DCCC835/2024 HKSAR v. LAM YUK AND ANOTHER - LawHero
DCCC835/2024
區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Terence Wai25/3/2025[2025] HKDC 543
DCCC835/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 835/2024
C [2025] HKDC 543 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 835 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LAM YUK (D1) I
LAU KWOK ON (D2)
J J
----------------------------------
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge Terence Wai
L L
Date: 26 March 2025
M Present: Ms Wong Yin Yee, Christy, Public Prosecutor of the M
Department of Justice, for HKSAR
N N
Mr Kwong Chin Hung, Vincent, instructed by Henry Yu &
O Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st O
defendant
P P
Mr Kan Wing Fai, Terry, instructed by Kevin Ng & Co,
Q assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2 nd defendant Q
Offence: [1] & [3] Conspiracy to defraud（串謀詐騙） - D1
R R
[2] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
S S
proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代
T 表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產） - D1（alternative to the T
1st Charge）
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
[4] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
C proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代 C
表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產） - D1（alternative to the
D D
rd
3 Charge）
E E
[5] Conspiracy to defraud（串謀詐騙） - D1 & D2
F [6] Dealing with property known or believed to represent F
proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代
G G
表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產）- D1 & D2（（alternative
H H
to the 5th Charge）
I [7] Possession of an offensive weapon（管有攻擊性武器） I
- D1
J J
K -------------------------------------- K
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
L L
--------------------------------------
M M
1. D1 pleaded guilty to 2 counts1 of Money Laundering, contrary
N N
to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance,
O Cap 455 and one count2 of Possession of an offensive weapon, contrary to O
section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap 228. D2 pleaded
P P
3
guilty to one count of Money Laundering .
Q Q
R R
S S
T 1 T
2nd and 6th Charges
2
7th Charge
3
6th Charge
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
FACTS
C C
2nd Charge
D D
E 2. Around noon of 8 June 2023, 71-year-old Lam Pong Cheung E
(V1) received a call on his landline phone at home from a man claiming
F F
himself to be “Lee Kui” and a good friend of V1’s son. “Lee Kui” said
G over the phone that V1’s son was involved in a fighting incident and was G
in need of HK$80,000 to settle that incident. Thereupon, V1 went to the
H H
bank around 1300 hours and withdrew $80,000.
I I
3. When V1 was back home from the bank, he received a call
J J
around 1500 hours from the same man asking him to go downstairs to pass
K him the money. V1 did as he was told and, after waiting for a while, saw K
a man (later identified as D1) waiting at the iron gate of his building. When
L L
V1 asked D1 if he was “Lee Kui”, D1 replied in the affirmative. D1 passed
M a mobile phone to V1 who was instructed by the person on the other end to M
hand over the money to “Lee Kui”. V1 then went back up to his home by
N N
himself and put $80,000 cash in a plastic bag, which he gave to D1 when
O they met again downstairs. O
P P
4. In the morning of the next day, upon enquiries with his sons,
Q V1 realized that he had been defrauded. The matter was reported to the Q
police.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
6th & 7th Charges
C C
5. On the morning of 3 July 2023, 94-year-old Chan Lan Mei
D D
(V2) received a call on her landline phone at home from a man claiming to
E be her grandson (alleged grandson). Alleged grandson told V2 that he was E
involved in a fighting incident and he needed to pay HK$40,000
F F
compensation to avoid imprisonment. V2 took $17,000 from the cash she
G kept at home and borrowed $30,000 from her Mei Lam Estate neighbour. G
She then bundled up the two sums of cash with a rubber band. V2 received
H H
another phone call later from the same man who, after asking about her
I attire and home address, told her to hand over the money to a “Mr Chan” I
who would be waiting for her at the entrance of her building Mei Fung
J J
House (the House).
K K
6. Around 1230 hours, V2 saw a man (later identified as D2)
L L
who fit the description that she had been given standing at the entrance of
M the House. Upon being told by D2 that he was “Mr Chan”, V2 handed over M
the bundle of $47,000 cash to D2.
N N
O 7. Enquiries with V2’s grandson revealed that he had not been O
involved in any fights.
P P
Q 8. D1 and D2, who had been put under police observation, were Q
seen meeting up with each other around 20 minutes before the handover of
R R
the money by V2. The two of them then parted ways outside a park near
S the House. D1 wandered in the vicinity and kept an eye on the entrance of S
the House while D2 approached V2 and took the money from her. The two
T T
defendants regrouped outside the House. D2 passed the money to D1 who
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
put the same in his bag. The two then walked quickly towards a bus station
C in Mei Lam Estate. C
D D
9. Around 1238 hours on the same day, D1 was intercepted near
E Mei Tsuen House, Tai Wai by the police who found $47,000 cash tied with E
a rubber band inside his bag. He was arrested and cautioned for “Fraud”.
F F
Two iPhones were found on him.
G G
10. Upon a search of his home at Room 3913, Mei Ting House,
H H
Mei Tin Estate, the police found a machete with a 35 cm-long blade and a
I 15 cm-long handle. D1 was arrested for the offence of “Possession of an I
offensive weapon”. Under caution at the scene, D1 claimed that the
J J
machete was for self-defence as he was worried about someone taking
K revenge on him. K
L L
11. D2 was arrested and cautioned near Mei Lam Estate for
M “Obtaining property by deception”. The police found two mobile phones M
on him.
N N
O PHONE RECORDS O
P P
12. Preliminary inspection of the defendants’ phones showed that
Q D1 texted D2 at 2316 hours on 2 July 2023 asking D2 to work for him, to Q
which D2 replied “OK” 5 minutes later. Next day, D1 texted D2 at 1144
R R
hours asking D2 to wake up. Then at 1146 hours, D1 made a call to V2’s
S landline phone. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
ADMISSIONS
C C
13. In subsequent cautioned video-recorded interviews, D1 told
D D
the police only about the machete by saying that he had bought it in Sham
E Shui Po for HK$1,000, that he had kept it at home for a few months since E
the end of 2022, and that he had never used it. He said he had no grudges
F F
with other people.
G G
14. In a cautioned video-recorded interview, D2 said he went to
H H
Mei Lam Estate around 1130 hours on 3 July 2023 to have tea with D1.
I He was asked by D1 to help him collect something in Mei Lam Estate from I
his friend who was a lady in her 80s. While he was collecting the thing
J J
from the old lady, he could see D1 who was about 100 metres away. The
K old lady asked him to pass the thing to D1, which he did but he did not K
know what the thing was. With regard to the job offer made to him by D1
L L
via WhatsApp texted message, D2 said he was not aware of the nature of
M the job. M
N N
DEFENDANTS’ BACKGROUNDS
O O
15. D1 has 3 previous convictions in Hong Kong, none of them
P P
similar to the present offences. He was sentenced on 22 September 2017
Q in Macau to 7 years and 1 month imprisonment and was returned to Hong Q
Kong on 27 June 2019 to serve the remainder of the sentence. According
R R
to official records, he was discharged on 30 April 2022.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
16. He is 41 years old and was educated up to Form 4 level. He
C is married and has 2 teenage daughters from a previous marriage. He was C
a repair worker with a construction company prior to his arrest.
D D
E 17. D2 has 15 previous convictions, 2 of them for money E
laundering which are his latest convictions, and for which he is still serving
F F
sentences of imprisonment.
G G
18. He is 61 years old and has worked as a porter and a cook. He
H H
got married in 2023 and was living with his wife and a stepdaughter prior
I to his arrest. I
J J
MITIGATION
K K
19. Counsel for D1 Mr Vincent Kwong said D1 committed the
L L
two money laundering offences for financial reasons, having come across
M on Facebook job offers of collecting things for a reward. M
N N
20. Mr Kwong pointed out that there is no evidence that D1 knew
O or took part in the underlying telephone deceptions. O
P P
21. With regard to the offensive weapon charge, he was in
Q possession of the machete for self-defence as he was worried about a Q
revenge attack on him arising from his indebtedness.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
22. In his mitigation letter, D1 tendered his apologies to the
C victims and their families. He promised not to re-offend and begged for C
leniency so that he could resume his responsibilities as soon as possible as
D D
a father and a son.
E E
23. Mr Kwong’s submissions on sentencing principles and
F F
enhancement of sentence will be dealt with later.
G G
24. Mr Terry Kan, counsel for D2, admitted that the main
H H
mitigating factor was his client’s early guilty plea. He further told the court
I that D2 had a stroke while he was in jail. I
J J
25. Mr Kan also pointed out that there is no evidence that D2 had
K made any direct phone contacts with the victim, or that he knew that the K
money he collected from her originated from a phone scam. He was a mere
L L
courier collecting money from the victim, who suffered no loss as the
M money was subsequently recovered by the police. M
N N
26. Similarly, Mr Kan’s submissions on sentencing principles and
O enhancement of sentence will be dealt with in my sentencing O
considerations.
P P
Q SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS Q
R R
27. Money laundering is a serious offence, with a maximum
S penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
28. There are no sentencing tariffs for this kind of offence, which
C can be committed in a variety of ways. However, there are factors which C
can be taken into consideration in assessing sentence. Mr Kan referred to
D D
HKSAR v Lam Ka Sin [2021] 2 HKLRD 32, paragraph 26 where the Court
E of Appeal recapitulated the significant sentencing considerations listed by E
Stock V-P (as he then was) in HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33.
F F
G STARTING POINTS G
H H
29. Mr Kan referred to HKSAR v Cen Huakuo (岑華擴) [2015] 2
I HKLRD 951 and HKSAR v Lin Zong Yue (林宗悅) [2015] 3 HKLRD 196 I
J
as authorities for the proposition that for money laundering with telephone J
deception as the predicate offence, the usual starting point would be 3 years’
K K
imprisonment if the defendant knew the source of the money being
L
laundered was from such deception, and that the starting point should be L
enhanced by one-third when prevalence of the offence was proved.
M M
N 30. Mr Kwong also relied on Cen Huakuo and Lin Zong Yue for N
the starting point for this kind of money laundering and the extent of
O O
enhancement pursuant to OSCO. However, Mr Kwong pointed out that
P the 3-year starting point adopted in those two cases must have been meant P
for defendants who came from the mainland to commit the offence, as the
Q Q
defendants in both of those two cases were mainland Chinese. Mr Kwong
R referred to two District Court cases4 in which a starting point of 2½ years R
was adopted for defendants who were local residents.
S S
T T
4
林祖澤 [2023] HKDC 1351; Tang Tsz Fei [2024] HKDC 1962
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
31. According to Cen Huakuo, the extent of the defendant’s
C knowledge about the indictable offence should be taken into account when C
5
considering the sentence .
D D
E 32. Mr Kwong submitted that there is no evidence that D1 knew E
or took part in the underlying telephone deception.
F F
G 33. In the 1st incident involving V1, the facts show that it was a G
man calling himself “Lee Kui” who called V1 around noontime about his
H H
son’s alleged involvement in a fight; the same man called V1 again around
I 3 pm announcing his arrival. D1, who took the money from V1, confirmed I
that he was “Lee Kui”. Whilst it looks highly suspicious that D1 may have
J J
been “Lee Kui”, it can also be argued that D1 may have been asked by the
K one who made the phone calls to claim himself to be “Lee Kui” when he K
was collecting money from V1. Giving D1 the benefit of the doubt, I am
L L
prepared to accept that there is no solid evidence to show that D1 was
M indeed the caller, and hence he may have been unaware of the reason why M
V1 was handing him the money.
N N
O 34. Mindful that I am not dealing with a mainlander who came to O
this jurisdiction to break the law, I would adopt a starting point of 2 years
P P
9 months’ imprisonment for D1’s involvement in the 2 charge.nd
Q Q
35. As to D1’s knowledge or belief about the provenance of the
R R
nd
money handed over by V2 in the 2 incident, the facts show that on the
S morning of 3 July 2023, V2 received a phone call from a male who claimed S
himself to be the victim’s grandson. During this call, the male told V2 that
T T
5
See paragraph 17 of the judgment.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
he was involved in a fight and was in need of money for compensation
C payment. Later, the same male called again and told V2, among other C
things, to hand the money over to a “Mr Chan” who would be waiting for
D D
her at the entrance of the victim’s building. Inspection of the defendants’
E phones showed that D1 made a call to V2’s landline at 1146 hours on 3 E
July 2023.
F F
G 36. From the fact that V2 had received 2 calls from the same man G
that morning relating to this incident, and from the contents of those calls,
H H
the irresistible inference is that D1 was that caller, that he played a part in
I the phone deception and hence he must have had a pretty good idea of the I
origin of the “black money”.
J J
K 37. One of the sentencing considerations set out in Boma is the K
defendant’s knowledge of the predicate offence. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi
L L
(許有益) [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, the Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that
M where the indictable offence can be identified, the court can take into M
account the sentence imposed on it per se when determining the sentence
N N
for the money laundering offence.
O O
P
38. In HKSAR v Hung Yung Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 174, the P
Court of Appeal held that for street deception cases, the appropriate starting
Q Q
point is 4 years’ imprisonment.
R R
39. Given his knowledge of the predicate offence, and the fact that
S S
D1 defied the law again by the same means less than a month after
T committing the 2nd charge offence, a starting point of 3 years 9 months for T
the 6th charge would seem appropriate.
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C 40. With regard to the 7th charge which D1 faces alone, an C
appropriate starting point would be 6 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E 41. As for D2, I agree with counsel that there is no evidence to E
show that D2 either took any part in the phone scam or had any idea that
F F
the money he collected from V2 was the proceeds of such a scam. I
G intended to adopt a starting point of 2 years 9 months for his involvement G
in the 6th charge. However, this offence was committed while he was on
H H
bail for 2 identical offences which were committed on 14 July 2022 and
I for which he is now serving a total sentence of 3 years. For this aggravating I
factor, I would raise the starting point to 3 years’ imprisonment.
J J
K MITIGATION K
L L
42. The only effective mitigation for both defendants is their pleas
M of guilty, for which they will receive a one-third discount in sentence. M
After such a discount, D1’s sentence on the 2nd charge is 22 months, the 6th
N N
charge is 30 months, and the 7th charge is 4 months.
O O
43. D2’s sentence on the 6th charge is 24 months.
P P
Q ENHANCEMENT UNDER OSCO Q
R R
44. The prosecution applies for enhancement of sentence under
S OSCO, pursuant to section 27(2)(c), (d) and (e). Neither of the defendants S
oppose this application.
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
45. However, Mr Kwong on behalf of D1 pointed out that given
C that there is no evidence to show that D1 took part in or had knowledge of C
the phone scams in question, on the authority of HKSAR v Fong Chi Yam
D D
[2020] 2 HKLRD 700 6 , an enhancement on the ground of prevalence
E would be wrong even if phone deception cases are extremely prevalent E
because “the court should not impose additional punishment on an
F F
applicant for offences which he neither had knowledge of nor had taken
G part in.” G
H H
46. The other point made by Mr Kwong is that the statistics set
I out in the statement in support of the enhancement application (the I
statement7) show a sharp decrease in the number of “Guess Who” phone
J J
deception cases, from 2,237 cases in 2023 to 1,153 cases in 2024, and the
K number of cases involving the “By Hand” means of collecting the money K
defrauded dropped from 1,130 cases in 2023 to 328 cases in 2024. These
L L
figures show that this kind of offence is no longer as prevalent as before,
M which might warrant an enhancement of less than one-third. M
N N
47. Mr Kan on behalf of D2 pointed out that the court has a
O discretion on whether or not to enhance the sentence even in the absence O
of opposition by the defence to the enhancement application.
P P
Q 48. Under the heading “Prevalence of Telephone Deception in Q
Hong Kong”, the statement sets out figures of total telephone deception
R R
cases reported and the accumulated monetary loss involved in each year
S from 2018 to 2024. Looking just at the figures for 2023 and 2024, one can S
T T
6
[105]-[106]
7
Statement of CIP Cheng Sze Wai dated 13 March 2025.
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
see that in 2023, there were 3,213 phone deception cases, 2,846 of those
C cases involved monetary loss totalling HK$ 1,102.80 million, whereas for C
2024, the corresponding figures are 9,204 cases, 8,982 of those cases
D D
involved monetary loss totalling HK$ 2,911.04 million.
E E
49. In Cen Huakuo, the Court of Appeal said, “Taking into
F F
account all the circumstances of the case and the requirement that a
G sentence should have deterrent effect in order to prevent mainlanders from G
taking part in such an abhorrent and despicable offence like ‘phone
H H
deception’ in whatever manner, we are of the view that an appropriate
I starting point is 3 years’ imprisonment, and the sentence should be I
enhanced by one-third pursuant to the Organized and Serious Crimes
J J
Ordinance.” (Emphasis added)
K K
50. In my view, a decline in a particular means or manner of
L L
committing phone deception does not negate prevalence of the offence
M when there is still a large number of such crimes and the number is still on M
the rise. Hence, despite a drop in the number of cases employing the
N N
“Guess Who” and/or “By Hand” means of committing the offence,
O telephone deception in my view is still prevalent and is causing significant O
harm to the community.
P P
Q 51. As I have found that there is insufficient evidence to show that Q
D1 took part in or knew about the phone scam relating to the 2 nd charge,
R R
following Fong Chi Yam, I will not enhance his sentence for this charge,
S which will still be 22 months after plea. S
T T
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
52. Similarly, as I agree with Mr Kan that there is no evidence to
C show that D2 took part in or knew about the phone scam relating to the 6th C
charge, I will not enhance his sentence for this charge, which will still be
D D
24 months after plea.
E E
53. With regard to D1’s involvement in the 6th charge, as I
F F
indicated earlier, there is enough evidence from which an irresistible
G inference can be drawn that D1 had a part to play in the phone deception G
and knew that the money handed over by V2 originated from such a scam.
H H
I will enhance his sentence on this charge by one-third on the grounds of
I prevalence and the harm caused to the community. After enhancement, his I
sentence on the 6th charge is 40 months.
J J
K TOTALITY K
L L
54. A total sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment will be
M sufficient to reflect D1’s overall culpability for all 3 offences. To achieve M
this total, I order that 2 months of his sentence for the 2 nd charge are to run
N N
consecutively to his sentence of 40 months for the 6 th charge, whereas his
O sentence on the 7th charge is to run concurrently with his sentence on the O
6th charge.
P P
Q 55. D2 is currently serving a total sentence of 3 years for 2 money Q
laundering offences which, I am told, had also stemmed from phone
R R
deceptions. I think a total sentence of 46 months would reflect the overall
S seriousness of his involvement in these 3 offences. To achieve this total, I S
order that 10 months of his sentence on the 6th charge should run
T T
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
consecutively to the 3 years’ imprisonment he is now serving in respect of
C DCCC 1028/2022. C
D D
E E
( Terence Wai )
F Deputy District Judge F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 835/2024
C [2025] HKDC 543 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 835 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LAM YUK (D1) I
LAU KWOK ON (D2)
J J
----------------------------------
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge Terence Wai
L L
Date: 26 March 2025
M Present: Ms Wong Yin Yee, Christy, Public Prosecutor of the M
Department of Justice, for HKSAR
N N
Mr Kwong Chin Hung, Vincent, instructed by Henry Yu &
O Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st O
defendant
P P
Mr Kan Wing Fai, Terry, instructed by Kevin Ng & Co,
Q assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2 nd defendant Q
Offence: [1] & [3] Conspiracy to defraud（串謀詐騙） - D1
R R
[2] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
S S
proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代
T 表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產） - D1（alternative to the T
1st Charge）
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
[4] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
C proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代 C
表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產） - D1（alternative to the
D D
rd
3 Charge）
E E
[5] Conspiracy to defraud（串謀詐騙） - D1 & D2
F [6] Dealing with property known or believed to represent F
proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代
G G
表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產）- D1 & D2（（alternative
H H
to the 5th Charge）
I [7] Possession of an offensive weapon（管有攻擊性武器） I
- D1
J J
K -------------------------------------- K
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
L L
--------------------------------------
M M
1. D1 pleaded guilty to 2 counts1 of Money Laundering, contrary
N N
to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance,
O Cap 455 and one count2 of Possession of an offensive weapon, contrary to O
section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap 228. D2 pleaded
P P
3
guilty to one count of Money Laundering .
Q Q
R R
S S
T 1 T
2nd and 6th Charges
2
7th Charge
3
6th Charge
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
FACTS
C C
2nd Charge
D D
E 2. Around noon of 8 June 2023, 71-year-old Lam Pong Cheung E
(V1) received a call on his landline phone at home from a man claiming
F F
himself to be “Lee Kui” and a good friend of V1’s son. “Lee Kui” said
G over the phone that V1’s son was involved in a fighting incident and was G
in need of HK$80,000 to settle that incident. Thereupon, V1 went to the
H H
bank around 1300 hours and withdrew $80,000.
I I
3. When V1 was back home from the bank, he received a call
J J
around 1500 hours from the same man asking him to go downstairs to pass
K him the money. V1 did as he was told and, after waiting for a while, saw K
a man (later identified as D1) waiting at the iron gate of his building. When
L L
V1 asked D1 if he was “Lee Kui”, D1 replied in the affirmative. D1 passed
M a mobile phone to V1 who was instructed by the person on the other end to M
hand over the money to “Lee Kui”. V1 then went back up to his home by
N N
himself and put $80,000 cash in a plastic bag, which he gave to D1 when
O they met again downstairs. O
P P
4. In the morning of the next day, upon enquiries with his sons,
Q V1 realized that he had been defrauded. The matter was reported to the Q
police.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
6th & 7th Charges
C C
5. On the morning of 3 July 2023, 94-year-old Chan Lan Mei
D D
(V2) received a call on her landline phone at home from a man claiming to
E be her grandson (alleged grandson). Alleged grandson told V2 that he was E
involved in a fighting incident and he needed to pay HK$40,000
F F
compensation to avoid imprisonment. V2 took $17,000 from the cash she
G kept at home and borrowed $30,000 from her Mei Lam Estate neighbour. G
She then bundled up the two sums of cash with a rubber band. V2 received
H H
another phone call later from the same man who, after asking about her
I attire and home address, told her to hand over the money to a “Mr Chan” I
who would be waiting for her at the entrance of her building Mei Fung
J J
House (the House).
K K
6. Around 1230 hours, V2 saw a man (later identified as D2)
L L
who fit the description that she had been given standing at the entrance of
M the House. Upon being told by D2 that he was “Mr Chan”, V2 handed over M
the bundle of $47,000 cash to D2.
N N
O 7. Enquiries with V2’s grandson revealed that he had not been O
involved in any fights.
P P
Q 8. D1 and D2, who had been put under police observation, were Q
seen meeting up with each other around 20 minutes before the handover of
R R
the money by V2. The two of them then parted ways outside a park near
S the House. D1 wandered in the vicinity and kept an eye on the entrance of S
the House while D2 approached V2 and took the money from her. The two
T T
defendants regrouped outside the House. D2 passed the money to D1 who
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
put the same in his bag. The two then walked quickly towards a bus station
C in Mei Lam Estate. C
D D
9. Around 1238 hours on the same day, D1 was intercepted near
E Mei Tsuen House, Tai Wai by the police who found $47,000 cash tied with E
a rubber band inside his bag. He was arrested and cautioned for “Fraud”.
F F
Two iPhones were found on him.
G G
10. Upon a search of his home at Room 3913, Mei Ting House,
H H
Mei Tin Estate, the police found a machete with a 35 cm-long blade and a
I 15 cm-long handle. D1 was arrested for the offence of “Possession of an I
offensive weapon”. Under caution at the scene, D1 claimed that the
J J
machete was for self-defence as he was worried about someone taking
K revenge on him. K
L L
11. D2 was arrested and cautioned near Mei Lam Estate for
M “Obtaining property by deception”. The police found two mobile phones M
on him.
N N
O PHONE RECORDS O
P P
12. Preliminary inspection of the defendants’ phones showed that
Q D1 texted D2 at 2316 hours on 2 July 2023 asking D2 to work for him, to Q
which D2 replied “OK” 5 minutes later. Next day, D1 texted D2 at 1144
R R
hours asking D2 to wake up. Then at 1146 hours, D1 made a call to V2’s
S landline phone. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
ADMISSIONS
C C
13. In subsequent cautioned video-recorded interviews, D1 told
D D
the police only about the machete by saying that he had bought it in Sham
E Shui Po for HK$1,000, that he had kept it at home for a few months since E
the end of 2022, and that he had never used it. He said he had no grudges
F F
with other people.
G G
14. In a cautioned video-recorded interview, D2 said he went to
H H
Mei Lam Estate around 1130 hours on 3 July 2023 to have tea with D1.
I He was asked by D1 to help him collect something in Mei Lam Estate from I
his friend who was a lady in her 80s. While he was collecting the thing
J J
from the old lady, he could see D1 who was about 100 metres away. The
K old lady asked him to pass the thing to D1, which he did but he did not K
know what the thing was. With regard to the job offer made to him by D1
L L
via WhatsApp texted message, D2 said he was not aware of the nature of
M the job. M
N N
DEFENDANTS’ BACKGROUNDS
O O
15. D1 has 3 previous convictions in Hong Kong, none of them
P P
similar to the present offences. He was sentenced on 22 September 2017
Q in Macau to 7 years and 1 month imprisonment and was returned to Hong Q
Kong on 27 June 2019 to serve the remainder of the sentence. According
R R
to official records, he was discharged on 30 April 2022.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
16. He is 41 years old and was educated up to Form 4 level. He
C is married and has 2 teenage daughters from a previous marriage. He was C
a repair worker with a construction company prior to his arrest.
D D
E 17. D2 has 15 previous convictions, 2 of them for money E
laundering which are his latest convictions, and for which he is still serving
F F
sentences of imprisonment.
G G
18. He is 61 years old and has worked as a porter and a cook. He
H H
got married in 2023 and was living with his wife and a stepdaughter prior
I to his arrest. I
J J
MITIGATION
K K
19. Counsel for D1 Mr Vincent Kwong said D1 committed the
L L
two money laundering offences for financial reasons, having come across
M on Facebook job offers of collecting things for a reward. M
N N
20. Mr Kwong pointed out that there is no evidence that D1 knew
O or took part in the underlying telephone deceptions. O
P P
21. With regard to the offensive weapon charge, he was in
Q possession of the machete for self-defence as he was worried about a Q
revenge attack on him arising from his indebtedness.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
22. In his mitigation letter, D1 tendered his apologies to the
C victims and their families. He promised not to re-offend and begged for C
leniency so that he could resume his responsibilities as soon as possible as
D D
a father and a son.
E E
23. Mr Kwong’s submissions on sentencing principles and
F F
enhancement of sentence will be dealt with later.
G G
24. Mr Terry Kan, counsel for D2, admitted that the main
H H
mitigating factor was his client’s early guilty plea. He further told the court
I that D2 had a stroke while he was in jail. I
J J
25. Mr Kan also pointed out that there is no evidence that D2 had
K made any direct phone contacts with the victim, or that he knew that the K
money he collected from her originated from a phone scam. He was a mere
L L
courier collecting money from the victim, who suffered no loss as the
M money was subsequently recovered by the police. M
N N
26. Similarly, Mr Kan’s submissions on sentencing principles and
O enhancement of sentence will be dealt with in my sentencing O
considerations.
P P
Q SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS Q
R R
27. Money laundering is a serious offence, with a maximum
S penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
28. There are no sentencing tariffs for this kind of offence, which
C can be committed in a variety of ways. However, there are factors which C
can be taken into consideration in assessing sentence. Mr Kan referred to
D D
HKSAR v Lam Ka Sin [2021] 2 HKLRD 32, paragraph 26 where the Court
E of Appeal recapitulated the significant sentencing considerations listed by E
Stock V-P (as he then was) in HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33.
F F
G STARTING POINTS G
H H
29. Mr Kan referred to HKSAR v Cen Huakuo (岑華擴) [2015] 2
I HKLRD 951 and HKSAR v Lin Zong Yue (林宗悅) [2015] 3 HKLRD 196 I
J
as authorities for the proposition that for money laundering with telephone J
deception as the predicate offence, the usual starting point would be 3 years’
K K
imprisonment if the defendant knew the source of the money being
L
laundered was from such deception, and that the starting point should be L
enhanced by one-third when prevalence of the offence was proved.
M M
N 30. Mr Kwong also relied on Cen Huakuo and Lin Zong Yue for N
the starting point for this kind of money laundering and the extent of
O O
enhancement pursuant to OSCO. However, Mr Kwong pointed out that
P the 3-year starting point adopted in those two cases must have been meant P
for defendants who came from the mainland to commit the offence, as the
Q Q
defendants in both of those two cases were mainland Chinese. Mr Kwong
R referred to two District Court cases4 in which a starting point of 2½ years R
was adopted for defendants who were local residents.
S S
T T
4
林祖澤 [2023] HKDC 1351; Tang Tsz Fei [2024] HKDC 1962
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
31. According to Cen Huakuo, the extent of the defendant’s
C knowledge about the indictable offence should be taken into account when C
5
considering the sentence .
D D
E 32. Mr Kwong submitted that there is no evidence that D1 knew E
or took part in the underlying telephone deception.
F F
G 33. In the 1st incident involving V1, the facts show that it was a G
man calling himself “Lee Kui” who called V1 around noontime about his
H H
son’s alleged involvement in a fight; the same man called V1 again around
I 3 pm announcing his arrival. D1, who took the money from V1, confirmed I
that he was “Lee Kui”. Whilst it looks highly suspicious that D1 may have
J J
been “Lee Kui”, it can also be argued that D1 may have been asked by the
K one who made the phone calls to claim himself to be “Lee Kui” when he K
was collecting money from V1. Giving D1 the benefit of the doubt, I am
L L
prepared to accept that there is no solid evidence to show that D1 was
M indeed the caller, and hence he may have been unaware of the reason why M
V1 was handing him the money.
N N
O 34. Mindful that I am not dealing with a mainlander who came to O
this jurisdiction to break the law, I would adopt a starting point of 2 years
P P
9 months’ imprisonment for D1’s involvement in the 2 charge.nd
Q Q
35. As to D1’s knowledge or belief about the provenance of the
R R
nd
money handed over by V2 in the 2 incident, the facts show that on the
S morning of 3 July 2023, V2 received a phone call from a male who claimed S
himself to be the victim’s grandson. During this call, the male told V2 that
T T
5
See paragraph 17 of the judgment.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
he was involved in a fight and was in need of money for compensation
C payment. Later, the same male called again and told V2, among other C
things, to hand the money over to a “Mr Chan” who would be waiting for
D D
her at the entrance of the victim’s building. Inspection of the defendants’
E phones showed that D1 made a call to V2’s landline at 1146 hours on 3 E
July 2023.
F F
G 36. From the fact that V2 had received 2 calls from the same man G
that morning relating to this incident, and from the contents of those calls,
H H
the irresistible inference is that D1 was that caller, that he played a part in
I the phone deception and hence he must have had a pretty good idea of the I
origin of the “black money”.
J J
K 37. One of the sentencing considerations set out in Boma is the K
defendant’s knowledge of the predicate offence. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi
L L
(許有益) [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, the Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that
M where the indictable offence can be identified, the court can take into M
account the sentence imposed on it per se when determining the sentence
N N
for the money laundering offence.
O O
P
38. In HKSAR v Hung Yung Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 174, the P
Court of Appeal held that for street deception cases, the appropriate starting
Q Q
point is 4 years’ imprisonment.
R R
39. Given his knowledge of the predicate offence, and the fact that
S S
D1 defied the law again by the same means less than a month after
T committing the 2nd charge offence, a starting point of 3 years 9 months for T
the 6th charge would seem appropriate.
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C 40. With regard to the 7th charge which D1 faces alone, an C
appropriate starting point would be 6 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E 41. As for D2, I agree with counsel that there is no evidence to E
show that D2 either took any part in the phone scam or had any idea that
F F
the money he collected from V2 was the proceeds of such a scam. I
G intended to adopt a starting point of 2 years 9 months for his involvement G
in the 6th charge. However, this offence was committed while he was on
H H
bail for 2 identical offences which were committed on 14 July 2022 and
I for which he is now serving a total sentence of 3 years. For this aggravating I
factor, I would raise the starting point to 3 years’ imprisonment.
J J
K MITIGATION K
L L
42. The only effective mitigation for both defendants is their pleas
M of guilty, for which they will receive a one-third discount in sentence. M
After such a discount, D1’s sentence on the 2nd charge is 22 months, the 6th
N N
charge is 30 months, and the 7th charge is 4 months.
O O
43. D2’s sentence on the 6th charge is 24 months.
P P
Q ENHANCEMENT UNDER OSCO Q
R R
44. The prosecution applies for enhancement of sentence under
S OSCO, pursuant to section 27(2)(c), (d) and (e). Neither of the defendants S
oppose this application.
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
45. However, Mr Kwong on behalf of D1 pointed out that given
C that there is no evidence to show that D1 took part in or had knowledge of C
the phone scams in question, on the authority of HKSAR v Fong Chi Yam
D D
[2020] 2 HKLRD 700 6 , an enhancement on the ground of prevalence
E would be wrong even if phone deception cases are extremely prevalent E
because “the court should not impose additional punishment on an
F F
applicant for offences which he neither had knowledge of nor had taken
G part in.” G
H H
46. The other point made by Mr Kwong is that the statistics set
I out in the statement in support of the enhancement application (the I
statement7) show a sharp decrease in the number of “Guess Who” phone
J J
deception cases, from 2,237 cases in 2023 to 1,153 cases in 2024, and the
K number of cases involving the “By Hand” means of collecting the money K
defrauded dropped from 1,130 cases in 2023 to 328 cases in 2024. These
L L
figures show that this kind of offence is no longer as prevalent as before,
M which might warrant an enhancement of less than one-third. M
N N
47. Mr Kan on behalf of D2 pointed out that the court has a
O discretion on whether or not to enhance the sentence even in the absence O
of opposition by the defence to the enhancement application.
P P
Q 48. Under the heading “Prevalence of Telephone Deception in Q
Hong Kong”, the statement sets out figures of total telephone deception
R R
cases reported and the accumulated monetary loss involved in each year
S from 2018 to 2024. Looking just at the figures for 2023 and 2024, one can S
T T
6
[105]-[106]
7
Statement of CIP Cheng Sze Wai dated 13 March 2025.
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
see that in 2023, there were 3,213 phone deception cases, 2,846 of those
C cases involved monetary loss totalling HK$ 1,102.80 million, whereas for C
2024, the corresponding figures are 9,204 cases, 8,982 of those cases
D D
involved monetary loss totalling HK$ 2,911.04 million.
E E
49. In Cen Huakuo, the Court of Appeal said, “Taking into
F F
account all the circumstances of the case and the requirement that a
G sentence should have deterrent effect in order to prevent mainlanders from G
taking part in such an abhorrent and despicable offence like ‘phone
H H
deception’ in whatever manner, we are of the view that an appropriate
I starting point is 3 years’ imprisonment, and the sentence should be I
enhanced by one-third pursuant to the Organized and Serious Crimes
J J
Ordinance.” (Emphasis added)
K K
50. In my view, a decline in a particular means or manner of
L L
committing phone deception does not negate prevalence of the offence
M when there is still a large number of such crimes and the number is still on M
the rise. Hence, despite a drop in the number of cases employing the
N N
“Guess Who” and/or “By Hand” means of committing the offence,
O telephone deception in my view is still prevalent and is causing significant O
harm to the community.
P P
Q 51. As I have found that there is insufficient evidence to show that Q
D1 took part in or knew about the phone scam relating to the 2 nd charge,
R R
following Fong Chi Yam, I will not enhance his sentence for this charge,
S which will still be 22 months after plea. S
T T
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
52. Similarly, as I agree with Mr Kan that there is no evidence to
C show that D2 took part in or knew about the phone scam relating to the 6th C
charge, I will not enhance his sentence for this charge, which will still be
D D
24 months after plea.
E E
53. With regard to D1’s involvement in the 6th charge, as I
F F
indicated earlier, there is enough evidence from which an irresistible
G inference can be drawn that D1 had a part to play in the phone deception G
and knew that the money handed over by V2 originated from such a scam.
H H
I will enhance his sentence on this charge by one-third on the grounds of
I prevalence and the harm caused to the community. After enhancement, his I
sentence on the 6th charge is 40 months.
J J
K TOTALITY K
L L
54. A total sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment will be
M sufficient to reflect D1’s overall culpability for all 3 offences. To achieve M
this total, I order that 2 months of his sentence for the 2 nd charge are to run
N N
consecutively to his sentence of 40 months for the 6 th charge, whereas his
O sentence on the 7th charge is to run concurrently with his sentence on the O
6th charge.
P P
Q 55. D2 is currently serving a total sentence of 3 years for 2 money Q
laundering offences which, I am told, had also stemmed from phone
R R
deceptions. I think a total sentence of 46 months would reflect the overall
S seriousness of his involvement in these 3 offences. To achieve this total, I S
order that 10 months of his sentence on the 6th charge should run
T T
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
consecutively to the 3 years’ imprisonment he is now serving in respect of
C DCCC 1028/2022. C
D D
E E
( Terence Wai )
F Deputy District Judge F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V