A A
HCCC 374/2024
[2026] HKCFI 988
B B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 374 OF 2024
D D
-----------------
E HKSAR E
v
F F
Chan Po-to (A4)
G G
-----------------
H Before: Hon Andrew Chan J H
Date: 18 December 2025 at 3.19 pm
Present: Mr Marcus Lee, SPP of the Department of Justice, for
I HKSAR I
Mr Wong Hing-wai Newman, instructed by Cheung, Yeung &
J Lee, Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the 4th accused J
Offence: Forcible detention of a person with intent to procure a
ransom for liberation (將某人強行禁錮而意圖取得用以交換釋放該
K 人的贖金) K
L --------------------------------- L
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
M M
---------------------------------
N N
COURT: The 4th defendant, D4, has pleaded guilty to one count of
forcible taking away or detention of a person with intent to
O procure a ransom for his liberation, contrary to section 42 O
of the Offences against the Person Ordinance. He is
committed to this court for sentence.
P P
The Summary of Facts reveal the following. The victim and
D2 have been friends for over 10 years. On 1 September
Q Q
2021, the victim received a call from D2 whom he fancied to
be his girlfriend. D2 indicated that she had been short of
R money, broken up with her boyfriend and could have sex with R
the victim. The victim then went to Bell House, a building
in Yau Ma Tei, to meet D2.
S S
Upon arrival at the corridor on the 7th floor, the victim
was then pushed into a room of one hostel. He was assaulted
T T
by D1 and D3 repeatedly. In the course of the attack, D3
even used a baseball bat to strike the victim. The victim
U was then taken to Room 9 of the hostel. Inside that room, U
the victim was tied up, blindfolded, and kicked and stepped
CRT23/18.12.2025/AB 1 HCCC 374/2024(3)/Sentence(A4)
V V
A A
on his head by the gang of D1 and D3. Bank cards, mobile
phones, and 3,500 cash were taken away. D3 also demanded
B passwords from the victim for his online and telephone B
banking facilities, ATM cards, and Alipay accounts. The
victim succumbed under the pressure.
C C
Attempts were made to withdraw money from the victim’s bank
D
accounts but unsuccessfully. Allegations of D2 being raped D
by the victim and debt being owed, which were denied by the
victim, had been made. Upon his denial, the victim was
E further assaulted. Later on, negotiation as to the amount E
of repayment money for the victim’s release had taken place.
As a result, the victim stated that he could obtain $40,000
F from his family. The victim then called up his aunt. After F
an agreement had been reached, D3 started to remove the
G blindfold and untied the victim. G
When other members of the gang, D1 and D4, went to collect
H the $40,000 of repayment or ransom from PW1’s aunt, D1 was H
arrested by the police. D4 managed to leave the scene and
was not arrested until 22 December 2021.
I I
D4 is now 38, educated up to Form 3 level. Prior to his
J arrest, he was an air-conditioning technician. He has seven J
unrelated criminal records.
K It was submitted that D4’s involvement was minimal and was K
not a party to the ill-treatment PW1 had in the afternoon.
Although D4 was not a party to the ill-treatment and a late
L L
arrival at the hostel, he was, in my view, a knowing party
to the victim’s detention and to the demand of the ransom.
M It was also revealed in the Summary of Facts, paragraph 7, M
that it was D4 who entered the room and asked PW1, the
victim, if he would like to settle the matter. It was then
N D4 who took charge of the negotiation for the victim’s N
release.
O O
Seven calls were made between D4 and PW2, that’s the
victim’s aunt, between 7.47 pm on 1 September 2021 and
P 2.15 am on 2 September 2021. Between 31 August 2021 and P
11.04 pm on 1 September 2021, there were 31 calls made
between D1 and D4. As to what D4 told the police after his
Q arrest, I note that his statements to the police were made Q
almost four months later.
R R
In HKSAR v Kan Chan-hung and Another, CACC 489/2002, it was
held that section 42 of the Offence Against the Person
S Ordinance was a very serious one and warranted a severe S
deterrent sentence. The maximum was life imprisonment and
the minimum was no less than 8 years’ imprisonment.
T T
In this case, violence had been inflicted onto the victim.
U
He was blindfolded and tied up, but luckily, he did not U
CRT23/18.12.2025/AB 2 HCCC 374/2024(3)/Sentence(A4)
V V
A A
suffer or sustain any serious injuries. The notable
injuries were lacerations on his face near his right eye.
B In this case, the hold-up time was also not that lengthy. I B
believe it was only seven hours total. Although the ransom
money demanded for the victim’s release was not substantial,
C the means used in demanding repayment should not be C
encouraged. The commission of such offence nevertheless
D
should be deterred. In this particular case, the plan was D
to lure the victim into coming to the hostel was carefully
planned and orchestrated.
E E
After a careful consideration of all the circumstances, 12
years’ imprisonment will be adopted as the starting point.
F Apart from his plea there are no other mitigating factors in F
this particular case.
G G
As such, for the sole offence D4 stands convicted, he is
sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I I
I/we certify that to the best of my/our ability
and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript of
J the audio recording of the above proceedings J
K K
.........................................
Angelica Louise Bedana
L Date: 29 December 2025
L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT23/18.12.2025/AB 3 HCCC 374/2024(3)/Sentence(A4)
V V
A A
HCCC 374/2024
[2026] HKCFI 988
B B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 374 OF 2024
D D
-----------------
E HKSAR E
v
F F
Chan Po-to (A4)
G G
-----------------
H Before: Hon Andrew Chan J H
Date: 18 December 2025 at 3.19 pm
Present: Mr Marcus Lee, SPP of the Department of Justice, for
I HKSAR I
Mr Wong Hing-wai Newman, instructed by Cheung, Yeung &
J Lee, Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the 4th accused J
Offence: Forcible detention of a person with intent to procure a
ransom for liberation (將某人強行禁錮而意圖取得用以交換釋放該
K 人的贖金) K
L --------------------------------- L
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
M M
---------------------------------
N N
COURT: The 4th defendant, D4, has pleaded guilty to one count of
forcible taking away or detention of a person with intent to
O procure a ransom for his liberation, contrary to section 42 O
of the Offences against the Person Ordinance. He is
committed to this court for sentence.
P P
The Summary of Facts reveal the following. The victim and
D2 have been friends for over 10 years. On 1 September
Q Q
2021, the victim received a call from D2 whom he fancied to
be his girlfriend. D2 indicated that she had been short of
R money, broken up with her boyfriend and could have sex with R
the victim. The victim then went to Bell House, a building
in Yau Ma Tei, to meet D2.
S S
Upon arrival at the corridor on the 7th floor, the victim
was then pushed into a room of one hostel. He was assaulted
T T
by D1 and D3 repeatedly. In the course of the attack, D3
even used a baseball bat to strike the victim. The victim
U was then taken to Room 9 of the hostel. Inside that room, U
the victim was tied up, blindfolded, and kicked and stepped
CRT23/18.12.2025/AB 1 HCCC 374/2024(3)/Sentence(A4)
V V
A A
on his head by the gang of D1 and D3. Bank cards, mobile
phones, and 3,500 cash were taken away. D3 also demanded
B passwords from the victim for his online and telephone B
banking facilities, ATM cards, and Alipay accounts. The
victim succumbed under the pressure.
C C
Attempts were made to withdraw money from the victim’s bank
D
accounts but unsuccessfully. Allegations of D2 being raped D
by the victim and debt being owed, which were denied by the
victim, had been made. Upon his denial, the victim was
E further assaulted. Later on, negotiation as to the amount E
of repayment money for the victim’s release had taken place.
As a result, the victim stated that he could obtain $40,000
F from his family. The victim then called up his aunt. After F
an agreement had been reached, D3 started to remove the
G blindfold and untied the victim. G
When other members of the gang, D1 and D4, went to collect
H the $40,000 of repayment or ransom from PW1’s aunt, D1 was H
arrested by the police. D4 managed to leave the scene and
was not arrested until 22 December 2021.
I I
D4 is now 38, educated up to Form 3 level. Prior to his
J arrest, he was an air-conditioning technician. He has seven J
unrelated criminal records.
K It was submitted that D4’s involvement was minimal and was K
not a party to the ill-treatment PW1 had in the afternoon.
Although D4 was not a party to the ill-treatment and a late
L L
arrival at the hostel, he was, in my view, a knowing party
to the victim’s detention and to the demand of the ransom.
M It was also revealed in the Summary of Facts, paragraph 7, M
that it was D4 who entered the room and asked PW1, the
victim, if he would like to settle the matter. It was then
N D4 who took charge of the negotiation for the victim’s N
release.
O O
Seven calls were made between D4 and PW2, that’s the
victim’s aunt, between 7.47 pm on 1 September 2021 and
P 2.15 am on 2 September 2021. Between 31 August 2021 and P
11.04 pm on 1 September 2021, there were 31 calls made
between D1 and D4. As to what D4 told the police after his
Q arrest, I note that his statements to the police were made Q
almost four months later.
R R
In HKSAR v Kan Chan-hung and Another, CACC 489/2002, it was
held that section 42 of the Offence Against the Person
S Ordinance was a very serious one and warranted a severe S
deterrent sentence. The maximum was life imprisonment and
the minimum was no less than 8 years’ imprisonment.
T T
In this case, violence had been inflicted onto the victim.
U
He was blindfolded and tied up, but luckily, he did not U
CRT23/18.12.2025/AB 2 HCCC 374/2024(3)/Sentence(A4)
V V
A A
suffer or sustain any serious injuries. The notable
injuries were lacerations on his face near his right eye.
B In this case, the hold-up time was also not that lengthy. I B
believe it was only seven hours total. Although the ransom
money demanded for the victim’s release was not substantial,
C the means used in demanding repayment should not be C
encouraged. The commission of such offence nevertheless
D
should be deterred. In this particular case, the plan was D
to lure the victim into coming to the hostel was carefully
planned and orchestrated.
E E
After a careful consideration of all the circumstances, 12
years’ imprisonment will be adopted as the starting point.
F Apart from his plea there are no other mitigating factors in F
this particular case.
G G
As such, for the sole offence D4 stands convicted, he is
sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I I
I/we certify that to the best of my/our ability
and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript of
J the audio recording of the above proceedings J
K K
.........................................
Angelica Louise Bedana
L Date: 29 December 2025
L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT23/18.12.2025/AB 3 HCCC 374/2024(3)/Sentence(A4)
V V