HKSAR v. PANG SHUN

DCCC 967/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 967 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has been convicted after trial of very serious offences. I have given full reasons for my verdict and included the facts of the case. I do not intend to repeat my findings again.

2.  The defendant is a 52-year-old man, not of clear record, but his previous convictions are not similar and very old.  He has never served a term of imprisonment.  His last offence was 1991. 

3.  The defendant is married and has five children; they range from ages 7 to 19.  I have been told he is in business with his cousin and came to Hong Kong from China some 30 years ago.

4.  Mr Yu has mitigated on the defendant’s behalf to the best of his abilities. 

5.  I found the defendant part of a gang that carried out a well-planned, premeditated, sophisticated scam.  This was an extortion scheme that required forethought and ruthlessness.

6.  PW1 was targeted in China.  He fell for a trap and a misrepresentation.  He thought there was a big potential business deal that would enrich him and his company.  He was invited to Hong Kong and came. The gang was banking on him being enticed to come.  The apartment in Constellation Cove, I believe, was set up to use as a location to carry out these offences and the documents and fake business cards are just examples of the sophisticated planning behind this gang.

7.  There were, when PW1 arrived at this apartment, four against one.  When PW1 was told he had lost $10 million gambling, he was trapped there.  Such demands were followed through with threats and PW1 was effectively imprisoned there until money was transferred.  Somebody took his card whilst he was imprisoned to Shenzhen and waited for the money to be able to be transferred out of his personal account.  Again, an example of the planning involved. 

8.  PW1 told the court why he was afraid, and I am sure his fear was very real.  He was not in China and in unfamiliar territory in Hong Kong.  As he said, he had only ever been here on holiday.  Moreover, his loss was substantial, $5.2 million. 

9.  For the above reasons, I found these offences very serious.

10.  As pointed out by Mr Yu, I will take into account no weapons were displayed, used or produced.  No violence was used.

11.  Where these offences are concerned, Charge 1 carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.  Charge 2, robbery, carries a maximum term of imprisonment of life.  For Charge 3, criminal intimidation, a maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years.  And for false imprisonment, a maximum term of imprisonment is 7 years.

12.  For the offences other than robbery, there are no guidelines or tariffs.  The starting point for the charges other than robbery are very fact-dependent meaning they depend on the facts of each case. For the offence of robbery, where a weapon is displayed, normally a 5-year term of imprisonment would be appropriate and obviously would be adjusted upwards depending on aggravating factors. 

13.  Having referred myself to R v Yau Kwok Tung [1987] HKLR 782 and HKSAR v Ting Chiu [2003] 3 HKLRD 378, these authorities set out where a street robbery takes place by a lone robber with no weapon, a 4-year term of imprisonment would be appropriate.

14.  I have taken these starting points and scenarios into account.  In my view, a robbery in the circumstances of this case would come somewhere in between those starting points. 

15.  I have taken into account mitigation, background put forward, the offences themselves and the factors I have listed above as relevant. 

16.  For Charge 1, I take a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment.  Charge 2, I take a starting point of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  For Charge 3, I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.  For Charge 4, I take a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment. The defendant was convicted after trial, I see no reason for any discount. 

17.  I take into account the totality principle and the ordeal took place over one day.  All offences arise from one single act.  I order that all charges be served concurrently.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.