewellery & Goldsmith (HK) Co Limited; M
E is VISA Card numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014; F is one gold bar and
N N
one ornament.
O O
25. Charge 15 is also Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft
P P
Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that he, on 9 January 2024, at Ground
Q Q
Floor, Yu Sung Boon Building, Nos 107-111 Des Voeux Road Central,
R
Central, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to Lok R
Tin Yin that he was authorized and entitled to use one DBS MasterCard
S S
numbered 5408-0479-8705-6007 issued in the name of Ho Wai Hung Tony
T
(“the said credit card”), and with intent to defraud, induced the said Lok T
Tin Yin to commit an act or a series of acts, namely, to accept the said
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
credit card for payment of two pens, which resulted in benefit to Mr Yeung,
C or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said Lok Tin Yin. C
D D
26. Charge 23 is also Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft
E Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that he, on 10 January 2024, at Shop E
Nos 3 and 5, Ground Floor, Emperor Watch and Jewellery Centre, No 8
F F
Russell Street, Causeway Bay, in Hong Kong, on an occasion other than
G that referred to in Charge 22, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to G
staff of Luk Fook Jewellery & Goldsmith (HK) Co Limited (“the said
H H
company”) that he was authorized and entitled to use one DBS VISA Card
I numbered 4760-7341-0301-7014 issued in the name of Ho Wai Hung Tony I
(“the said credit card”), and with intent to defraud, induced staff of the said
J J
company to commit an act or a series of acts, namely, to accept the said
K credit card for payment of one ring, which resulted in benefit to Mr Yeung, K
or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said company.
L L
M 27. Charges 24 to 28 are each Theft, contrary to section 9 of the M
Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
N N
O 28. Particulars of Charge 24 are that he, on or about 10 January O
2024, in Hong Kong, stole one heater, one charger, one iPhone and one
P P
mobile phone, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK) Limited.
Q Q
R
29. Particulars of Charge 25 are that he, on or about 10 January R
2024, in Hong Kong, stole two phone cases, one screen protector and one
S S
light strip, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK) Limited.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
30. Particulars of Charge 26 are that he, on or about 10 January
C 2024, in Hong Kong, on an occasion other than that referred to in Charge C
24, stole one iPhone, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK)
D D
Limited.
E E
31. Particulars of Charge 27 are that he, on or about 10 January
F F
2024, in Hong Kong, on an occasion other than those referred to in Charges
G 24 and 26, stole one iPhone, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK) G
Limited.
H H
I 32. Particulars of Charge 28 are that he, on or about 10 January I
2024, in Hong Kong, on an occasion other than those referred to in Charges
J J
24, 26 and 27, stole one iPhone, property belonging to AS Watson Retail
K (HK) Limited. K
L L
33. Charge 29 is Possession of apparatus fit and intended for the
M inhalation of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 36(1) and (2) of the M
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. Particulars are that he, on 21
N N
th
January 2024, at Room A, 20 Floor, Fairview Height, No 1 Seymour
O Road, Mid-Levels, in Hong Kong, had in his possession apparatus, namely O
one inhaling device, fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug,
P P
namely methamphetamine hydrochloride (a salt of methamphetamine).
Q Q
R
Facts admitted by Mr Yeung R
S S
34. In gist, the facts are as follows.
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Charge 1
C C
35. Mr Yeung met PW1 through a mobile dating application
D D
“Grindr” in mid-2023. On 6 December 2023, Mr Yeung arrived at the
E residence of PW1 and stayed overnight. Thereafter, PW1 discovered that E
his property totaling $335,309, including two credit cards, went missing.
F F
However, a total of $219,900 worth of property was subsequently
G recovered at Mr Yeung’s residence. G
H H
Charge 2
I I
36. On or about 7 January 2024, Mr Yeung visited the residence
J J
of Tony Ho and took ICE and GHB there.
K K
Charge 3
L L
M 37. There on the same day, Mr Yeung stole a watch, two rings, M
one iPhone, a Hong Kong Identity Card (which he later used for the
N N
purpose of pawning the stolen watch) and four DBS credit cards from Tony
O Ho’s residence. O
P P
Charges 4 to 28
Q Q
R
38. From 8 to about 10 January 2024, Mr Yeung used Tony Ho’s R
four DBS credit cards (with a combined credit limit of $400,000) that he
S S
had stolen to conduct in-store and online transactions without permission
T
totaling $258,968.30. T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
Charge 29
C C
39. On 21 January 2024, the police searched Mr Yeung’s
D D
residence and found an ICE bottle containing a solid containing 0.33
E gramme of ICE and 218 ml of a liquid which when dried was found to E
contain 0.08 gramme of a solid containing methamphetamine.
F F
G Criminal record G
H H
40. Mr Yeung has through three previous court appearances
I accumulated 32 previous convictions 31 of which are similar to the present I
theft and fraud offences.
J J
K Antecedents K
L L
41. Mr Yeung is aged 32 (29 at the time of the offences), educated
M to Year 1 tertiary level in Hong Kong. Mr Yeung has previously worked M
as a mobile phone salesman. In April 2023, he incorporated a company
N N
and his monthly earnings varied. Mr Yeung is single.
O O
42. Mr Yeung was last discharged from prison on 25 March 2023.
P P
Q Q
Mitigation
R R
43. Mr Kay Chan of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
S S
Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Yeung. The following is a summary of the
T
mitigation submissions. T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
44. Mr Yeung pleaded guilty at the first opportunity showing
C remorse and saving court’s time. He was fully cooperative with the police. C
Defence asked for 1/3 sentencing discount.
D D
E 45. Mr Yeung is the only child of his parents who got divorced E
when he was two years old. Since that time, he lost contact with his
F F
parents. He was raised by his paternal grandparents (now in their 70s) who
G are both in court to give him support. Mr Yeung lived with them until he G
was 20 years old.
H H
I 46. Mr Yeung received formal education in Hong Kong to F4 I
level. Prior to the offences, he was studying for advertising media courses
J J
at HK Baptist University in conjunction with a Taiwan university. He
K worked as a telephone salesperson and legislative assistant. He was K
unemployed beginning 2020. In mid-2023, Mr Yeung established a
L L
company named “Work Done Production Workshop Ltd” – about banner
M design, post-production for music video and other multimedia work. He M
earned around $20,000 to $25,000 per month. He supported his
N N
grandparents giving them about $7,000 per month.
O O
47. Mr Yeung committed cases of similar nature in DCCC
P P
220/2021.
Q Q
R
48. Mr Chan referred to the sentencing guidelines set out in R
HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776, and HKSAR v Ng Kwok
S S
Wing & Anor [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 relating to theft involving breach of
T
trust. T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
49. Regarding the fraud offence, Mr Chan after reminding the
C court of the maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, referred to a case C
of fraud involving credit cards namely R v Chan Sui To and Anor CACC
D D
115/1996 which stated at para 13 the factors that a court may take into
E account when sentencing an offender: E
F F
(a) The size of the operation eg whether it involves large
G sums of money, whether it concerned a large number of G
persons or forged credit cards;
H H
I (b) The planning that has gone into perpetrating the fraud, I
whether it is elaborate or simple, whether technical
J J
skills were used, and to what extent;
K K
(c) Whether there is an international dimension;
L L
M (d) Whether the accused played a major role, eg running a M
syndicate, engaging in actual manufacture, organizing
N N
the use of forged cards, or whether he is a mere “cog in
O the wheel” as a courier or a custodian or keeper; and O
P P
(e) Whether there is a plea of guilty.
Q Q
R
50. In determining whether a large sum of money is involved, R
Chan Sui To regarded the amount below $50,000 is relatively small, an
S S
amount between $50,000 and $150,000 is medium, and an amount
T
exceeding this amount is large. T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
51. In HKSAR v Tu I Lang CACC 464/2006 at paras 9 to 10, the
C Court of Appeal stated that where there is no evidence of links between the C
offender and a bigger criminal organization, a sentence of three years or
D D
less may be appropriate for simple and small-scale crimes involving one or
E a few forged credit cards: E
F F
“9. … Small scale credit card offences cannot be subjected to
strict guidelines. That is because the facts of such offences can
G vary significantly in a number of ways, the number of cards G
possessed or used being perhaps the most obvious factor.
H H
10. Where the facts of the offence point to a small
unsophisticated operation, involving only one or a few forged
I cards uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the I
offender to a larger operation, then a starting point of three
years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate.”
J J
K
52. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Lam See Chung Stephen K
[2013] 5 HKLRD 242 at paras 38 to 40 held that same sentencing principles
L L
are equally applicable to credit card fraud cases involving forged credit
M cards and stolen credit cards. A starting point of three years’ imprisonment M
or less may be appropriate.
N N
O 53. Regarding Charge 2 of Inhaling and ingesting dangerous O
drugs, Mr Chan referred to a District Court sentencing case HKSAR v Yiu
P P
Wah Wai DCCC 629/2017 and the starting point of 6 months’
Q imprisonment adopted therein. Q
R R
54. Regarding Charge 29 of Possession of apparatus fit and
S intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug, Mr Chan referred to two S
cases. In R v Law Sing HCMA 890/1996, Stock J (as Stock NPJ then was)
T T
stated that in the absence of aggravating factors, the typical sentence for
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
such offence is around 3 months. In HKSAR v Lee Siu Pui (transliteration)
C DCCC 1130/2021, Judge Lee noted that the typical sentence for this C
offence ranges from a fine to a short term of imprisonment.
D D
E 55. Mr Chan also referred to two other cases of the District Court E
namely HKSAR v Wong Yu Hin DCCC 19/2023 [2023] HKDC 1836 and
F F
HKSAR v Cheng Bou Gwai & Anor DCCC 970/2018 [2019] HKDC 218.
G In Wong Yu Hin, the court adopted a starting point of 3 months’ G
imprisonment where the defendant was in possession of an instrument that
H H
could be used to inhale methamphetamine. In Cheng Bou Gwai, the court
I adopted a starting point of 4 ½ months’ imprisonment where D1 in that I
case was in possession of instruments that could be used to inhale cocaine.
J J
K 56. Mr Chan submitted that the court may impose a proportionate K
sentence to ensure the overall sentence reflects Mr Yeung’s culpability;
L L
even if the sentence is increased due to any aggravating factor(s), the court
M may impose concurrent sentences for some of the charges. M
N N
57. Mr Yeung committed the offences of theft and fraud out of
O greed and pressure from work. He chose to take drug to escape from reality O
and became addicted again. However, he has now quitted drug during
P P
remand. The amount of dangerous drug found under Charge 29 was not
Q Q
large, only a little more than 0.33 grammes of ICE.
R R
58. It was submitted that the prosecution has no evidence to show
S S
Mr Yeung is involved in any complex criminal organization.
T T
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
59. It was submitted Mr Yeung used a relatively simple method
C when committing the crime, which was to steal the deceased’s credit card C
and remove the SIM card from the deceased’s phone to retrieve the
D D
verification code for credit card transaction authentication.
E E
60. Some of the items under Charge 1, ie the property totaling
F F
$219,900, were subsequently recovered from Mr Yeung’s residence,
G meaning that Mr Yeung did not sell those items. G
H H
61. For Charges 4 to 28 relating to fraud and theft, Mr Chan
I submitted that these were committed within only 4 days, and some I
transactions were made at the same store within a short period of time. Mr
J J
Chan submitted that, in view of the above, the court may consider imposing
K concurrent sentences for these offences. K
L L
62. Mr Yeung took advantage of trust from his friends and
M committed crimes at their houses. Mr Yeung is also a repeated offender. M
These may constitute aggravating factors.
N N
O 63. Mr Yeung promises not to commit any crime again. O
P P
64. Mr Chan submitted on behalf of Mr Yeung three mitigation
Q Q
letters written in Chinese respectively by Mr Yeung himself, his paternal
R
grandparents and his boyfriend. The contents are generally that Mr Yeung R
is regretful for his misdeeds and apologizes to all parties affected; that Mr
S S
Yeung promises not to re-offend. The letter writers all asked for a chance
T
to be given to Mr Yeung and urged the court to pass a lenient sentence on T
him.
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
C Report C
D D
65. Before sentencing, I called for a background report on Mr
E Yeung. The report concluded with the following passage: E
F F
“8. … Prior to the present offences, the Accused had two
previous convictions (sic) with a certain pattern of crime. He
G repeatedly stole the belongings of the victims he got acquainted G
on Grindr over a period of time. Despite two custodial
experiences, he failed to learn his lesson and committed the
H H
present offences again, citing greed and the influence of drugs
as the reasons. However, his actions, such as sending a message
I to the colleague of [Tony Ho] to falsely report sick leave, selling I
out part of the stolen items, … were apparently planned and
premeditated to a certain extent, rather than under the influence
J of drugs…” J
K K
Sentence
L L
66. Prosecution told me after Mr Yeung’s conviction that there
M M
was a typographical error on page 10 of the Amended Summary Facts in
N that in para 23(j), the “One gold ornament and one gold bar” should relate N
to Charge 14 instead of Charge 22. Although it came a bit late, I still
O O
appreciated the prosecution’s effort because it is better by far to be open
P about one’s mistake than simply to hide it under the carpet and hope that P
no one will discover it.
Q Q
R 67. Since the mistake should not affect sentence and would at R
most impact upon the disposal of exhibits, I did not deem it necessary to
S S
ask My Yeung to re-confirm it. I deemed it sufficient to merely mark on
T record that this has happened. T
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
68. Prosecution also confirmed that they would not be seeking
C additional penalty for what is contained in para 4 of the Amended C
Summary of Facts, namely the fact that three unauthorized transactions had
D D
been made with PW1’s two credit cards stolen under Charge 1, for the
E reason that Mr Yeung has not been separately charged in relation to those E
unauthorized transactions.
F F
G 69. Before sentencing Mr Yeung, I should state that I do not G
regard thefts from PW1 and Tony Ho as being offences relating to breach
H H
of trust, at least not relating to the type of breach of trust envisaged in
I Cheung Mee Kiu and Ng Kwok Wing. Hence, the sentencing guidelines set I
out in those cases do not apply to Mr Yeung.
J J
K 70. Charge 1 relates to theft of valuables (and two credit cards) K
from PW1 whom Mr Yeung met through “Grindr”. The theft took place at
L L
the latter’s home with a total value in excess of $335,000 part of which (to
M the total value of about 2/3 of the value stolen) have been recovered. In M
this light, I am of the view that a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment
N N
will be sufficient.
O O
71. For Charge 2 relating to inhaling and ingesting dangerous
P P
drugs, I will adopt a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment.
Q Q
R
72. Charge 3 relates to theft from the residence of Tony Ho, whom R
Mr Yeung met through “Grindr”, of one Rolex watch (value unknown and
S S
later recovered) and two diamond rings (value unknown), one iPhone, one
T
HKID card (which Mr Yeung later used to feign an identity) and 4 DBS T
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
credit cards which Mr Yeung later used for in-store and online transactions.
C For this charge, I will adopt a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment. C
D D
73. For Charges 4 to 28 relating generally to the dishonest use of
E another’s genuine credit card for purchases, I have borne in mind the E
authorities urged upon me. I am satisfied that this case belongs to the
F F
small-scale operation unconnected with any criminal syndicate.
G G
74. However, some simple planning must have been involved
H H
such as was manifested by the testing of the Cards 1 to 3 by small purchases
I in the same convenience store (Charges 4 to 6). I
J J
75. Although the total spending with the 4 stolen DBS credit cards
K amounted to just under $260,000, I note the combined credit limit was K
$400,000. Under caution, Mr Yeung said that after finding from DBS what
L L
that limit was, he intended to use the credit cards until the credit limit was
M exhausted or until the cards were suspended. In the circumstances, I am of M
the view that the sum of money involved is large.
N N
O 76. Given the multiplicity of transactions over a period of about 3 O
days, I intend to adopt a global starting point for these 25 charges relating
P P
to credit card use. The global starting point I shall adopt is 4 years’
Q Q
imprisonment.
R R
77. For Charge 29 relating to possession of dangerous drug
S S
apparatus, I adopt a starting point of 4 ½ months’ imprisonment.
T T
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
78. For the theft and credit card offences, Mr Yeung is a repeat
C offender (see his most recent previous case DCCC 220/2021 [2023] HKDC C
311 involving 27 theft convictions) with his last discharge date being 25
D D
March 2023. A dose of deterrence must be added to the sentences of
E Charge 1, Charge 3, and Charges 4 to 28 herein. For Charges 1 and 3, I E
will add 3 months to each of the respective starting points. For Charges 4
F F
to 28, I will add 6 months to the global starting point.
G G
79. Mr Yeung pleaded guilty to the charges earning for himself
H H
the customary 1/3 sentencing discount. There are no other mitigating
I factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction. I
J J
80. The dangerous drug charges (Charges 2 and 29) are
K completely separate from the rest in terms of their nature and therefore K
ought to attract sentences consecutive to the rest, subject to totality. As
L L
between themselves, these two offences took place on different dates and
M in two different places and, again, ought to attract consecutive sentences, M
subject only to totality.
N N
O 81. Charges 1 and 3, though of the same nature, relate to offences O
that took place on different dates and in different places. In principle, they
P P
ought to attract consecutive sentences, subject again to totality.
Q Q
R
82. For Charges 4 to 28, some of them took place on the same day R
and in the same shop (ie Charges 4-7, Charges 10 & 13, Charges 16-18,
S S
Charges 22-23). Where this is so, the corresponding sentences will be
T
made to run concurrently, otherwise the sentences should be made to run T
consecutively, subject only to totality.
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
C 83. For all of the charges, individual sentences will be imposed. C
For credit card use charges, the individual sentence reflects the dollar value
D D
of the particular transaction.
E E
84. In determining the final aggregate sentence, I will bear in
F F
mind what I have stated above in terms of global starting point, the dose of
G deterrence, concurrency and consecutiveness in the sentences, and the G
principle of totality.
H H
I 85. I will make sure the final aggregate sentence is a balanced one I
free from multiple counting of the dosage of deterrence added for Mr
J J
Yeung’s status as a repeat offender aforesaid.
K K
(Mr Yeung, please stand)
L L
M 86. For Charge 1, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
87. For Charge 2, the sentence is 2 months’ imprisonment.
O O
88. For Charge 3, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
P P
Q 89. For Charge 4, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment. Q
R R
90. For Charge 5, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
S S
T
91. For Charge 6, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment. T
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
92. For Charge 7, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
C C
93. For Charge 8, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E 94. For Charge 9, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment. E
F F
95. For Charge 10, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
G G
96. For Charge 11, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I 97. For Charge 12, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment. I
J J
98. For Charge 13, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
K K
99. For Charge 14, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
L L
M 100. For Charge 15, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
101. For Charge 16, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
O O
102. For Charge 17, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
P P
Q 103. For Charge 18, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment. Q
R R
104. For Charge 19, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
S S
T
105. For Charge 20, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment. T
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B B
106. For Charge 21, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
C C
107. For Charge 22, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E 108. For Charge 23, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment. E
F F
109. For Charge 24, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
G G
110. For Charge 25, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I 111. For Charge 26, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment. I
J J
112. For Charge 27, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
K K
113. For Charge 28, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.
L L
M 114. For Charge 29, the sentence is 3 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
115. I order that the sentences of Charges 4 to 7 are to run
O concurrently. This is Group A sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment. O
P P
116. I order that the sentences of Charges 10 and 13 are to run
Q concurrently. This is Group B sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment. Q
R R
117. I order that the sentences of Charges 16 to 18 are to run
S S
concurrently. This is Group C sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment.
T T
U U
V V
- 23 -
A A
B B
118. I order that the sentences of Charges 22 and 23 are to run
C concurrently. This is Group D sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment. C
D D
119. For the remainder of the credit card use charges, namely
E Charges 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, and Charges 24 to 28, by E
application of the totality principle, I order their sentences to run
F F
concurrently. This is Group E sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment.
G G
120. I order that 3 months of Group A sentences, 3 months of
H H
Group B sentences, 5 months of Group C sentences, and 5 months of Group
I D sentences, are each to run consecutively to Group E sentences. The I
resulting aggregate sentence for Charges 4 to 28 is therefore 36 months’
J J
imprisonment.
K K
121. By application of the totality principle, I order that 3 months
L L
of the sentence on Charge 1, 1 month of the sentence on Charge 2, 2 months
M of the sentence on Charge 3, and 1 month of the sentence on Charge 29, M
are each to run consecutively to the sentences on Charges 4 to 28. The
N N
final aggregate sentence for Mr Yeung is therefore 43 months’
O imprisonment. O
P P
Q Q
R
( Isaac Tam ) R
District Judge
S S
T T
U U
V V