DCCC614/2025 HKSAR v. HO CHI HO AND ANOTHER - LawHero
DCCC614/2025
區域法院（刑事）Her Honour Judge Ada Yim23/10/2025[2025] HKDC 1700
合併案件：DCCC613/2025DCCC614/2025
DCCC614/2025
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
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