DCCC615/2025

DCCC615/2025

A A B B DCCC 613/2025 C DCCC 614/2025 C DCCC 615/2025 D D [2025] HKDC 1700 E E IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE F F HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION G CRIMINAL CASE NO 613 OF 2025 G H H ------------------------------- I HKSAR I v J J HO CHI HO (D1) K CHEUNG HOI YI (D2) K ------------------------------- L L M M IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE N N HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION O CRIMINAL CASE NO 614 OF 2025 O P P ------------------------------- Q HKSAR Q v R R SUBBA NIRMAN (D1) S THEBE KRISH (D2) S RAI PREMENDRA KUMAR (D3) T T ------------------------------- U U V V  -2- A A B B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE C HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION C CRIMINAL CASE NO 615 OF 2025 D D E ------------------------------- E HKSAR F F v G YAM WING KIT (D1) G WONG ON TIK (D2) H H MOK TSZ CHUN (D3) I LIN YU QI (D4) I ------------------------------- J J K Before: Her Honour Judge Ada Yim in Court K Date of Ruling: 24 October 2025 L L Offence: DCCC 613/2025 M [1] Conspiracy to engage in bookmaking (串謀從事收受賭注) M [2] Conspiracy to promote or facilitate bookmaking or betting N N with a bookmaker (串謀推廣或便利收受賭注或向收受賭注 O O 者投注) P [3] Dealing with property known or believed to represent P proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代表 Q Q 從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) R R DCCC 614/2025 S [1] to [7] Dealing with property known or believed to represent S proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代表 T T 從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) U U V V  -3- A A B B DCCC 615/2025 C [1] Engaging in bookmaking (收受賭注) C [2] to [11], [13] to [15] Dealing with property known or D D believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已 E 知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) E F [12] Conspiracy to engage in bookmaking (串謀收受賭注) F [16] & [17] Conspiracy to promote or facilitate bookmaking or G G betting with a bookmaker (串謀推廣或便利收受賭注或向收 H 受賭注者投注) H I I J J ---------------------------------------------------- K RULING ON THE PROSECUTION’S K APPLICATION FOR CONSOLIDATION L L ---------------------------------------------------- M M N N A. INTRODUCTION O O 1. This is the prosecution’s application for consolidation of P P DCCC 613/2025, DCCC 614/2025 and DCCC 615/2025. D1 & D2 of Q DCCC613/2025 and D1, D2 & D3 of DCCC 615/2025 object to the Q application, i.e. D1, D2, D6, D7 and D8 in the consolidated case. For easy R R reference, I would refer the defendants thereafter by their respective S number in the consolidated case. The charges laid against each Defendant S in the said cases have been summarized by the prosecution as below:- T T U U V V  -4- A A B B Case no. Charges Defendant in the C [Charge number in the consolidated case] consolidated C case D DCCC (Charge 1) Conspiracy to engage in D1 and D2 D 613/2025 bookmaking [1] E (Charge 2) Conspiracy to promote or D1 and D2 E facilitate bookmaking or betting with a F bookmaker [2] F (Charge 3) Money laundering [3] D1 G G DCCC (Charges 1-4) Money laundering [4-7] D3 614/2025 (Charges 5-6) Money laundering [8,9] D4 H H (Charge 7) Money laundering [10] D5 DCCC (Charge 1) Engaging in bookmaking [11] D6 I I 615/2025 (Charges 2-3) Money laundering [6,8] D6 J (Charge 4) Money laundering [12] D6 and D7 J (Charges 5-11) Money laundering [13-19] D7 K (Charge 12) Conspiracy to engage in D8 K bookmaking [20] L (Charges 13-14) Money laundering [21,22] D8 and D9 L (Charge 15) Money laundering [23] D9 M (Charge 16) Conspiracy to promote or D6 M facilitate bookmaking or betting with a N bookmaker [24] N (Charge 17) Conspiracy to promote or D8 O facilitate bookmaking or betting with a O bookmaker [25] P P Q B. BACKGROUND Q R R 2. In 2022 Police carried out a decoy operation against a mobile S app called “Bigman App” (the App). The App was managed and operated S by “Big Man HK Technology Limited” (the Company) since July 2019. T T The App contained different gambling games. U U V V  -5- A A B B C 3. Only “Star Tokens”, which could be purchased or cashed out C at HK$1 per unit, could be used to play games inside the clubs enrolled via D D the App. In topping up and cashing the “Star Token” bank accounts of D3, E D4, D5, D7 and D9 were involved. E F 4. Investigation revealed that: F G • D1 was at the time of the arrest the sole director and a shareholder G H holding 5% shares of the Company running the App. At that time, H D2 was an employee of the Company. I I • D1 was one of the two authorized signatories of the Company’s bank J J account and only single signature is required to operate the bank K account. D1 admitted managing the bank account. K L L • D6 was involved in purchasing bank accounts from unknown M persons for receiving the deposits made by players using the App. M N N • The WhatsApp record retrieved from the mobile phones of D6 and O O D8 showed that they were involved in the operation and the P promotion of the App. P Q 5. D1 to D9 were arrested or re-arrested on different dates, and Q were separated into 5 cases when first appeared at the Magistrates’ Court:- R R (a) STCC 3246/2022: against D1-D2 (b) STCC 5132/2024: against D3 S S (c) STCC 5097/2024: against D4 (d) STCC 336/2025: against D5 T (e) STCC 4/2025: against D6-D9 T U U V V  -6- A A B B C 6. Prosecution intended to apply consolidation of all the 5 cases C in Magistrates’ Court, but for certain practical considerations, prosecution D D only applied for the consolidation of STCC 5132/2024, STCC 5097/2024 E and STCC 336/2025, and reserved the right to apply consolidation of all E the cases in District Court. F F G 7. At the last mention hearing at the District Court on 24 July G 2025, the prosecution applied for consolidation of the present 3 cases. D1, H H D2 and D6-D8 have indicated their objection on the said application. I I J C. The Law J 8. Rule 7 of the Indictment Rules, Cap.221C provides: K K L “Subject to section 18 of the Ordinance, charges for any L offences may be joined in the same indictment if those charges are founded on the same facts, or form or are a part of M M a series of offences of the same or a similar character.” N N O D. PROSECUTION CASE O P 9. From the respective Charge Sheet and the Summary of Facts P for the 3 cases, the charges faced by the defendants stemmed from the same Q Q incident, namely the business and/or the App operated and managed by the R Company. R S S T T U U V V  -7- A A B B 10. The charges concerned in the 3 cases could be categorized C into 2 main aspects (i.e. offences related to (i) bookmaking; and (ii) money C laundering), which rely on, inter alia, the same factual basis. D D 11. The facts and evidence relating to the separate offences were E E sufficiently connected. The evidence relating to Charges 1-25 are F intertwined and involved the same important common witness. F G G 12. There is no evidence suggesting that, by having D1-D9 tried H together, they may be prejudiced or embarrassed in their defence: Section H 23(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221. I I J E. DEFENCE CASE J K D1, D2, D6 & D8 K L 13. While D1 and D2 were related to the Company, it is not L alleged that D6 or D8 was employed by or involved in the Company. D1 M M and D2 also not jointly charged with D6 and D8. N N 14. In the absence of any factual nexus that brings or may bring O O D1 and D2, D3 to D9 and their alleged offences together, it is improper P and wrong to join D1 and D2 together with the other defendants in the same P Charge Sheet. Further, it will definitely bring unnecessary burden to the Q Q Court. R R D7 S S 15. When deciding applications for consolidation and joinder, the T Court should have regard not only to what is permitted by the rules, but T U U V V  -8- A A B B also to whether the interests of justice are best served by one long trial or C several shorter ones. C D D 16. 8 out of 25 counts of the consolidated case are against D7, all E are about money laundering. The consolidation would result in an unduly E long or complicated trial and place an unfair burden on the trial judge. The F F court should consider to sever the cases into 2 categories: i.e. offences G related to (i) bookmaking; and (ii) money laundering. G H H F. DISCUSSION I I 17. As revealed in the brief facts, this is a case of bookmaking J operation via mobile App and making use of stooge accounts. Thus when J D1 & D2 and D6 & D8 say their case is unrelated to each other because K K D6 & D8 were not related to the Company, they are digressing from the L issue. The issue is whether they engaging, facilitating, or promoting L booking via the App. That all 25 charges stemmed from the same operation M M is beyond argument. N N O 18. I consider and agree with the prosecution that this is a case in O which the predicate offences (i.e. bookmaking related offences) are known. P P The stooge accounts involved in handling the crime proceeds derived from Q the predicate offences, which themselves form part of the series of offence. Q Separating the money laundering offences from the bookmaking offences R R would deprive the court of the opportunity to consider the full picture of S the syndicate’s scope, which is relevant to the assessment of the defendants’ S criminality. T T U U V V  -9- A A B B 19. The prosecution and D7 correctly divide the charges C concerned into 2 categories, i.e. offences related to (i) the engaging, C facilitation, or promotion of booking via the App (D1, D2, D6 & D8) and D D (ii) money laundering (D1, D3 to D9). However, D1, D2, D6 to D8 submit E that to avoid the court being unnecessarily overburdened, the charges E should be severed. F F 20. D1, D2, D6 and D8 propose to sever the charges into 3 shorter G G trials: (1) charges against D1 & D2, (2) charges against D3 to D7, (3) H charges against D8 & D9. Thus the trial of D1, D2, D8 and D9 could be H conducted in Chinese and save time and costs. Should that be the case, I I evidence related to the bookmaking and the App would need to be heard in J three separate trials, as D1, D2, D6 and D8 are all charged with offences J related to booking, while the translation work would need to be done in K K anyway for D3 to D5. L L 21. D7 suggests to sever the cases into 2 categories, the main trial M M against D1, D2, D6 and D8 concerning offences related to bookmaking. N Where these defendants have money laundering offences, it would be just N and convenient to consolidate them in the main trial. Individual separate O O trials against the 5 stooges for their respective money laundering offences. P D7 might have overlooked, while the prosecution rightly points out, that P D7 and 3 other stooges are jointly charged with D6 or D8 for money Q Q laundering. R R 22. In the present bookmaking operation, D1, D6 and D8 apart S from offences related to bookmaking (Charge 1, 2, 11, 20, 24, 25 of the S Consolidated Charge Sheet) they are also charged with money laundering, T T U U V V  - 10 - A A B B on their own (Charge 3 of the Consolidated Charge Sheet) or jointly with C another defendant: C D • D6 and D3, D4 & D7 are jointly charged with money laundering D (Charge 6, 8, 12 of the Consolidated Charge Sheet); E E • D8 and D9 also jointly charged with money laundering (Charge 21, F 22 of the Consolidated Charge Sheet). F G Only D5 has one count of money laundering on his own (Charge 10 of the G Consolidated Charge Sheet). H H I 23. It is the prosecution case that D1 used the Company’s account I to deal with the bookmaking transaction and D6 & D8 operate some of the J J stooge accounts. The use of stooge accounts is part of the bookmaking K operation, as mentioned above this is relevant to the scale of the operation. K L L 24. 9 defendants and 25 counts seem to be numerous, yet 5 out of M the 9 defendants are stooges, 19 out of the 25 counts related to money M laundering, as some stooges are charged for more than one bank account: N N D3 is charged for 3 bank accounts, D7 is charged for 7 bank accounts. O O 25. The 8 counts related to D7 are amounting to almost one third P P of the charges. D7 submits that the prosecution case could be agreed and Q the defence of D7 is the same for all his 7 bank accounts. Q R R 26. It is unlikely that the banker affirmations would be challenged S by the other defendants. D3, D4, D5 and D9 have no objection to the S consolidation. I do not consider the court would be unnecessarily T T overburdened by the consolidation. There is also no evidence suggesting U U V V  - 11 - A A B B that the defendants may be prejudiced or embarrassed in their defence by C consolidating the 3 cases. C D D G. CONCLUSION E E 27. It is clear from the brief facts that the 3 cases are founded on F F the same facts, the charges faced by D1-D9 form a series of offences of the G same or similar character, the evidence of the charges are intertwined G involving the same common key witness (the undercover officer). H H I 28. I am of the view that the 3 cases should be consolidated. I Leave for consolidation is granted accordingly. J J K K L L M M (Ada Yim) N District Judge N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T U U V V  - 12 - A A B B DCCC 613/2025 C Ms Maureen Kong, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR C Mr Joseph To leading Mr Simon Lo, instructed by Joseph M.K. Chan, for D D the 1st and 2nd defendants E E DCCC 614/2025 F F Ms Maureen Kong, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR G Mr Wong Shiu Sang, of SSW & Associates, assigned by DLA, for the 1st G defendant H H Mr Philip Geoffrey Ross, instructed by David Y.Y. Fung & Co., assigned I by DLA, for the 2nd defendant I Mr Ian Hastings Polson, instructed by Foo, Leung & Yeung, assigned by J J DLA for the 3rd defendant K K DCCC 615/2025 L L Ms Maureen Kong, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR M Mr Joseph To leading Mr Simon Lo, instructed by Joseph M.K. Chan, M Solicitors, for the 1st & 3rd defendants N N Mr Michael H.K. Leung and Mr Kleon Chan, instructed by Chang & Co., O for the 2nd defendant O Mr Leung Kwan Ching, of CAN Lawyers, assigned by DLA for the 4th P P defendant Q Q R R S S T T U U V V