COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to four counts of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and one count of attempted theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.
The 1st to the 3rd charges each allege that the theft of 450 units of “Antminer” S19i bitcoin miners, property of Burdy Technology Limited (“Burdy”) on unknown days in September 2022. The 4th charge alleges the theft of 500 units of the same miners on a day in October 2022. The 5th charge alleges the attempted theft of 286 units of the same miners on an unknown day in September 2022.
The Facts
The facts admitted by the defendant are these.
Burdy is a company which engaged in bitcoin mining and the investment in bitcoin miners. In February 2021, Burdy purchased bitcoin miners including the “Antminer” S19i
model. Between March and July 2022, Burdy arranged for 15,190 units of the S19i miners (the “Miners”) to be sent from Kazakhstan to Hong Kong. Burdy engaged the company Jian Nong to test the Miners via the Internet.
Through the liaison of Jian Nong, Burdy engaged Giant Craft Warehouse Logistics (“Giant Craft”), owned by Mr Chan Ka-hei (“Chan”), to store the Miners in two warehouses: Warehouse A at Sung Shek Yuen Village, Yuen Long, and Warehouse B at Tong Tau Po Tsuen. The Miners arrived at Giant Craft’s warehouses throughout July and August 2022.
The defendant was employed by Giant Craft since 2010. At all material times, he was responsible for overseeing the operation of the warehouses, held the keys to Warehouse B, and was chiefly responsible for the Miners’ testing.
A WeChat group was created among staff of Jian Nong and Giant Craft for testing purposes, including one Huang Junjie (“Huang”) of Jian Nong and the defendant. In early September 2022, Huang privately messaged the defendant, asking for referral of clients to buy one to two thousand Miners. Thereafter, for matters touching upon the sale of Miners, Huang would only communicate with the defendant via calls or in person. Huang asked the defendant not to mention this to anyone, especially Chan. The defendant gave Warehouse B’s entrance password to Huang.
As to the 1st to the 3rd charges, in September 2022, as instructed by Huang, the defendant unlocked Warehouse B to let a driver to take 1,350 Miners via three deliveries of 450 units each. A pile of cash was given to the defendant, from which he kept HK$100,000 for himself as instructed by Huang.
As to the 4th charge, on a Sunday in October 2022, the defendant arranged a potential customer to examine the stock. Upon confirmation of the customer’s intention, the defendant sent 500 Miners away. Of the HK$200,000 sale proceeds, he kept $100,000 and passed the remaining $100,000 to Huang.
As to the 5th charge, apart from the aforesaid 1,850 Miners, the defendant hid 286 Miners in Warehouse A in an attempt to sell them for his own benefit. That did not materialise because in November 2022, Chan called for a stock take.
In total, the defendant received $200,000 from the two rounds of sales. He spent all the sums on prostitution, video games, dangerous drugs and purchase of luxury goods.
In November 2022, when asked by Chan to conduct a stock take, the defendant realised the Miners’ owner might have discovered the theft. He admitted to Chan that he had taken the machines for sale. He knew a police report had been made and Huang had become out of reach. He gave certain printouts of WeChat conversations to Chan and fled. He threw his mobile phone away and purchased a new one.
A police report was made on 29 November 2022. On 20 December 2022, Chan returned to his office and saw the defendant thereat. The police were immediately contacted, leading to the arrest of the defendant on the same day. Under arrest and verbal caution, the defendant admitted to having been lured by Huang to steal the Miners. In subsequent video-recorded interviews, the defendant made a full and detailed admission.
The defendant admits and accepts that at all material times of the 1st to the 5th charges, he and Huang had jointly stolen 1,850 Miners, and attempted to steal 286 Miners, properties belonging to Burdy.
Background and Mitigation
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He was born in China on 10 November 1992 and has been residing in Hong Kong since 2001. He is now 33 years of age and was 29 years old when the offences were committed. He is single. He received education up to Form 3 in Hong Kong. His father passed away in around 2017 or 2018. His mother is a cleaning worker and his elder brother works in telecommunications sales.
The defence submitted that the defendant met his boss Chan and waited to be arrested by the police, and that he voluntarily surrendered. The defendant also confessed to the police of his involvement.
It was submitted that the defendant only received $200,000 as a result of his participation in this incident.
The defendant is remorseful and realised his wrong. Mitigation letters written by his boss Chan and his colleagues at Giant Craft were submitted for my consideration. In short, they were supportive of the defendant and spoke positively of him. Chan was willing to hire the defendant after his release from imprisonment.
As to previous convictions, the defendant has been convicted by criminal courts on three occasions. In 2013, he was convicted of three counts of robbery. In 2015, he was convicted of one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one count of theft.
Sentencing Considerations
The present case involves a serious breach of trust. The leading authorities are R v Barrick and R v Trevor Clark. Both cases have been followed in Hong Kong.
The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu held that the principles laid down in Clark would apply in Hong Kong; in the HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing, the guidelines were revised to ensure that the terms of imprisonment of each band were consistent with each other.
The revised guidelines are now as follows:
(a) involving $15 million or more, 10 years or above;
(b) involving $3 million to $15 million, 5 to 10 years;
(c) involving $1 million to $3 million, 3 to 5 years;
(d) involving $250,000 to $1 million, 2 to 3 years; and
(e) involving $250,000 of less, below 2 years.
The English Court of Appeal in Barrick examined the approach to the sentencing of cases that involved a person in a position of trust who had used that privilege and trusted position to steal or defraud others. In that case, it is stated that in determining the sentence in a breach-of-trust case, the court has to have regard to the following matters: (1) the quality and degree of trust reposed in the offender including his rank; (2) the period over which the fraud or the theft have been perpetrated; (3) the use to which the money and property dishonestly taken was put; (4) the effect upon the victim; (5) the impact of the offences on the public and the public confidence; (6) the effect upon fellow employees or partners; (7) the effect on the offender himself; (8) his own history; (9) those matters of mitigation special to himself such as illness, being placed under great strain by excessive responsibility or the like, where there has been a long delay between him being confronted with his dishonesty and the start of the trial; and finally, any help given by him to the police.
Value of the Stolen Properties
The defendant during the committal stage pleaded guilty and indicated his admission to the Summary of Facts (“the Original Summary of Facts) prepared by the prosecution. Hence, the case was committed to this court for sentence.
Prior to the hearing in August 2004, this Court was informed that the defendant did not agree with paragraph 15 of the Original Summary of Facts, which concerns the value of the stolen properties. With reluctance, this Court adjourned the hearing for parties to discuss, and if necessary, inform the Court the proper procedure to be taken on the next occasion.
During the adjournment, the prosecution obtained a valuation report from Professor Poon, which was filed and served in May 2025. Unfortunately, the defence did not indicate their stance as to whether the Report could be agreed or whether Professor Poon had to be cross-examined. It was only a day before the hearing that the defence informed the court and the prosecution of their stance.
Worse still, in addressing the defence position on the values, Mr Wong elected not to cross-examine Professor Poon nor ask the prosecution to tender the witnesses who have made some depositions regarding the price of the machines sold at various times.
In any event, this court has to treat the defendant in a fair and just manner. Despite Mr Wong’s submission as to how the opinion of Professor Poon should be undermined, this Court went through the Report in detail. This Court also read the witness statements attached to Mr Wong’s written submissions.
As regards the values advanced by the prosecution, Professor Poon explained in detail the basis for his opinion. Professor Poon has made a number of fair concessions and stated certain limitations in the exercise. Mr Wong alleged that the limitations under paragraph 7 of the Report affected the accuracy of the values Professor Poon set out in paragraph 6 of the Report. With respect, Professor Poon has stated clearly, in succinct terms, that the limitations would not affect his assessment.
As regards the witness statements relied on by the defence, even these witnesses are prosecution witnesses, I find that they did not have the capacity as experts or at all. They are mere factual witnesses. The values they gave were rough estimates or the price the other “unstolen” machines were sold at such time that was different from the times of the offence. No basis was given by any of these witnesses as to their estimates or figures. I find that the figures mentioned in those statements are either unreliable or irrelevant. I therefore put no weight on their statements.
I accept the values as assessed by Professor Poon. Professor Poon was fair in raising a number of limitations in his report, but I find that none of the limitations affects the assessment. Therefore, I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the value of the stolen properties as per those concluded by Professor Poon in his report.
Anyhow, after hearing submissions from parties, the defence eventually agreed the contents of paragraph 15 of the Amended Summary of Facts and added paragraph 16.
The eventual agreement by the defence aside, in my independent assessment and consideration of Professor Poon’s report, I find such values are proved beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the average price of a unit of the machine as at September 2022 is US$2,087 and that as at October 2022 is US$2,008.5.
At the hearing today, Mr Wong still asked this Court to determine the value of the loss suffered by Burdy. Mr Wong relied on the previous submissions made. I have considered his submissions. In view of the analysis above and the facts admitted, I find that the date of valuation of the loss or damage suffered by the victim, Burdy, should be the date when the offence took place. Therefore, in computing the amount of loss, and hence the basis of my assessment of the degree of culpability, I adopt the valuation of Professor Poon, with minor variation due to the clerical mistakes identified and agreed by both parties.
Hence, the total value of the stolen properties under Charges 1 to 4 is US$3,821,700, and the value of the properties attempted to be stolen under Charge 5 is US$596,882.
Consideration
This case involves a multiplicity of offences. The sentence should be imposed for each individual offence. Each offence requires a sentence which properly reflects the criminality in its commission. The individual sentences in such a case should, where appropriate, be adjusted for totality to reflect the overall criminality of the present case.
The defendant was employed by Giant Craft since 2010. He was tasked to oversee the operation of the warehouses and to hold the keys to Warehouse B. As such, a high degree of trust was reposed in the defendant. The defendant could not withstand the temptation initiated by Huang. As shown in the messages between the defendant and Huang, Huang promised the defendant that commission would be paid to him for each machine the defendant would be able to sell.
The defendant claimed under caution that he had been paid a total of $200,000 from two rounds of sale. He claimed he had spent all for his personal enjoyment and leisure.
In light of the values of the stolen properties in relation to the charges, together with the application of the guidelines, the appropriate starting points, which will be rounded off, should be as follows (I adopt 7.85) to be the conversion rate between US dollars and Hong Kong dollars):
(1) 1st charge: 450 Miners at US$2,087 each equals
US$939,150, that is, in HK$7,372,327.5. This falls within band (b), ie $3 million to $15 million, attracting 5 to 10 years. Therefore, the starting point being 6 years and 9 months on a mathematical calculation, the sentence after one-third discount is 4 years and 6 months.
(2) 2nd charge: involving the same quantity of Miners
at the same amount each. Therefore, the starting point is also, after one-third discount, 4 years and 6 months.
(3) The same applies to the 3rd charge.
(4) 4th charge: 500 Miners at US$2,008.5 each equals US$1,004,250, converted into HK$7,883,362.5. This falls within band (b) where the starting point being 7 years, and the sentence after one-third discount is 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
(5) 5th charge: it concerns 286 Miners at US$2,087 each, which gives US$596,882, converted into HK$4,685,523.7. This falls within band (b) where the starting point is 5 years and 8 months, and the sentence after one-third discount is 3 years and 9 months.
Having determined the sentences for each individual offences, I apply the totality principle and also consider the sentence against the overall value of the stolen properties as if they were dealt with together. I also consider the factors as mentioned in the previous authorities. The total value is around HK$34,685,868.
According to the guidelines referred to before, the amount falls within band (a), being $15 million or more, attracting 10 years or above. However, the maximum penalty for the offence of theft is 10 years’ imprisonment.
In the recent case of HKSAR v Chan Yiu Choi [2025] HKCFI 1814, a global starting point of 10 years was adopted for $26.4 million stolen by an accountant. In the case of Nones, a global starting point of 10 years and 6 months was found appropriate on review for 14.6 million stolen by a domestic helper. The present case involves a significantly larger sum, namely 34.6 million. Having considered all the circumstances, I find that an overall starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
I do not enhance the sentence by reason of the previous convictions of the defendant. I hope the defendant will take this incident as his last time in transgressing the law.
As a result of the guilty plea, a one-third discount is warranted. The overall sentence should be 8 years’ imprisonment.
Compensation Order
The prosecution at the hearing in January 2026 applied for a compensation order, pursuant to section 73 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221, against the defendant. The defendant opposes the application.
The defendant elected to testify concerning his means. At the end of his evidence-in-chief, the prosecution asked for an adjournment for the police to conduct further investigation on the means of the defendant.
Criminal Bankruptcy Order (“CBO”)
On 20 April 2026, the prosecution informed this Court that in light of some findings, it was the prosecution’s view that it may not be appropriate to make a compensation order given the defendant’s lack of means. Instead, the prosecution invited this Court to consider making a criminal bankruptcy order (“CBO”), pursuant to section 84A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.
In response to the prosecution’s invitation, the defence informed the Court by letter that they would oppose the application for reason that the defendant does not have the means, and hence an order as such would not serve any legitimate purpose and would be wholly futile. The defence also submitted that the amount of loss or damage is yet to be decided.
At the resumed hearing today, when the prosecution formally withdrew their application for a compensation order, the defence then took instructions and later informed this Court that they would not oppose the application for a CBO, but invited the Court to consider the amount of loss suffered. The defence did not dispute the earliest date of the offence and the identity of the victim. As a result of the defence agreement, I do not deal with the relevant grounds of opposition concerning the appropriateness of imposing a CBO.
In view of my determination before, I found the loss suffered being US$3,821,700.
Section 84A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance provides that where a person is convicted of an offence before the court and it appears to the court that (a) as a result of the offence, or that offence taken together with any other relevant offences, loss or damage (not attributable to personal injury) has been suffered by one or more persons whose identity is known to the court, and (b) the amount, or aggregate amount, of the loss or damage exceeds $150,000, the court may, in addition to dealing with the offender in any other way (but not if it makes a compensation order against him under section 73), make a criminal bankruptcy order.
Here, the defendant has been convicted of, amongst other things, four counts of theft (Charges 1 to 4). As a result of those convicted offences, loss has been suffered by Burdy, whose identity is known to this Court. The aggregate amount of the loss, namely US$3,821,700 as at the time of the theft, far exceeds HK$150,000. None of the stolen Miners has been recovered nor any compensation has been received. No compensation order has been made. Therefore, I am satisfied that the conditions under section 84A(1) have been met.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it is appropriate to make a criminal bankruptcy order against the defendant. The order shall specify the following particulars pursuant to section 84A(3):
(a) the total amount of loss resulting from the 1st to the 4th charges: US$3,821,700;
(b) the person who has suffered that loss: Burdy Technology Limited;
(c) the amount of loss suffered by Burdy Technology Limited: US$3,821,700; and
(d) the earliest day on which the offences were committed: 1 September 2022.
Defendant, please stand up. You are sentenced as follows: 1st charge: 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment; 2nd charge: 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment; 3rd charge: 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment; 4th charge: 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment; 5th charge: 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
As I have said already, the overall sentence is 8 years’ imprisonment. In order to achieve this result, I adopt the sentence under Charge 4 as the base for it is the longest sentence. I order 40 months out of the sentence of Charge 1 to run consecutively to that of Charge 4. The remainder of the sentence of Charges 1, 2, 3 and 5 be concurrent to all other charges.
You are therefore sentenced to a total of 8 years’ imprisonment in respect of the five charges you are facing. Also, I will make a criminal bankruptcy order pursuant to
section 84A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.