DCCC637/2024 HKSAR v. RAI PIRTAM AND OTHERS - LawHero
DCCC637/2024
區域法院（刑事）HH Judge E Yip9/9/2025[2025] HKDC 1550
合併案件：DCCC597/2024DCCC637/2024
DCCC637/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 355, 597, 637 & 1489/2024 (Consolidated)
C [2025] HKDC 1550 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 355, 597, 637 AND 1489 OF 2024
F F
G ----------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I RAI PIRTAM (D2) I
NGAN SHUN FAAT (D3)
J J
SHUM CHI KEUNG (D4)
K K
-----------------------------------------
L L
Before: HH Judge E Yip
M M
Date: 10 September 2025
N Present: Mr Wayne Lee, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR N
Mr Lee Pak Chau, instructed by Mike So, Joseph Lau & Co,
O O
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant
P Ms Manyi Tsang, instructed by Chow Wong & Lawyers, P
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd defendant
Q Q
Mr Kalvin Chan, instructed by C L Chow & Macksion Chan,
R Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 3rd R
defendant
S S
Ms Rachel Po, instructed by KCL & Partners, assigned by the
T Director of Legal Aid, for the 4th defendant T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Offence: [2] – [5] , [8] – [10] Dealing with property known or believed
C to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或 C
相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產)
D D
[7] Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause (無
E E
合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押)
F F
-----------------------------------------
G G
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
H ----------------------------------------- H
I I
Introduction and pleas
J J
1. D2, D3 and D4 each plead guilty to their respective charges
K K
of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an
L indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and L
Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455) (“OSCO”).
M M
N 2. The Prosecution applies for a sentence enhancement under N
OSCO section 27(2)(c) and (d).
O O
P Facts P
Q Q
3. In relation to D2 Charge 2 (BOC XXX), between 24
R November 2022 and 6 March 2023 a total of HK$3,936,430.91 was R
deposited by 146 deposits and withdrawn by 718 withdrawals, exhibiting
S S
mirroring and smurfing patterns. Under caution, D2 accepted lending his
T
account to a person referred to as “Ah Lung” for reward while unemployed. T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 4. In relation to D2 Charge 8 (Welab XXX), between 26 October C
and 1 November 2022 the account received 268 deposits totalling
D D
HK$831,957.50, followed by rapid withdrawals and low end-day balances.
E D2 stated that “Ah Long/Ah Lung” helped him open the account and then E
used it; D2 sold the account for HK$1,000.
F F
G 5. In relation to D3 Charge 3 (NCB XXX), between 27 January G
and 8 February 2023 HK$1,629,954.76 was deposited by 88 deposits and
H H
withdrawn by 63 withdrawals, showing mirroring.
I I
6. In relation to D3 Charge 4 (SCB XXX), between 10 January
J J
and 31 March 2023 HK$2,288,517.69 was deposited by 43 deposits and
K withdrawn by 188 withdrawals, showing mirroring and smurfing. K
L L
7. In relation to D3 Charge 9 (DBS XXX), between 12 January
M and 16 May 2023 HK$130,201.02 was deposited and withdrawn in full M
with low residual balances. D3 told police he had been indebted to a loan-
N N
shark and surrendered accounts, cards and passwords; he then lost access.
O O
8. In relation to D4 Charge 5 (BOC XXX), between 30 January
P P
and 28 February 2023 HK$4,024,929.14 was deposited by 80 deposits and
Q withdrawn by 109 withdrawals. D4 accepted the account was his. Q
R R
9. In relation to D4 Charge 10 (SCB XXX), between 1 February
S and 4 August 2023 HK$3,088,090.64 was deposited by 84 deposits and S
withdrawn by 264 withdrawals; the balance was zero by 4 August 2023.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
D4 accepted the mandate information was his and acknowledged receiving
C SCB notifications. C
D D
10. In relation to D4 Charge 7 (failing to surrender to lawful
E custody), after first appearance on 24 January 2024 D4 failed to attend on E
12 March 2024. A warrant issued was executed on 18 April 2024. Under
F F
caution he said he had forgotten the date.
G G
Enhancement of sentence
H H
I 11. The Prosecution seeks enhancement under s.27(2)(c) I
(prevalence) and (d) (harm). The defence does not oppose an enhancement
J J
in principle.
K K
12. As to s.27(2)(c), the data in Chief Inspector LI Yiu-nam’s
L L
statement (25 August 2025) show that the use of stooge/mule accounts has
M become a prevalent modus operandi: the proportion of arrestees identified M
as stooges rose from 31.38% (2020) to 75.10% (2024), with 71.46% in the
N N
first 7 months of 2025; reported case numbers increased from 16,643 (2020)
O to 47,063 (2024). I am satisfied that these offences fall squarely within that O
prevalent pattern and that an uplift is justified on this ground.
P P
Q 13. As to s.27(2)(d), while historic losses have been substantial, Q
the most recent figures suggest a downward trajectory and, on the present
R R
material, I am not persuaded to enhance separately for harm under
S paragraph (d). S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
14. Having considered all the circumstances, I allow a 25%
C enhancement under s.27(2)(c) only. C
D D
Mitigation of D2
E E
15. D2 is 54, Hong Kong-born, married in 1995 with two sons,
F F
separated since 2007, and has experienced homelessness since 2008 while
G surviving on casual work without claiming CSSA. His offending is linked G
to longstanding addiction; he engaged in rehabilitation with Yang
H H
Memorial from 2013 and Operation Dawn in 2014–2018 and 2018–2022;
I he briefly reconciled with family around October 2021 and relapsed in I
mid-2022.
J J
K 16. His role was that of a stooge account holder, lending or selling K
accounts for modest rewards (HK$3,000 for Charge 2; HK$1,000 for
L L
Charge 8), with no knowledge of the predicate fraud and no organisational
M responsibility. M
N N
17. He has 8 previous convictions (5 drug-related). On 20
O February 2024, in KTCC 2409/2023, he was sentenced to 10 months for a O
related laundering matter. The materials indicate that case arose in
P P
substantially the same setting and period, involving about HK$1.228
Q million. In applying totality, I have regard to that overlap. Q
R R
18. The defence invites this Court to take a global assessment
S across Charges 2 and 8, using the aggregate of HK$4,768,388.41 when S
fixing the starting point.
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Mitigation of D3
C C
19. D3 is 38, moved from Shenzhen to Hong Kong at 13,
D D
completed junior secondary education, has a clear record, and supports his
E wife, 11-year-old son and 61-year-old mother. He worked as a construction E
slinger (about HK$1,500/day) and is now a casual transportation worker
F F
(about HK$19,000/month).
G G
20. The offences followed a sharp reduction in income during the
H H
pandemic, mounting debts and overdrafts, and the unavailability of bank
I credit. In mid-2022 he borrowed HK$100,000 from a loan shark, fell into I
arrears and, under pressure, surrendered his NCB and SCB accounts and
J J
later opened a DBS account at the lender’s request, handing over cards,
K PINs and online passwords; he then lost access and did not operate the K
accounts.
L L
M 21. His role was limited to providing accounts in exchange for M
debt write-off; he derived no meaningful profit and had no knowledge of
N N
the predicate fraud. The sums were HK$1,629,954.76 (Charge 3),
O HK$2,288,517.69 (Charge 4) and HK$130,201.02 (Charge 9), with O
mirroring/smurfing and rapid withdrawals by others.
P P
Q 22. The defence relies on totality, seeking substantial Q
concurrency because the counts formed a connected course of conduct
R R
within a short timeframe and shared the same modus operandi.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
Mitigation of D4
C C
23. D4 is 50, completed junior secondary education, and has 4
D D
previous convictions, none of which involve money laundering or fraud.
E E
24. He is single, the youngest and only son among 8 siblings, and
F F
has long lived with and supported his 84-year-old mother, working as a
G cleaner (about HK$10,000/month). His mother suffers from severe G
diabetes and hypertension, is wheelchair-bound, and has forthcoming
H H
medical appointments (19 September, 15 October and 24 November 2025),
I which he used to attend with her. I
J J
25. The offences began when an acquaintance introduced “Ah
K Lung”, who sought to use D4’s bank accounts to facilitate deposits and K
withdrawals. D4 handed over cards and passwords for his BOC and SCB
L L
accounts, receiving about HK$6,000. He did not know the victims or the
M predicate crimes, and he did not himself conduct the transactions, M
notwithstanding bank statements or notifications.
N N
O 26. Charge 5 spans roughly 1 month and Charge 10 about 6 O
months; there is no international element; the modus was relatively
P P
unsophisticated and consistent with a stooge-account role.
Q Q
27. For Charge 7, D4 says he failed to attend court because he
R R
forgot the date and he did not intend to abscond or commit any further
S offences while absent. He was arrested about a month later, and S
cooperated thereafter.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
28. The defence seeks substantial concurrency between Charges
C 5 and 10 and, so far as appropriate, concurrency for Charge 7, and asks for C
the most lenient sentence consistent with deterrence.
D D
E Sentencing considerations E
F F
29. The maximum for OSCO s.25 offence is 14 years’
G imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has emphasised that the amount G
laundered is a major consideration, alongside role, knowledge, number of
H H
transactions, duration, sophistication, international dimension and
I syndication (HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545; HKSAR v Boma I
Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33).
J J
K 30. As to starting points by amount, indicative ranges include K
around 3 years where the “black money” is HK$1–2 million; around 4
L L
years where it is HK$3–6 million; and over 5 years where it is above
M HK$10 million (Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 M
HKLRD 201). They are non-exhaustive and subject to the features in each
N N
case.
O O
31. On concurrency for absconding, the general rule is that a
P P
sentence for failing to surrender should be consecutive to mark the distinct
Q harm to the administration of justice unless the substantive sentence is Q
already very long so as to make a further consecutive term unnecessary
R R
(HKSAR v Lo Kam Fai CACC 374/2014).
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Sentencing D2
C C
32. For Charge 2 (HK$3.936 million, BOC), I take a starting
D D
point of 48 months. After the one-third discount for the guilty plea, the
E sentence becomes 32 months. I then apply a 25% enhancement under E
section 27(2)(c), which results in a term of 40 months.
F F
G 33. For Charge 8 (HK$0.832 million, WeLab), I take a starting G
point of 24 months. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the term
H H
becomes 16 months, and after a 25% enhancement it becomes 20 months.
I I
34. Applying the totality principle, I adopt Charge 2 as the anchor
J J
at 40 months. I order 4 months of the sentence on Charge 8 to run
K consecutively, with the balance to run concurrently. The total sentence for K
D2 shall be 44 months’ imprisonment. Yet this is not the end of the matter.
L L
M 35. In respect of KTCC 2409/2023, I understand that it had been M
fully served. Despite that, it is only fair to reflect totality across
N N
proceedings. There are various ways to achieve that. My idea is to reduce
O the sentence of Charge 2 by 4 months, i.e., from 40 months to 36 months. O
As a result the total sentence for D2 in the present case is 40 months.
P P
Q Sentencing D3 Q
R R
36. For Charge 4 (HK$2.289 million, SCB), I take a starting point
S of 36 months. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the sentence is S
24 months, and after a 25% enhancement it becomes 30 months.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
37. For Charge 3 (HK$1.630 million, NCB), I take a starting
C point of 30 months. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the sentence C
is 20 months, and after a 25% enhancement it becomes 25 months.
D D
E 38. For Charge 9 (HK$0.13 million, DBS), I take a starting point E
of 12 months. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the sentence is 8
F F
months, and after a 25% enhancement it becomes 10 months.
G G
39. Applying the totality principle, I adopt Charge 4 as the anchor
H H
at 30 months. I order 8 months of the sentence on Charge 3 and 2 months
I of the sentence on Charge 9 to run consecutively, with the balance to run I
concurrently. The total sentence for D3 is therefore 40 months’
J J
imprisonment.
K K
Sentencing D4
L L
M 40. For Charge 5 (HK$4.025 million, BOC), I take a starting M
point of 48 months. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the sentence
N N
is 32 months, and after a 25% enhancement it becomes 40 months.
O O
41. For Charge 10 (HK$3.088 million, SCB), I take a starting
P P
point of 48 months. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the sentence
Q is 32 months, and after a 25% enhancement it becomes 40 months. Q
R R
42. For Charge 7 (failing to surrender), I take a starting point of
S 12 weeks. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the sentence is 8 S
weeks. No section 27 enhancement applies to this offence.
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
43. Applying the totality principle, I adopt Charge 5 as the anchor
C at 40 months. I order 12 months of the sentence on Charge 10 to run C
consecutively, with the balance to run concurrently. I further order the
D D
eight-week sentence on Charge 7 to run consecutively to mark the distinct
E harm to the administration of justice. For clarity, treating 8 weeks as 2 E
months, the total term for D4 is 54 months’ imprisonment.
F F
G G
H H
( E Yip )
District Judge
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 355, 597, 637 & 1489/2024 (Consolidated)
C [2025] HKDC 1550 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 355, 597, 637 AND 1489 OF 2024
F F
G ----------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I RAI PIRTAM (D2) I
NGAN SHUN FAAT (D3)
J J
SHUM CHI KEUNG (D4)
K K
-----------------------------------------
L L
Before: HH Judge E Yip
M M
Date: 10 September 2025
N Present: Mr Wayne Lee, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR N
Mr Lee Pak Chau, instructed by Mike So, Joseph Lau & Co,
O O
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant
P Ms Manyi Tsang, instructed by Chow Wong & Lawyers, P
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd defendant
Q Q
Mr Kalvin Chan, instructed by C L Chow & Macksion Chan,
R Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 3rd R
defendant
S S
Ms Rachel Po, instructed by KCL & Partners, assigned by the
T Director of Legal Aid, for the 4th defendant T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Offence: [2] – [5] , [8] – [10] Dealing with property known or believed
C to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或 C
相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產)
D D
[7] Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause (無
E E
合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押)
F F
-----------------------------------------
G G
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
H ----------------------------------------- H
I I
Introduction and pleas
J J
1. D2, D3 and D4 each plead guilty to their respective charges
K K
of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an
L indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and L
Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455) (“OSCO”).
M M
N 2. The Prosecution applies for a sentence enhancement under N
OSCO section 27(2)(c) and (d).
O O
P Facts P
Q Q
3. In relation to D2 Charge 2 (BOC XXX), between 24
R November 2022 and 6 March 2023 a total of HK$3,936,430.91 was R
deposited by 146 deposits and withdrawn by 718 withdrawals, exhibiting
S S
mirroring and smurfing patterns. Under caution, D2 accepted lending his
T
account to a person referred to as “Ah Lung” for reward while unemployed. T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 4. In relation to D2 Charge 8 (Welab XXX), between 26 October C
and 1 November 2022 the account received 268 deposits totalling
D D
HK$831,957.50, followed by rapid withdrawals and low end-day balances.
E D2 stated that “Ah Long/Ah Lung” helped him open the account and then E
used it; D2 sold the account for HK$1,000.
F F
G 5. In relation to D3 Charge 3 (NCB XXX), between 27 January G
and 8 February 2023 HK$1,629,954.76 was deposited by 88 deposits and
H H
withdrawn by 63 withdrawals, showing mirroring.
I I
6. In relation to D3 Charge 4 (SCB XXX), between 10 January
J J
and 31 March 2023 HK$2,288,517.69 was deposited by 43 deposits and
K withdrawn by 188 withdrawals, showing mirroring and smurfing. K
L L
7. In relation to D3 Charge 9 (DBS XXX), between 12 January
M and 16 May 2023 HK$130,201.02 was deposited and withdrawn in full M
with low residual balances. D3 told police he had been indebted to a loan-
N N
shark and surrendered accounts, cards and passwords; he then lost access.
O O
8. In relation to D4 Charge 5 (BOC XXX), between 30 January
P P
and 28 February 2023 HK$4,024,929.14 was deposited by 80 deposits and
Q withdrawn by 109 withdrawals. D4 accepted the account was his. Q
R R
9. In relation to D4 Charge 10 (SCB XXX), between 1 February
S and 4 August 2023 HK$3,088,090.64 was deposited by 84 deposits and S
withdrawn by 264 withdrawals; the balance was zero by 4 August 2023.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
D4 accepted the mandate information was his and acknowledged receiving
C SCB notifications. C
D D
10. In relation to D4 Charge 7 (failing to surrender to lawful
E custody), after first appearance on 24 January 2024 D4 failed to attend on E
12 March 2024. A warrant issued was executed on 18 April 2024. Under
F F
caution he said he had forgotten the date.
G G
Enhancement of sentence
H H
I 11. The Prosecution seeks enhancement under s.27(2)(c) I
(prevalence) and (d) (harm). The defence does not oppose an enhancement
J J
in principle.
K K
12. As to s.27(2)(c), the data in Chief Inspector LI Yiu-nam’s
L L
statement (25 August 2025) show that the use of stooge/mule accounts has
M become a prevalent modus operandi: the proportion of arrestees identified M
as stooges rose from 31.38% (2020) to 75.10% (2024), with 71.46% in the
N N
first 7 months of 2025; reported case numbers increased from 16,643 (2020)
O to 47,063 (2024). I am satisfied that these offences fall squarely within that O
prevalent pattern and that an uplift is justified on this ground.
P P
Q 13. As to s.27(2)(d), while historic losses have been substantial, Q
the most recent figures suggest a downward trajectory and, on the present
R R
material, I am not persuaded to enhance separately for harm under
S paragraph (d). S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
14. Having considered all the circumstances, I allow a 25%
C enhancement under s.27(2)(c) only. C
D D
Mitigation of D2
E E
15. D2 is 54, Hong Kong-born, married in 1995 with two sons,
F F
separated since 2007, and has experienced homelessness since 2008 while
G surviving on casual work without claiming CSSA. His offending is linked G
to longstanding addiction; he engaged in rehabilitation with Yang
H H
Memorial from 2013 and Operation Dawn in 2014–2018 and 2018–2022;
I he briefly reconciled with family around October 2021 and relapsed in I
mid-2022.
J J
K 16. His role was that of a stooge account holder, lending or selling K
accounts for modest rewards (HK$3,000 for Charge 2; HK$1,000 for
L L
Charge 8), with no knowledge of the predicate fraud and no organisational
M responsibility. M
N N
17. He has 8 previous convictions (5 drug-related). On 20
O February 2024, in KTCC 2409/2023, he was sentenced to 10 months for a O
related laundering matter. The materials indicate that case arose in
P P
substantially the same setting and period, involving about HK$1.228
Q million. In applying totality, I have regard to that overlap. Q
R R
18. The defence invites this Court to take a global assessment
S across Charges 2 and 8, using the aggregate of HK$4,768,388.41 when S
fixing the starting point.
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Mitigation of D3
C C
19. D3 is 38, moved from Shenzhen to Hong Kong at 13,
D D
completed junior secondary education, has a clear record, and supports his
E wife, 11-year-old son and 61-year-old mother. He worked as a construction E
slinger (about HK$1,500/day) and is now a casual transportation worker
F F
(about HK$19,000/month).
G G
20. The offences followed a sharp reduction in income during the
H H
pandemic, mounting debts and overdrafts, and the unavailability of bank
I credit. In mid-2022 he borrowed HK$100,000 from a loan shark, fell into I
arrears and, under pressure, surrendered his NCB and SCB accounts and
J J
later opened a DBS account at the lender’s request, handing over cards,
K PINs and online passwords; he then lost access and did not operate the K
accounts.
L L
M 21. His role was limited to providing accounts in exchange for M
debt write-off; he derived no meaningful profit and had no knowledge of
N N
the predicate fraud. The sums were HK$1,629,954.76 (Charge 3),
O HK$2,288,517.69 (Charge 4) and HK$130,201.02 (Charge 9), with O
mirroring/smurfing and rapid withdrawals by others.
P P
Q 22. The defence relies on totality, seeking substantial Q
concurrency because the counts formed a connected course of conduct
R R
within a short timeframe and shared the same modus operandi.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
Mitigation of D4
C C
23. D4 is 50, completed junior secondary education, and has 4
D D
previous convictions, none of which involve money laundering or fraud.
E E
24. He is single, the youngest and only son among 8 siblings, and
F F
has long lived with and supported his 84-year-old mother, working as a
G cleaner (about HK$10,000/month). His mother suffers from severe G
diabetes and hypertension, is wheelchair-bound, and has forthcoming
H H
medical appointments (19 September, 15 October and 24 November 2025),
I which he used to attend with her. I
J J
25. The offences began when an acquaintance introduced “Ah
K Lung”, who sought to use D4’s bank accounts to facilitate deposits and K
withdrawals. D4 handed over cards and passwords for his BOC and SCB
L L
accounts, receiving about HK$6,000. He did not know the victims or the
M predicate crimes, and he did not himself conduct the transactions, M
notwithstanding bank statements or notifications.
N N
O 26. Charge 5 spans roughly 1 month and Charge 10 about 6 O
months; there is no international element; the modus was relatively
P P
unsophisticated and consistent with a stooge-account role.
Q Q
27. For Charge 7, D4 says he failed to attend court because he
R R
forgot the date and he did not intend to abscond or commit any further
S offences while absent. He was arrested about a month later, and S
cooperated thereafter.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
28. The defence seeks substantial concurrency between Charges
C 5 and 10 and, so far as appropriate, concurrency for Charge 7, and asks for C
the most lenient sentence consistent with deterrence.
D D
E Sentencing considerations E
F F
29. The maximum for OSCO s.25 offence is 14 years’
G imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has emphasised that the amount G
laundered is a major consideration, alongside role, knowledge, number of
H H
transactions, duration, sophistication, international dimension and
I syndication (HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545; HKSAR v Boma I
Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33).
J J
K 30. As to starting points by amount, indicative ranges include K
around 3 years where the “black money” is HK$1–2 million; around 4
L L
years where it is HK$3–6 million; and over 5 years where it is above
M HK$10 million (Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 M
HKLRD 201). They are non-exhaustive and subject to the features in each
N N
case.
O O
31. On concurrency for absconding, the general rule is that a
P P
sentence for failing to surrender should be consecutive to mark the distinct
Q harm to the administration of justice unless the substantive sentence is Q
already very long so as to make a further consecutive term unnecessary
R R
(HKSAR v Lo Kam Fai CACC 374/2014).
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Sentencing D2
C C
32. For Charge 2 (HK$3.936 million, BOC), I take a starting
D D
point of 48 months. After the one-third discount for the guilty plea, the
E sentence becomes 32 months. I then apply a 25% enhancement under E
section 27(2)(c), which results in a term of 40 months.
F F
G 33. For Charge 8 (HK$0.832 million, WeLab), I take a starting G
point of 24 months. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the term
H H
becomes 16 months, and after a 25% enhancement it becomes 20 months.
I I
34. Applying the totality principle, I adopt Charge 2 as the anchor
J J
at 40 months. I order 4 months of the sentence on Charge 8 to run
K consecutively, with the balance to run concurrently. The total sentence for K
D2 shall be 44 months’ imprisonment. Yet this is not the end of the matter.
L L
M 35. In respect of KTCC 2409/2023, I understand that it had been M
fully served. Despite that, it is only fair to reflect totality across
N N
proceedings. There are various ways to achieve that. My idea is to reduce
O the sentence of Charge 2 by 4 months, i.e., from 40 months to 36 months. O
As a result the total sentence for D2 in the present case is 40 months.
P P
Q Sentencing D3 Q
R R
36. For Charge 4 (HK$2.289 million, SCB), I take a starting point
S of 36 months. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the sentence is S
24 months, and after a 25% enhancement it becomes 30 months.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
37. For Charge 3 (HK$1.630 million, NCB), I take a starting
C point of 30 months. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the sentence C
is 20 months, and after a 25% enhancement it becomes 25 months.
D D
E 38. For Charge 9 (HK$0.13 million, DBS), I take a starting point E
of 12 months. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the sentence is 8
F F
months, and after a 25% enhancement it becomes 10 months.
G G
39. Applying the totality principle, I adopt Charge 4 as the anchor
H H
at 30 months. I order 8 months of the sentence on Charge 3 and 2 months
I of the sentence on Charge 9 to run consecutively, with the balance to run I
concurrently. The total sentence for D3 is therefore 40 months’
J J
imprisonment.
K K
Sentencing D4
L L
M 40. For Charge 5 (HK$4.025 million, BOC), I take a starting M
point of 48 months. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the sentence
N N
is 32 months, and after a 25% enhancement it becomes 40 months.
O O
41. For Charge 10 (HK$3.088 million, SCB), I take a starting
P P
point of 48 months. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the sentence
Q is 32 months, and after a 25% enhancement it becomes 40 months. Q
R R
42. For Charge 7 (failing to surrender), I take a starting point of
S 12 weeks. After the one-third discount for guilty plea the sentence is 8 S
weeks. No section 27 enhancement applies to this offence.
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
43. Applying the totality principle, I adopt Charge 5 as the anchor
C at 40 months. I order 12 months of the sentence on Charge 10 to run C
consecutively, with the balance to run concurrently. I further order the
D D
eight-week sentence on Charge 7 to run consecutively to mark the distinct
E harm to the administration of justice. For clarity, treating 8 weeks as 2 E
months, the total term for D4 is 54 months’ imprisonment.
F F
G G
H H
( E Yip )
District Judge
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