HKSAR v. KHONGSRI JANPEN

DCCC 1118/2024

[2026] HKDC 236

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1118 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant was convicted of a charge of "Fraud" after trial. Over a period of 6 days, she, via WhatsApp messages, deceived her then mother-in-law of a total sum of $510,855.

Evidence not in dispute

2.  The defendant, a Thai national, and Mr. Tang Pak Hin (PW2)  married in Thailand in 2017.  They divorced in August 2025.

3.  Madam Chan (PW1)  is PW2's mother.  Mr. Tang Wai Tim is PW2's father (and PW1's husband as well).

4.  According to PW1, the defendant's mobile phone number has always been known to her as +66 61 517 7872.  PW1 has recorded this number in her mobile phone's contacts under the name "Tang, Bee".

The alleged deception

5.  During the offence period, PW1 received a series of WhatsApp text messages (including still photographs)  from "Tang, Bee", informing her that PW2 was arrested by the police in Thailand and that "Tang, Bee" needed money to secure PW2's release and to resolve his predicament.  Believing that those messages from "Tang, Bee" were true and sent by the defendant, PW1 arranged for money to be transferred to bank accounts designated by "Tang, Bee".

6.  On 12 May 2022, PW1 transferred $231,500 to HSBC account (No.122-753239-833)  held in the name of Chan Chun Ho.  On 13 May 2022, PW1's husband transferred $125,000 to FPS No.164723272 held in the name of THINTES S******.  On 17 May 2022, PW1's husband transferred $125,000 to HSBC account (No.521-094599-838)  held in the name of Tong Hin Trading Co. Chan Chun Ho.  On 17 May 2022, PW1's husband transferred $29,355 to HSBC account (No.521-094599-838)  held in the name of Tong Hin Trading Co. Chan Chun Ho.

7.  PW2 gave evidence that during the offence period, he was not arrested by the police in Thailand or detained in a police station. 

The Defence Case

8. The defendant elected not to give evidence or call any defence witness.

Findings of fact

9. The crux of this case is who texted PW1.

10. Defence counsel Mr. Lai has fairly and correctly accepted it is an undeniable fact that PW2 was not arrested by the police in Thailand or detained in a police station during the offence period. In other words, the WhatsApp text messages sent by "Tang, Bee" to PW1 were lies, which induced PW1 and her husband to part with their money.

11. The WhatsApp text messages between "Tang, Bee" and PW1 were exchanged over period of 6 days. Subjectively, "Tang, Bee" was no stranger to PW1; she was PW1's daughter-in-law. As a juror, I ruled out the possibility that Tang, Bee's WhatsApp account was hacked. I concluded that a stranger hacker would not be able to carry on a meaningful text exchange with PW1 for a period of 6 days undetected.

12. If Tang, Bee's WhatsApp account was not hacked by a stranger, the remaining logical possibility would be someone with knowledge of the Tang family, perhaps PW2. As a juror, I did not see the slightest hint of evidence on this aspect.

13. Since Tang, Bee's WhatsApp account was neither hacked by a stranger nor used by PW2, and PW1 detected no peculiarities in the contents of the text messages over a period of 6 days, in the absence of any evidence showing otherwise, I drew the irresistible inference that the defendant communicated as "Tang, Bee" with PW1.

Mitigation & Sentence

14. The defendant is 37 and has a clear record. Mr. Lai informed me that the defendant is a university graduate majored in Public Health. She was a community nurse in Thailand. After marrying PW2, the couple resided in Thailand and engaged in luxury bags trading. Their combined income was about THB100,000[1] per month. The defendant currently has a boyfriend, who is a Hong Kong permanent resident and her surety for bail.

15. In mitigation, Mr. Lai submitted that this case is distinguishable from those typical phone scams, which tend to prey on elderly strangers and are difficult to trace the real perpetrators. Mr. Lai accepted that the defendant had abused PW1's love and trust. He invited this court to follow the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 for the Barrick type of breach of trust. Mr. Lai further submitted that this case has been troubling the defendant for 2.5 years.

16. This case bears all the hallmarks of a typical "Detained Son" phone scam: someone contacts the victim, claiming that his/her son is being detained by law enforcement/debt collectors, and demands money to secure the son's release. The fact that the defendant was no stranger to PW1 does not alter the nature of the scam; it simply made her "lies" sound more credible to PW1 and facilitated the police in tracing the fraudster. Hence, I disagree with Mr. Lai's submission to sentence the defendant based on the Ng Kwok Wing guidelines.

17. According to the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Hung Yung Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 174, the appropriate starting point for this type of phone deception is 4 years' imprisonment. The defendant deceived her then mother-in-law of a total sum of $510,855 over a period of 6 days. I have every reason to adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment; however, by not hiding her identity, the defendant was doomed to fail. The police would eventually catch her. This aspect is distinguishable from a typical "Detained Son" phone scam, in which the main perpetrator (i.e. the caller)  is almost never apprehended.

18. On this basis, I am prepared to adopt a slightly lower starting point of 3.5 years' imprisonment. Since the defendant was convicted after trial, no guilty plea discount can be given. I would grant her a discount of 4 months for her clear record. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 38 months' imprisonment.