A HCCC 374/2024 A
[2025] HKCFI 5543
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 374 OF 2024
D ----------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F F
Leung Yau-ho (A1)
Mak Pui-i (A2)
G Wong Wai (A3) G
Chan Po-to (A4)
H ----------------- H
I
Before: Hon Andrew Chan J I
Date: 23 September 2025 at 11.12 am
Present: Mr Marcus Lee, SPP of the Department of Justice, for
J HKSAR J
Mr Ho Wai-kin Victor, instructed by Alvin
Cheng & Rosaline Choy, assigned by DLA, for the
K 2nd accused K
Miss Wu Ho-see Joyce, instructed by Benjamin Au & Billy
L Chan, assigned by DLA, for the 3rd accused L
Offence: (1) Forcible detention of a person with intent to
procure a ransom for liberation (將某人強行禁錮而意圖
M 取得用以交換釋放該人的贖金) M
(2) Robbery (搶劫罪) (against A1, A2, and A3)
N N
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
O of the Sentence in the above Case O
---------------------------------
P P
COURT: The 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant, D2 and D3, have
pleaded guilty to one count of forcible taking away or
Q detention of a person with intent to procure a ransom for Q
his liberation, contrary to section 42 of the Offences
Against the Person Ordinance, and one count of robbery,
R contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance. They are R
committed to this court for sentence.
S S
Summary of Facts revealed the following. The victim and D2
had been friends for over 10 years. On 1 September 2021,
T the victim received a call from D2 whom he fancied to be his T
girlfriend. D2 indicated that she had been short of money,
broken up with her boyfriend and could have sex with the
U U
CRT23/23.9.2025/JC 1 HCCC 374/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A victim. The victim then went to Bell House, a building in A
Yau Ma Tei, to meet D2.
B Upon arrival at the corridor on the 7th floor, the victim B
was then pushed into a room of one hostel. He was assaulted
by both D1 and D3 repeatedly. In the course of the attack,
C C
D3 even used a baseball bat to strike the victim. The
victim was then taken to Room 9 of the hostel. Inside that
D room, the victim was tied up, blindfolded, and kicked and D
stepped on his head by the gang of D1 and D3. Well, D1 and
D3 were members of the gang plus others. Bank cards, mobile
E phones, and $3,500 cash were taken away. The above actions E
formed the subject matters of the robbery charge. D3 also
demanded passwords from the victim for the online and
F F
telephone banking, ATM cards, and Alipay accounts. The
victim succumbed under the pressure.
G G
Attempts were made to withdraw money from the victim’s bank
accounts but unsuccessfully. Allegations of D2 being raped
H by the victim and debt being owed, which were denied by the H
victim, had been made. Upon his denial, the victim was
I
further assaulted. Later on, negotiation as to the amount I
of repayment for the victim’s release had taken place
between the parties. As a result, the victim stated that he
J could obtain $40,000 from his family. The victim then J
called up his aunt. After an agreement had been reached, D3
then started to remove the blindfold and untied the victim.
K K
When members of the gang, ie D1 and D4, met up with the
L aunt, ie the victim’s family member, with a view to collect L
the 40,000 repayment or ransom, they were arrested by
police. D2 and D3 were arrested on the next date. Police
M also found the victim’s blood on a pair of jeans worn by D2 M
at the material time.
N D2 is now 31, educated up to Form 3 level. Prior to her N
arrest, she was unemployed. She has one unrelated criminal
O record. D3 is now 41, educated up to Form 1 level. Prior O
to his arrest, he was also unemployed. He has five criminal
records, two relating to robbery.
P P
In a case as serious as the present one, personal
circumstances pale into insignificance. Both offences are
Q Q
serious offences with a maximum sentence of life
imprisonment. In HKSAR v KAN Chan-hung and Another, CACC
R 489/2002, it was held that section 42 of the Offence Against R
the Person Ordinance was a very serious one and warranted a
severe deterrent sentence. The maximum was life
S imprisonment and the minimum was no less than 8 years’ S
imprisonment.
T T
In this case, violence had been inflicted onto the victim.
He was blindfolded and tied up. Luckily he did not suffer
U or sustain any serious injuries. The notable injuries were U
lacerations on his face near his right eye. In this case,
CRT23/23.9.2025/JC 2 HCCC 374/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A the whole uptime also was not that lengthy. I believe it A
was only seven hours in total.
B Although the ransom money demanded for the victim’s release B
was not substantial, the means used in demanding repayment
in such a way should be deterred. The commission of such
C C
offence nevertheless should not be encouraged. In this
particular case, the plan to lure the victim into coming to
D the hostel was carefully planned and orchestrated. D
After a careful consideration of all the circumstances,
E 12 years’ imprisonment will be adopted as the starting E
point. In this case, both D2 and D3 provided
non-prejudicial statements to the police implicating the
F F
mastermind, one Coco Zheng, so that her name had been put
onto the wanted list. As such, a 40 per cent discount would
G be given. For the 1st count, both defendants are sentenced G
to 86 months’ imprisonment.
H As to the 2nd count of robbery, this was also a serious H
robbery involving the use of violence with a weapon, ie a
I
baseball bat. Violence was inflicted before the robbery. I
Further violence was also inflicted after the robbery when
the ATM bank card could not be used to withdraw money. Wild
J allegations had been made and victim was blindfolded and J
tied up at the time. He was assaulted by a gang of multiple
persons. No doubt, the victim was terrified at the time.
K Having considered all the circumstances of the case, a K
starting point of 9 years will be adopted for D2. A 40 per
L cent discount will be given for D2. As such, she is L
sentenced to 64 months’ imprisonment.
M For D3, he has two similar robbery records. Given his prior M
similar records, the starting point for D3 will be increased
to one of 10 years’ imprisonment. A 40 per cent discount
N will also be given to D3. As such, he is sentenced to N
72 months’ imprisonment in respect of Count 2. In respect
O of D2, 24 months of Count 2 is ordered to run consecutively O
to the 86 months imposed on Count 1. In respect of D3,
30 months of Count 2 is ordered to run consecutively to the
P 86 months imposed on Count 1. P
For the two counts of offences both D2 and D3 stand
Q Q
convicted, they are sentenced to 110 and 116 months, ie
9 years and 2 months and 9 years and 8 months’ imprisonment
R respectively. R
I/we certify that to the best of my/our ability
and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript of
S the audio recording of the above proceedings S
T T
.........................................
U Jeremiah Barcena Castro U
Date: 30 September 2025
CRT23/23.9.2025/JC 3 HCCC 374/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A HCCC 374/2024 A
[2025] HKCFI 5543
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 374 OF 2024
D ----------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F F
Leung Yau-ho (A1)
Mak Pui-i (A2)
G Wong Wai (A3) G
Chan Po-to (A4)
H ----------------- H
I
Before: Hon Andrew Chan J I
Date: 23 September 2025 at 11.12 am
Present: Mr Marcus Lee, SPP of the Department of Justice, for
J HKSAR J
Mr Ho Wai-kin Victor, instructed by Alvin
Cheng & Rosaline Choy, assigned by DLA, for the
K 2nd accused K
Miss Wu Ho-see Joyce, instructed by Benjamin Au & Billy
L Chan, assigned by DLA, for the 3rd accused L
Offence: (1) Forcible detention of a person with intent to
procure a ransom for liberation (將某人強行禁錮而意圖
M 取得用以交換釋放該人的贖金) M
(2) Robbery (搶劫罪) (against A1, A2, and A3)
N N
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
O of the Sentence in the above Case O
---------------------------------
P P
COURT: The 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant, D2 and D3, have
pleaded guilty to one count of forcible taking away or
Q detention of a person with intent to procure a ransom for Q
his liberation, contrary to section 42 of the Offences
Against the Person Ordinance, and one count of robbery,
R contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance. They are R
committed to this court for sentence.
S S
Summary of Facts revealed the following. The victim and D2
had been friends for over 10 years. On 1 September 2021,
T the victim received a call from D2 whom he fancied to be his T
girlfriend. D2 indicated that she had been short of money,
broken up with her boyfriend and could have sex with the
U U
CRT23/23.9.2025/JC 1 HCCC 374/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A victim. The victim then went to Bell House, a building in A
Yau Ma Tei, to meet D2.
B Upon arrival at the corridor on the 7th floor, the victim B
was then pushed into a room of one hostel. He was assaulted
by both D1 and D3 repeatedly. In the course of the attack,
C C
D3 even used a baseball bat to strike the victim. The
victim was then taken to Room 9 of the hostel. Inside that
D room, the victim was tied up, blindfolded, and kicked and D
stepped on his head by the gang of D1 and D3. Well, D1 and
D3 were members of the gang plus others. Bank cards, mobile
E phones, and $3,500 cash were taken away. The above actions E
formed the subject matters of the robbery charge. D3 also
demanded passwords from the victim for the online and
F F
telephone banking, ATM cards, and Alipay accounts. The
victim succumbed under the pressure.
G G
Attempts were made to withdraw money from the victim’s bank
accounts but unsuccessfully. Allegations of D2 being raped
H by the victim and debt being owed, which were denied by the H
victim, had been made. Upon his denial, the victim was
I
further assaulted. Later on, negotiation as to the amount I
of repayment for the victim’s release had taken place
between the parties. As a result, the victim stated that he
J could obtain $40,000 from his family. The victim then J
called up his aunt. After an agreement had been reached, D3
then started to remove the blindfold and untied the victim.
K K
When members of the gang, ie D1 and D4, met up with the
L aunt, ie the victim’s family member, with a view to collect L
the 40,000 repayment or ransom, they were arrested by
police. D2 and D3 were arrested on the next date. Police
M also found the victim’s blood on a pair of jeans worn by D2 M
at the material time.
N D2 is now 31, educated up to Form 3 level. Prior to her N
arrest, she was unemployed. She has one unrelated criminal
O record. D3 is now 41, educated up to Form 1 level. Prior O
to his arrest, he was also unemployed. He has five criminal
records, two relating to robbery.
P P
In a case as serious as the present one, personal
circumstances pale into insignificance. Both offences are
Q Q
serious offences with a maximum sentence of life
imprisonment. In HKSAR v KAN Chan-hung and Another, CACC
R 489/2002, it was held that section 42 of the Offence Against R
the Person Ordinance was a very serious one and warranted a
severe deterrent sentence. The maximum was life
S imprisonment and the minimum was no less than 8 years’ S
imprisonment.
T T
In this case, violence had been inflicted onto the victim.
He was blindfolded and tied up. Luckily he did not suffer
U or sustain any serious injuries. The notable injuries were U
lacerations on his face near his right eye. In this case,
CRT23/23.9.2025/JC 2 HCCC 374/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A the whole uptime also was not that lengthy. I believe it A
was only seven hours in total.
B Although the ransom money demanded for the victim’s release B
was not substantial, the means used in demanding repayment
in such a way should be deterred. The commission of such
C C
offence nevertheless should not be encouraged. In this
particular case, the plan to lure the victim into coming to
D the hostel was carefully planned and orchestrated. D
After a careful consideration of all the circumstances,
E 12 years’ imprisonment will be adopted as the starting E
point. In this case, both D2 and D3 provided
non-prejudicial statements to the police implicating the
F F
mastermind, one Coco Zheng, so that her name had been put
onto the wanted list. As such, a 40 per cent discount would
G be given. For the 1st count, both defendants are sentenced G
to 86 months’ imprisonment.
H As to the 2nd count of robbery, this was also a serious H
robbery involving the use of violence with a weapon, ie a
I
baseball bat. Violence was inflicted before the robbery. I
Further violence was also inflicted after the robbery when
the ATM bank card could not be used to withdraw money. Wild
J allegations had been made and victim was blindfolded and J
tied up at the time. He was assaulted by a gang of multiple
persons. No doubt, the victim was terrified at the time.
K Having considered all the circumstances of the case, a K
starting point of 9 years will be adopted for D2. A 40 per
L cent discount will be given for D2. As such, she is L
sentenced to 64 months’ imprisonment.
M For D3, he has two similar robbery records. Given his prior M
similar records, the starting point for D3 will be increased
to one of 10 years’ imprisonment. A 40 per cent discount
N will also be given to D3. As such, he is sentenced to N
72 months’ imprisonment in respect of Count 2. In respect
O of D2, 24 months of Count 2 is ordered to run consecutively O
to the 86 months imposed on Count 1. In respect of D3,
30 months of Count 2 is ordered to run consecutively to the
P 86 months imposed on Count 1. P
For the two counts of offences both D2 and D3 stand
Q Q
convicted, they are sentenced to 110 and 116 months, ie
9 years and 2 months and 9 years and 8 months’ imprisonment
R respectively. R
I/we certify that to the best of my/our ability
and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript of
S the audio recording of the above proceedings S
T T
.........................................
U Jeremiah Barcena Castro U
Date: 30 September 2025
CRT23/23.9.2025/JC 3 HCCC 374/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
HCCC374/2024 HKSAR v. LEUNG YAU HO AND OTHERS - LawHero