HKSAR v. LI WANGANG

DCCC 1646/2025

[2026] HKDC 779

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1646 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of behaving in a disorderly manner on board an aircraft, contrary to Sections 12B(3), 12B(10)  and Section 21 of the Aviation Security Ordinance, Cap 494.

2.  The defendant accepted that his disorderly manner of conduct on board the aircraft while in flight elsewhere than in or over Hong Kong jeopardised the good order or discipline on board the aircraft. The particulars of that can be seen from the facts that the defendant has admitted today.  The maximum sentence that can be adopted for this offence is one of 2 years’ imprisonment or a fine at Level 5. 

3.  The facts show that the defendant had boarded, together with other passengers, a Batik Aircraft which is a non-Hong Kong controlled aircraft which was flying from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong on 2 September 2025.  This was Flight number OD605.

4.  The defendant occupied the seat together with the other witnesses in this case who were PW1 and PW2, and PW1 had placed her handbag containing her wallet with some cash of around HK$2,000 and US$2 into an overhead compartment above her seat.

5.  At about 11:50 am, a flight attendant found that the defendant had taken that handbag, PW1’s handbag, from the overhead compartment.   The defendant then returned to his seat, ransacked the handbag and took the cash from it.  The flight attendant then enquired of the defendant about whether the handbag belonged to him.  On doing so, the defendant immediately put the cash into the handbag and claimed that he had taken the handbag by mistake.

6.  Another witness sitting next to the defendant saw that the defendant put at least a US dollar banknote back into the handbag.  The victim, who was PW1, was asked to check the handbag.  She was able to confirm she had actually suffered no loss but the cash that had initially been placed in the handbag had been scattered throughout it.

7.  The matter was referred to police on the aircraft landing in Hong Kong.  The defendant was cautioned and made a cautioned interview after arrest.  His explanation given at the time was that he boarded the aircraft from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong and his next destination was Shenzhen.

8.  He was not acquainted with PW1.  He did take the handbag from the overhead compartment.  He said he stole the handbag out of momentary greed.  He wished to see if anything of value was placed in the handbag.  He had intended to steal the cash in the handbag and when he removed the cash from the handbag the flight attendant asked if the handbag belonged to him.  He was scared and put the cash back into the handbag through the gap in the handbag and he eventually put the handbag back to the overhead compartment above PW1’s seat.

9.  The facts have clearly set out the offence and I convicted the defendant of that offence.  The defendant, as I understand, indicated that he would plead guilty to the charge from an early stage. 

10.  In mitigation, it is said the defendant was born in Henan in the People’s Republic of China.  He attended Form 3 education there.  At the time of the offence he was living in Shenzhen.  He had employment as a welder and he has parents in the People’s Republic of China who are in their fifties.  He gives some support to his family, I understand. Defendant is single, planned to get married in 2025 but was unable to do so and will marry, I am told, when he returns to China.  Defendant says he was on a leisure trip to Kuala Lumpur and was taking the flight back to Hong Kong, then would go on to Shenzhen by road.

11.  And he committed the committed offence out of a momentary greed and the defendant admits that the financial sum involved in this case is HK$2,000 and US$2 as set out in the Statement of Facts.  The defendant also has a clear record. 

12.  As far as the approach to sentencing is concerned, it is the case that an offence of this nature causes disruption to the aircraft and its crew which is an environment which must be kept as sterile as possible because the crew have other jobs to do that do not relate to the initial security of the aircraft.

13.  The sentence must of course reflect those considerations and I consider a custodial sentence is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.  I bear in mind the value of the money is around about HK$2,000.  There is only one victim.  The victim suffered no loss and the money was returned.  There is no violent behaviour on the plane and the defendant has shown remorse for what he has done.

14.  I am going to in this case having regard to all those factors take a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 10 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  So the sentence be one of 10 months’ imprisonment.