HKSAR v. WU DONGWAN

 DCCC42/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 42 OF 2010

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  Defendant, you pleaded guilty to a single offence of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.455. You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you.

2.  The brief facts were as follows. You are a two-way permit holder from the Mainland. At 12.15 pm on 22 November last you arrived in Hong Kong at Shenzhen Bay Control Point as a visitor using your two-way permit.

3.  Around 11.50 am on 23 November of last year, police officers, including PWs 4 to 6 and 8, were conducting an anti-telephone deception operation at Kowloon Tsai Park. They saw you looking around and repeatedly checking your mobile phone. Feeling suspicious, they kept you under observation and followed you when you left the park and wandered around Kowloon City.

4.  Cheung Fung-nor, PW1, a female aged 57, lives with her husband, who is PW2, and their younger son, PW3, at a flat in Mongkok. PW3 is 26 years of age.

5.  About 1 pm that day, Cheung Fung-nor, PW1, received a phone call at home from an unknown male, who is Wanted Person 1, who claimed to be her son. He appeared to be sobbing and claimed to be blindfolded and being beaten. Her son is Chan Ho-fai. Wanted Person 1 told her he was being held hostage as the debtor he had stood as a guarantor failed to repay the debt.

6.  A further unknown male, Wanted Person 2, took over the phone and demanded that PW1 pay $200,000 for the release of her son. He threatened to harm her son if it was not paid. PW1 complied with his demand for her mobile number. She was then told to hang up. Several seconds later Wanted Person 2 called her mobile. He made further demands for $200,000. He told her not to hang up nor to call the police.

7.  At about 2 pm while PW1 was still on the phone with WP2, her husband, PW2, returned home. Quietly she informed him about the payment demanded by WP2. PW1 informed WP2 that she did not have so much money and, after negotiation, $50,000 was agreed to. WP2 then demanded she withdraw the money within half an hour or she would be collecting her son’s corpse.

8.  PWs 1 and 2 then took a taxi to their bank on Nathan Road where PW2 withdrew $50,000 in $1,000 notes from his account. Very sensibly PW1 marked the notes and placed them in a white envelope. PW2 returned home.

9.  As instructed, PW1 took a taxi and passed her mobile to the driver, who obtained directions from WP2. She overheard the driver confirm Kowloon Tsai Park. On the journey they stopped by a police vehicle and PW1 alerted the officers, who followed her to the park. PW1 used one of the $1,000 notes to pay the taxi, leaving $49,000 in the envelope.

10.  Meanwhile, PW6 saw you constantly talking on your mobile in the vicinity of the park. PW1 described her appearance to WP2, and when she arrived, he was heard to mumble over the phone that he had seen her.

11.  WP2 then told PW1 to go into the park and drop the money into a green garbage bin. PW1 complied and left by taxi. Police officers stopped the taxi at the entrance to the park.

12.  After PW1 boarded the taxi, you walked straight to the bin and retrieved the envelope which contained $49,000.

13.  You were intercepted and arrested. The envelope with the money was recovered. Both after caution and at a later interview under video conditions you remained silent. PW1 identified the notes.

14.  PW3 confirmed that he had been safe at work at all times and had not acted as a guarantor.

15.  You are a man of clear record in Hong Kong.

16.  On your behalf, Mr Chan entered mitigation. He told me that you are 42 years of age, married, with a daughter of 11. You have elderly parents and earn some 1,300 renminbi per month as a worker. This is your first visit to Hong Kong. You agreed with a friend to collect the money on his behalf in return for having your travelling expenses paid. This was based on financial necessity. You had come to visit a cousin. You accept that you had reason to believe that the money was the proceeds of an indictable offence.

17.  Mr Chan produced before me a sentencing authority of HKSAR v Rong Guoping, DCCC1260/2009. The facts in that case are strikingly similar, in fact, almost identical. In that case, Deputy District Judge Lam took a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment. This was following the Chinese judgment in HKSAR v Ng Tze Ming, HCMA454/2005.

18.  I have said that DCCC1260/2009 was almost identical but there were two important differences.

19.  Whilst I am conscious that the part provable against you is the collection of the money, I have to look at the facts in the round.

20.  In this present case, there was a threat that the son would be killed, causing extra distress to PW1 and PW2, and the threats were accompanied by dramatic sound effects and dramatic statements. Therefore, in my opinion, this warrants a higher starting point. That starting point is one of 18 months reduced to 12.

21.  You will go to prison for 12 months.