A A
B B
DCCC 768/2021
C [2022] HKDC 371 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 768 OF 2021
F F
G ----------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I KONG Chi-kiu (“Defendant”) I
-----------------------------------------
J J
Before: HH Judge E Yip
K Date: 26 April 2022 K
Present: Ms Sabra Lo, Senior Public Prosecutor of the Department of
L L
Justice, for HKSAR
M Mr Kelly Shaun P., instructed by M/s Cheung & Yeung, M
Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
N N
defendant
O Offence: [1] - [13] Fraud (欺詐罪) O
P
[14] - [15] Dealing with property known or believed to P
represent the proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或
Q Q
相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產)
R ----------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Charges
C C
1. Defendant pleads guilty to 13 charges of fraud (Charges 1 –
D D
13) and 2 charges of money laundering (Charge 14 – 15).
E E
Facts
F F
G 2. In March – August 2017, each victim of Charge 1 – 12 had G
either viewed Defendant’s IG on, or been introduced by Defendant’s
H H
employees to, a high-yielding short-term investment plan allegedly run by
I Defendant’s own company, “Self International Ltd.” Unaware that it was I
a scam, they deposited money with Defendant accordingly. Defendant
J J
initially distributed quick and generous interest to them, namely victims of
K Charges 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 12. That made them invest more. Victims of K
Charges 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 did not receive anything despite their deposits
L L
though. Defendant disappeared. The victims reported to the police for
M their loss. In August 2017, Defendant was arrested. She admitted under M
caution that she had set up Self International Ltd. exclusively for the scam.
N N
Her home became her employees’ quarters. She had up to 80 clients at the
O best time but it went down to 30. She had never intended to make or O
actually made any investment for the clients. The deposits received by her
P P
were used to pay investors as interest to sustain the fraud, to repay her own
Q debt, or were kept in a bank account to her order in Australia. At all Q
material times, neither she nor Self International Ltd. had filed any tax
R R
returns.
S S
3. The 12 victims suffered a loss of $1,666,675 in total as
T T
follows:
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Charge Net loss to victim ($)
C 1 36,000 C
2 126,860
D D
3 386,500
E 4 1,000,000 E
5 20,525
F F
6 28,625
G 7 10,000 G
8 45,300
H H
9 3,001
I 10 1,700 I
J
11 4,384 J
12 3,780
K K
Total 1,666,675
L L
M M
4. In April – May 2017, the victim of Charge 13, also of fraud,
N had paid $27,831 to Defendant, who promised to acquire for her two air N
tickets. Defendant disappeared. The victim lost the said amount.
O O
P 5. Charge 14 concerns (1) one HSBC account opened in P
September 2016 in the name of Defendant (“Defendant’s HSBC Account).
Q Q
In March – August 2017, which canvasses the period of Charges 1 – 13,
R on a monthly basis there were mirroring amounts deposited into and R
withdrawn from this account. Deposit ever made was $2,435,785.22 in
S S
total whereas withdrawal was $2,438,065.52. She knew or had reasonable
T grounds to believe that the deposits in whole or in part directly or indirectly T
represented proceeds of indictable offences.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 6. Charge 15 concerns (1) one Standard Chartered Bank account C
opened in March 2017 in the name of Defendant (“Defendant’s SCB
D D
Account”). In March – June 2017, which canvasses part of the period of
E Charges 1 – 13, on a monthly basis there were mirroring amounts deposited E
into and withdrawn from this account. Deposit ever made was
F F
$1,157,386.11 in total and withdrawal ever made was $1,157,382.28. She
G knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the deposits in whole or in G
part directly or indirectly represented proceeds of indictable offences.
H H
I Background and mitigation I
J J
7. Defendant is 26 years old. She has a clear record. As part of
K her background, it is said that her mother deserted the family, followed by K
divorce, when Defendant was 12 years old. Defendant did not have much
L L
contact with her father, either. She even had to look after her younger
M brother. She first sought psychiatric help in 2011. In the medical report M
dated 8 March 2022, Dr. Lam of Castle Peak Hospital stated that she had
N N
defaulted consultation after 2011, that she was diagnosed by a private
O psychiatrist to have panic disorder in 2017. She had three brief admissions O
to Castle Peak Hospital in late 2017, all diagnosed as Adjustment Disorder.
P P
Medication was prescribed. She defaulted the subsequent consultation. In
Q a psychiatric report dated 11 March 2022, Dr. Pang of Tai Po Hospital Q
stated that the current diagnosis remained as Adjustment Disorder. She
R R
had become stable on medicine prescribed.
S S
8. Apart from Defendant’s pleas of guilty, Mr. Kelly urges me
T T
to consider her relatively young age as a mitigating factor. It can be
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
reckoned that at the time of the offences, she was 21 years old. She was
C able to conceive of setting up a company, using an IG account, and C
recruiting others to pursue the scam on dozens of victims. I regard her as
D D
more sophisticated and mature than an average girl of her age.
E E
9. Another mitigation advanced is that Defendant is now
F F
keeping her 24-month-old child with her in custody. The child’s father is
G said to be a Beijing resident, have given no financial support, and separated G
from her. According to Rule 21 of Prison Rules (Cap. 234A), a child under
H H
3 years of age can stay with the mother in certain conditions. The
I placement of a child is always in the hands of the Commissioner of I
Correctional Services, or in default of a solution therein, the Chief
J J
Executive.
K K
10. It can be reckoned that when Defendant serves her sentence,
L L
her child has soon to be placed elsewhere. Mr. Kelly invokes the
M prerogative of mercy. I find Defendant rather irresponsible as, despite her M
arrest in August 2017, she had elected to have a child without a proper
N N
future plan. I do not find any mitigating factor here.
O O
Sentencing Defendant
P P
Q 11. Charges 1 – 12 were instances of a fraud. Defendant set up a Q
company, an IG account, a staff, to defraud the clients. The culpability in
R R
each instance was the same except for the difference in loss to the victim.
S The starting point of sentence is in proportion to the loss as follows: S
T
Charge Net loss to victim ($) Starting point of sentence T
(months)
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
1 36,000 6
C 2 126,860 6 C
3 386,500 12
D D
4 1,000,000 27
E 5 20,525 6 E
6 28,625 6
F F
7 10,000 6
G 8 45,300 6 G
9 3,001 3
H H
10 1,700 3
I 11 4,384 3 I
J
12 3,780 3 J
K K
L
12. I give Defendant a one-third discount for her pleas of guilty. L
The sentence is as follows:
M M
Charge Sentence after one-third discount (months)
N N
1 4
O O
2 4
P 3 8 P
4 18
Q Q
5 4
R 6 4 R
7 4
S S
8 4
T 9 2 T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
10 2
C 11 2 C
12 2
D D
E E
13. For Charge 13, I take a starting point of 6 months. After a
F F
one-third discount for her plea of guilty, the sentence is 4 months.
G G
14. Defendant’s admission to the police is that the respective
H H
accounts under Charges 14 and 15 were each used to collect the victims’
I deposits. The prosecution and the defence both accept that the net loss to I
PW3 under Charge 4 ($1,000,000) was laundered through Defendant’s
J J
SCB Account, not involving Defendant’s HSBC Account, whereas the net
K loss to other victims under the other charges of fraud ($666,675 in total) K
was laundered through Defendant’s HSBC Account, not involving
L L
Defendant’s SCB Account.
M M
15. Charge 14 concerns two tranches of deposit in Defendant’s
N N
HSBC Account, the first being what she knew to be proceeds of her fraud
O on the victims under Charges 1 – 3, and 5 – 13 ($666,675 in total), the O
remainder being what she had reasonable grounds to believe to be proceeds
P P
of certain indictable offences ($2,435,785.22 - $666,675 = $1,769,110.22).
Q Q
I take 3 years 6 months as the starting point. After the one-third discount
R
for her plea of guilty, the sentence is 2 years 4 months. R
S S
16. Charge 15 concerns two tranches of deposit in Defendant’s
T
SCB Account, the first being what she knew to be proceeds of her fraud T
on PW3 under Charge 4 ($1,000,000), the remainder being what she had
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
reasonable grounds to believe to be proceeds of certain indictable offences
C ($1,157,386.11 - $1,000,000 = $157,386.11). I take 27 months as the C
starting point. After the one-third discount for her plea of guilty, the
D D
sentence is 18 months.
E E
17. I consider the totality principle and order all sentences to be
F F
served concurrently. As the highest sentence is 2 years 4 months for
G Charge 14, it is also the total sentence. G
H H
I I
J J
( E Yip )
District Judge
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 768/2021
C [2022] HKDC 371 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 768 OF 2021
F F
G ----------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I KONG Chi-kiu (“Defendant”) I
-----------------------------------------
J J
Before: HH Judge E Yip
K Date: 26 April 2022 K
Present: Ms Sabra Lo, Senior Public Prosecutor of the Department of
L L
Justice, for HKSAR
M Mr Kelly Shaun P., instructed by M/s Cheung & Yeung, M
Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
N N
defendant
O Offence: [1] - [13] Fraud (欺詐罪) O
P
[14] - [15] Dealing with property known or believed to P
represent the proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或
Q Q
相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產)
R ----------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Charges
C C
1. Defendant pleads guilty to 13 charges of fraud (Charges 1 –
D D
13) and 2 charges of money laundering (Charge 14 – 15).
E E
Facts
F F
G 2. In March – August 2017, each victim of Charge 1 – 12 had G
either viewed Defendant’s IG on, or been introduced by Defendant’s
H H
employees to, a high-yielding short-term investment plan allegedly run by
I Defendant’s own company, “Self International Ltd.” Unaware that it was I
a scam, they deposited money with Defendant accordingly. Defendant
J J
initially distributed quick and generous interest to them, namely victims of
K Charges 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 12. That made them invest more. Victims of K
Charges 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 did not receive anything despite their deposits
L L
though. Defendant disappeared. The victims reported to the police for
M their loss. In August 2017, Defendant was arrested. She admitted under M
caution that she had set up Self International Ltd. exclusively for the scam.
N N
Her home became her employees’ quarters. She had up to 80 clients at the
O best time but it went down to 30. She had never intended to make or O
actually made any investment for the clients. The deposits received by her
P P
were used to pay investors as interest to sustain the fraud, to repay her own
Q debt, or were kept in a bank account to her order in Australia. At all Q
material times, neither she nor Self International Ltd. had filed any tax
R R
returns.
S S
3. The 12 victims suffered a loss of $1,666,675 in total as
T T
follows:
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Charge Net loss to victim ($)
C 1 36,000 C
2 126,860
D D
3 386,500
E 4 1,000,000 E
5 20,525
F F
6 28,625
G 7 10,000 G
8 45,300
H H
9 3,001
I 10 1,700 I
J
11 4,384 J
12 3,780
K K
Total 1,666,675
L L
M M
4. In April – May 2017, the victim of Charge 13, also of fraud,
N had paid $27,831 to Defendant, who promised to acquire for her two air N
tickets. Defendant disappeared. The victim lost the said amount.
O O
P 5. Charge 14 concerns (1) one HSBC account opened in P
September 2016 in the name of Defendant (“Defendant’s HSBC Account).
Q Q
In March – August 2017, which canvasses the period of Charges 1 – 13,
R on a monthly basis there were mirroring amounts deposited into and R
withdrawn from this account. Deposit ever made was $2,435,785.22 in
S S
total whereas withdrawal was $2,438,065.52. She knew or had reasonable
T grounds to believe that the deposits in whole or in part directly or indirectly T
represented proceeds of indictable offences.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 6. Charge 15 concerns (1) one Standard Chartered Bank account C
opened in March 2017 in the name of Defendant (“Defendant’s SCB
D D
Account”). In March – June 2017, which canvasses part of the period of
E Charges 1 – 13, on a monthly basis there were mirroring amounts deposited E
into and withdrawn from this account. Deposit ever made was
F F
$1,157,386.11 in total and withdrawal ever made was $1,157,382.28. She
G knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the deposits in whole or in G
part directly or indirectly represented proceeds of indictable offences.
H H
I Background and mitigation I
J J
7. Defendant is 26 years old. She has a clear record. As part of
K her background, it is said that her mother deserted the family, followed by K
divorce, when Defendant was 12 years old. Defendant did not have much
L L
contact with her father, either. She even had to look after her younger
M brother. She first sought psychiatric help in 2011. In the medical report M
dated 8 March 2022, Dr. Lam of Castle Peak Hospital stated that she had
N N
defaulted consultation after 2011, that she was diagnosed by a private
O psychiatrist to have panic disorder in 2017. She had three brief admissions O
to Castle Peak Hospital in late 2017, all diagnosed as Adjustment Disorder.
P P
Medication was prescribed. She defaulted the subsequent consultation. In
Q a psychiatric report dated 11 March 2022, Dr. Pang of Tai Po Hospital Q
stated that the current diagnosis remained as Adjustment Disorder. She
R R
had become stable on medicine prescribed.
S S
8. Apart from Defendant’s pleas of guilty, Mr. Kelly urges me
T T
to consider her relatively young age as a mitigating factor. It can be
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
reckoned that at the time of the offences, she was 21 years old. She was
C able to conceive of setting up a company, using an IG account, and C
recruiting others to pursue the scam on dozens of victims. I regard her as
D D
more sophisticated and mature than an average girl of her age.
E E
9. Another mitigation advanced is that Defendant is now
F F
keeping her 24-month-old child with her in custody. The child’s father is
G said to be a Beijing resident, have given no financial support, and separated G
from her. According to Rule 21 of Prison Rules (Cap. 234A), a child under
H H
3 years of age can stay with the mother in certain conditions. The
I placement of a child is always in the hands of the Commissioner of I
Correctional Services, or in default of a solution therein, the Chief
J J
Executive.
K K
10. It can be reckoned that when Defendant serves her sentence,
L L
her child has soon to be placed elsewhere. Mr. Kelly invokes the
M prerogative of mercy. I find Defendant rather irresponsible as, despite her M
arrest in August 2017, she had elected to have a child without a proper
N N
future plan. I do not find any mitigating factor here.
O O
Sentencing Defendant
P P
Q 11. Charges 1 – 12 were instances of a fraud. Defendant set up a Q
company, an IG account, a staff, to defraud the clients. The culpability in
R R
each instance was the same except for the difference in loss to the victim.
S The starting point of sentence is in proportion to the loss as follows: S
T
Charge Net loss to victim ($) Starting point of sentence T
(months)
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
1 36,000 6
C 2 126,860 6 C
3 386,500 12
D D
4 1,000,000 27
E 5 20,525 6 E
6 28,625 6
F F
7 10,000 6
G 8 45,300 6 G
9 3,001 3
H H
10 1,700 3
I 11 4,384 3 I
J
12 3,780 3 J
K K
L
12. I give Defendant a one-third discount for her pleas of guilty. L
The sentence is as follows:
M M
Charge Sentence after one-third discount (months)
N N
1 4
O O
2 4
P 3 8 P
4 18
Q Q
5 4
R 6 4 R
7 4
S S
8 4
T 9 2 T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
10 2
C 11 2 C
12 2
D D
E E
13. For Charge 13, I take a starting point of 6 months. After a
F F
one-third discount for her plea of guilty, the sentence is 4 months.
G G
14. Defendant’s admission to the police is that the respective
H H
accounts under Charges 14 and 15 were each used to collect the victims’
I deposits. The prosecution and the defence both accept that the net loss to I
PW3 under Charge 4 ($1,000,000) was laundered through Defendant’s
J J
SCB Account, not involving Defendant’s HSBC Account, whereas the net
K loss to other victims under the other charges of fraud ($666,675 in total) K
was laundered through Defendant’s HSBC Account, not involving
L L
Defendant’s SCB Account.
M M
15. Charge 14 concerns two tranches of deposit in Defendant’s
N N
HSBC Account, the first being what she knew to be proceeds of her fraud
O on the victims under Charges 1 – 3, and 5 – 13 ($666,675 in total), the O
remainder being what she had reasonable grounds to believe to be proceeds
P P
of certain indictable offences ($2,435,785.22 - $666,675 = $1,769,110.22).
Q Q
I take 3 years 6 months as the starting point. After the one-third discount
R
for her plea of guilty, the sentence is 2 years 4 months. R
S S
16. Charge 15 concerns two tranches of deposit in Defendant’s
T
SCB Account, the first being what she knew to be proceeds of her fraud T
on PW3 under Charge 4 ($1,000,000), the remainder being what she had
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
reasonable grounds to believe to be proceeds of certain indictable offences
C ($1,157,386.11 - $1,000,000 = $157,386.11). I take 27 months as the C
starting point. After the one-third discount for her plea of guilty, the
D D
sentence is 18 months.
E E
17. I consider the totality principle and order all sentences to be
F F
served concurrently. As the highest sentence is 2 years 4 months for
G Charge 14, it is also the total sentence. G
H H
I I
J J
( E Yip )
District Judge
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V