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 Verdict

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

1.  The 5th defendant is the only defendant to face trial and pleaded not guilty to Charge 1, cheating at gambling, Charge 2, robbery, Charge 3, criminal intimidation, and Charge 4, false imprisonment. All four charges involve the same victim, PW1.

2.  There was a 5th charge of cheating at gambling with another victim, but the prosecution offered no evidence in relation to this charge against the 5th defendant as well as the 1st to 4th defendant.  The 1st to 4th defendant only faced Charge 5.

3.  In summary, on 19 June 2012, the prosecution say PW1 was lured to Hong Kong from China on the false pretence there was a property business opportunity for him and his company.  Once here in Hong Kong he was taken to a flat in Tai Po from Kowloon and there a bogus business deal was discussed.

4.  Whilst waiting for a person involved in the deal, he was persuaded to play cards, initially for very little money, then for no money at all.  However, after several hands of a card game, he was told he had lost HK$10 million.

5.  The defendant played cards with PW1 and other men.  When PW1 tried to leave the flat, he was prevented.  He was surrounded and prevented from leaving until he had paid his gambling debt.  The defendant snatched PW1’s bag and took away $50,000 cash and his bank card.  The defendant demanded PW1 disclose his PIN number.  It was the defendant that verbally threatened PW1. PW1 out of fear arranged for $5 million to be transferred from his company account to his personal bank account. 

6.  Nearly five hours after he arrived at the flat, he was escorted back to Kowloon by taxi and an accomplice.  He soon discovered that $5.2 million had been withdrawn from his account operated by the bank card taken from him by the defendant.  These transactions were done in Shenzhen. 

7.  Some two months after the offence date, the defendant and other men were arrested in the apartment in Tai Po identified by PW1 as the offence location.  The police arranged an identification parade and PW1 identified the defendant as the male who threatened him, snatched his $50,000, took his bank card and PIN number.  It was the defendant that demanded PW1 pay $10 million as the gambling debt along with other men present.

8.  The defendant denies any involvement and says that PW1 has made a wrong and unreliable identification.  He is mistaken. 

The prosecution case

9.  PW1 was the victim of all four charges.  He lives in Anhui, China, and is a property developer.  He has never done business in Hong Kong.  In May 2012 he was visited by a Mr Kong from Hong Kong purportedly from Harbour Centre Development Limited as described on his business card, Exhibit P52.  Mr Kong told PW1 his company wanted to build a shopping mall in Anhui and PW1 should come to Hong Kong to discuss this big deal with his superiors.

10.  PW1 travelled to Hong Kong on 18 June where he was met by Mr Kong.  They discussed details of the project that evening and Mr Kong arranged to take him the next day to meet his boss.  On 19 June they took a taxi from Tsim Sha Tsui to Tai Po to a complex called Constellation Cove. PW1 only knew it was Constellation Cove when he later came back to Hong Kong and drove around Tai Po until he recognized the complex.  He arrived at 11.04 am, according to CCTV footage of Mr Kong and PW1 entering the lift lobby of Block 10, Exhibit P55.

11.  On the 3rd Floor in a flat PW1 met a Mr Kang from Singapore and a Mr Wu, Mr Kong’s superior.  A third male arrived within half an hour and introduced himself as Mr Ho Po-shing.  He gave PW1 his business card and it is exhibited as P49.  It is this man PW1 identified on 28 August as the defendant.

12.  There were in total four men and PW1 present. Mr Wu took PW1 to an office or a study in the apartment and discussed a 130 million RMB property deal.  The contract was apparently to be finalized and signed some 10 days later.  Wu told PW1 an engineer of his company was due to arrive to discuss some issues with him.  They then joined the three other men in the living room. 

13.  Exhibit P69(1-18) were photographs of the apartment and items seized on 15 August 2012.  From the photographs, the layout of the apartment is clearly seen. 

14.  PW1 was then talked into playing cards, a game called “Show Hands”.  PW1 said he was not familiar with it but Kong wrote the rules down for him.  Wu got some small denomination notes and gave a few small notes to each player such as 10 or 20 dollar notes.  Wu pretended to call the engineer and told PW1 he said he was on his way.  They played cards until the money was gone.

15.  PW1 was persuaded but reluctant to keep playing. He was told it was just for fun, not for money.  Wu wrote various numbers and the alphabet “A” several times on a piece of paper whilst they were playing. Suddenly, Wu asked PW1 if he knew what the “A” stood for and said it equalled $10,000.  PW1 was in the dark as to what was meant by this but was then told there was 1,000 A’s recorded down which meant PW1 had lost $10 million.  PW1 had not agreed to gamble nor knew they were gambling for money.  Wu told PW1 he had to pay the sum before he could leave.  PW1 then realized he had been duped. 

16.  Wu left soon after and did not return to the apartment.  Kong took PW1’s mobile away from him.  PW1 was told, however, to use it to call his office and have money transferred to his personal account. He said Kong and Ho told him to do this.  He was very frightened and realized that he had been duped to come to Hong Kong and scammed. 

17.  PW1’s evidence was that he was threatened by Ho.  He told PW1 he had been a member of the special forces in the army, liked hunting and in the seas of Hong Kong there were always bodies.  PW1 felt his life was being threatened and agreed to have money remitted to his account.  He had his bank card on him.  The most he could have remitted was $5 million and he told the company to arrange it.  He told the defendant and the other men that they could kill him but the maximum the bank would remit was 5 million. This is despite their demand for 10 million. 

18.  Ho, the defendant, also snatched his bag away from him and took out of it his $50,000 cash as well as his bank card.  PW1 said nothing because he was scared for his own safety.  He said the defendant put the $50,000 in his own bag and took PW1’s bank card outside the apartment. He returned and asked PW1 for details of when the $5 million would be remitted and what was the procedure.  He relayed these details to somebody over the phone.  PW1 said that the defendant demanded his PIN number in a threatening tone.

19.  PW1 knew later that between 3 pm and 5 pm that day $5.2 million was taken from his account.  This account was accessed by the bank card the defendant took from him.  All the transactions took place in Shenzhen.  PW1 assumed that the defendant passed his bank card to someone outside who then went to Shenzhen.  Geographically, Tai Po is a short distance from the border.

20.  At 4.03 pm Kong and PW1 are seen leaving the lift lobby of Block 10, again, on the CCTV.  Kong took PW1 back to Tsim Sha Tsui but jumped out before the taxi reached his hotel.  PW1 left for the airport immediately without making a police report for several reasons.  He was not familiar with Hong Kong and did not know if his life was still in danger or under threat. 

21.  He returned on 26 June and made a police report.  At that stage he did not know the address of the apartment where he had been kept for hours.  He was told as much by the police that an address was required before they would take action.

22.  PW1 found Constellation Cove by driving around Tai Po on 4 July 2012 and told the police.  The police did not drive him around.  His friends did, and to gain access to these complexes in Tai Po, he was escorted in by property agents.  He engaged an agent on the pretence of looking for property otherwise he would not have been able to drive into these private estates.  PW1 was certainly resourceful.

23.  I suspect he had to do the detective work and find the address himself instead of being driven around by the police because the police did not take him seriously at first. 

24.  PW1 gave five statements to the police.  The first two were not very detailed and certainly nothing was clarified by the statement taker in the form of questions.  The third, fourth and fifth are more detailed and elaborate on the first two.  They are made after the offence location is identified by the victim, PW1. 

25.  The prosecution did call the statement takers to give evidence and they were tendered for cross-examination.

26.  The police set up an observation post on 15 August 2012 and ultimately entered Flat 2A, Block 10 of Constellation Cove and made certain arrests.  Three men including the defendant were inside the apartment. 

27.  PW2, DSPC 47952, arrested all three men and they said nothing under caution.  The defendant was seen in the living room. 

28.  On the coffee table the police seized $565,800 in cash and a lot of playing cards; the table is best shown at photographs 8 and 16 of Exhibit P69.  The cash, cards, pens, paper, cigarettes and ashtrays are strewn all over this coffee table.

29.  PW2 seized four mobile phones from the defendant and a resident card for Constellation Cove in the name of Ha Yat-sun, not the defendant’s name.

30.  The police also seized a contract, described as a letter of intent found on the sofa.  The police found the same document in a red plastic bag hidden up on a shelf of the false ceiling, best seen in photograph 12 of P69.  That bag also contained many name cards as seen in photographs 30 and 31.  They were all submitted into evidence.

31.  Certain name cards, Exhibit P23 and 24, are of particular relevance because they are almost identical to the name card PW1 said the defendant gave him on 19 June 2012, P49.  It differs only slightly in name and contact number to the 159 cards of P23 and 24.  Four sets of poker cards were also found in this red bag.

32.  The name cards, letters of intent, party invites seized were found to be all false in that the companies named did not issue them nor know of the origins of these cards and documents. P72 to 76 were statements admitted from the staff to the named companies.

33.  P71 and P80 were admitted facts, most of which I have referred to already.

The defence

34.  The defence called no witnesses.  The defence case is that the defendant identified by the victim, PW1, in an identification parade on 28 August 2012 is not the Mr Ho he describes of 19 June.

35.  In fact, the defence not only say the defendant is not Mr Ho and that PW1 is mistaken, they also allege the victim was not treated in the manner he describes.

36.  This is not a case where the defence agrees or does not challenge the victim was victimized in the manner he says but the defendant was wrongly identified as the culprit.  Here, the defence is saying that the victim is lying, exaggerating and not a victim at all.  He is a gambler who lost money and is utilizing the Hong Kong Police to try and recoup his loss, a very serious allegation and a criminal offence if true.

37.  The defence does not make this allegation based on fact or knowledge or presence on the material day at the offence location but submits and relies on the omissions or discrepancies in the victim’s five statements to the police and his oral evidence to show he is not credible, reliable and concocting evidence.

The issues

38.  The prosecution has the onus to prove all the elements of each charge beyond reasonable doubt.  The defendant has to prove nothing.

39.  These charges must be considered separately; they do not stand or fall together. 

40.  The defendant elected not to give evidence and is under no obligation to give evidence.  The failure to give or call evidence is no evidence of his guilt, it proves nothing one way or the other.  It could, however, strengthen an adverse inference to be drawn against him on the prosecution’s evidence.  The consequence of doing so is to leave the prosecution’s case enjoying the advantage of not being undermined, contradicted or explained by any evidence from the defence.

41.  The issues are: is the defendant Mr Ho as depicted by PW1?  Did PW1 correctly identify him as Mr Ho?  This is a trial where the case against the defendant depends wholly on the correctness of the identification of him which the defence allege is mistaken.  There is special need for caution when the issue turns on evidence of visual identification. 

42.  In addition to this issue, the defence allege the victim concocted his evidence in order to make out he was a victim.  In fact, he had not been, as he described, robbed, threatened or falsely lured to Hong Kong or imprisoned.  He lost money gambling and made it up to try and get back the money he lost.  The elements of the offence cannot be made out because his evidence is unreliable and not credible.  The defence describes him as an appalling witness.

My findings

43.  The defence submit the identification evidence is weak.  Much is made of the fact that in two out of three identification parades held on 28 August PW1 wrongly identified two actors as culprits.  In the third parade he picked out a man, the defendant, he said was Ho Po-shing of 19 June.  He told the court why he picked the defendant and I will come to that.  The defence say that the two wrong identifications cast doubt on the credibility of the third identification.

44.  The defence also highlight the gap of two months, the fact the lighting conditions of 19 June were not explored and suggest the prosecution failed to conduct an audio identification parade alongside the visual identification parade to be sure the identification was reliable.

45.  The defence submit PW1’s description of the culprit as being 1.8 metres tall when the defendant is 1.7 metres tall is damning.  The defence also question the lack of any DNA or fingerprint evidence incriminating the defendant and submits this supports the defence case of mistaken identification.  The defence submit the fact that the CCTV of the entrance of Block 10 only captured PW1 and Mr Kong going in and out, helps prove PW1’s evidence is unreliable.

46.  The defence painstakingly submit there were many omissions and discrepancies between PW1’s statements as well as those statements and his oral evidence.

47.  The defence submit the victim had a motive to lie and suggest his evidence as to how he lost $10 million playing “Show Hand” is questionable.  His evidence, he believed they were playing for fun only and not money, was - I quote - “contrary to common sense.” 

48.  The defence did object during the course of the trial to the admissions of exhibits seized on 15 August from the offence location.  I rejected their application, it had no basis or grounds.  The defence submit I should attach no weight to any exhibit found as they were not linked to PW1’s evidence.  I can draw no inference.  The prosecution of course disagree and suggest the gambling paraphernalia, the fake business cards, letter of intents and cards very similar to that of P49 supports PW1’s evidence of a scam.  As does the defendant’s arrest in this flat. 

49.  I shall address the credibility of PW1 first.  I do not intend to repeat the evidence or submissions in detail, but the fact I do not refer to any part of it does not mean I did not take it all into consideration in reaching my findings. 

50.  What the defence have shown is there are omissions in the statements, for example, a detail in the third of the five statements was not in the first two statements.  The most glaring omission in the first three statements is the exact threatening words spoken by Mr Ho, the defendant. 

51.  In the third statement is the threat - I quote - “You are alone in Hong Kong.  We can do anything to you.”  But in the fourth statement the threat is - I quote - “You are alone in Hong Kong.  We can do anything to you.  I used to be a special duties soldier.  There are always dead bodies found in Hong Kong waters.”  PW1 attributes these words to the defendant.  In oral evidence he said the defendant also said he likes hunting, but this is not in his statements. 

52.  The defence submit this omission is glaring and serious.  PW1 explained that he gave those details in each interview and did bring the omissions to the attention of the statement takers but they were not rectified.

53.  What is obvious having had sight of these statements referred to often during cross-examination is that the first two are not detailed and nothing was clarified by PW3, the statement taker.  The third is in more detail and taken by PW4.  This comes after the case was transferred to the Tai Po District from the Yau Tsim  District as it was a case that took place in their district. 

54.  After he took this third statement, it was transferred again to Regional Crime Unit, New Territories North because, as PW4 said, it was complicated and serious.  The fourth statement was in even more detail.  The fifth refers to PW1’s identification of the defendant in the identification parade.  It sets out what the defendant did and said on the offence date.  It took three statements before this case was transferred to the Regional Crime Unit.

55.  I refer back to the first and second statement. I believe PW3 did tell PW1 that unless he provided an address, the police could not open a file or set up a case.  I suspect that is why the first statement of 26 June is short, concise and not verbatim because PW3 knew PW1 had no address for the offence location.

56.  PW1 came back on 4 July and told PW3 the address of the complex was Deer Hill Bay, Tai Po.  When she drove him there, it became apparent to him it was the wrong estate.  There was no statement taken from PW1 by PW3 that day.  PW3 did not offer to help PW1 look for the correct estate.

57.  After this, as I have said, the victim himself with the help of friends and estate agents drove around until they located Constellation Cove.  He went back to PW3 and gave another statement, the second, and said specifically he was adding to his first statement.  He knew the estate was Constellation Cove but not the exact flat or block number. There is no evidence before the court how the police went to Flat 2A, Block 10 to make arrests.  This second statement of 6 July is very brief and reads like answers to questions and not details given sequentially.

58.  I note PW3 said it was her duty to record verbatim what a witness says and she did just that with PW1, but I have my doubts.  The same applies to PW4, he denied telling PW1 some things he did not record down as it was not relevant.  He said in evidence if what was said was relevant he would have written it down. 

59.  There is no criticism of PW5 from the Regional Crime Unit who took the fourth and fifth statement from PW1.

60.  I see no reason for PW1 to lie about what detail he gave PW3 and 4.  I believe he did question them but accepted their explanations.  I do not believe that they took the statements down verbatim. They would say they did in the witness-box to protect themselves.  PW3 in particular, I am sure, did not at first take PW1 seriously for whatever her own reasons. 

61.  In any event there were no discrepancies or contradictions between his statements and oral evidence, only the omissions of exact threatening words in the first to third statement and the fact PW1 had his mobile phone taken away from him.

62.  These omissions were not so serious to make me doubt PW1’s evidence or lead me to believe he made up the evidence to make a false report to the police.  In any event, I attribute the omissions to PW3 and 4, not the witness PW1. 

63.  The one contradiction that was highlighted by the defence I found to be insignificant and inconsequential.  It was related to when the alleged boss of Kong, Wu actually left the apartment.  Before or after PW1 was threatened, it was not material.

64.  I watched and listened to PW1 give evidence and I found him to be truthful and credible.  I am sure he did not exaggerate his evidence and what he related in evidence did take place.  He was a victim lured to Hong Kong.  The scam was premeditated and well-planned, carried out in a remote area of Hong Kong and unknown to someone not familiar with the territory.

65.  I do not accept the submission he legitimately lost money gambling and was trying to recover it by way of a false report to the police.  I do not accept he had a motive to lie.  If he was legitimately and knowingly gambling, why would he not know where he was? 

66.  The defence submission that no one would play “Show Hand” unless for money is a desperate attempt to cast doubt on PW1’s evidence.  The fact is PW1 did not lose $10 million playing cards.  The fraudsters were not playing for money.  The $10 million demanded was an arbitrary figure to extort money from a victim.  The extortion normally is accompanied or followed by threats and false imprisonment as was the case here. 

The exhibits seized

67.  The exhibits seized supported PW1’s evidence that the apartment was used to carry out the scam.  It was hardly lived in from the photographs, not even the beds had bed linen.  The cards, company documents, hidden name cards are capable of being tools of such a scam. 

68.  PW1 was given name cards, P50, 51 and 52, by the culprits and PW49 by a Mr Ho Po-shing who he says is the defendant.  I am sure this was to convince him that the business discussed was legitimate. 

69.  The cards, P23 and P24, very similar to P49, were found hidden by the police.  They are relevant to the case and I do attach weight to them.  There is a nexus between Mr Ho and the other cards.  There is a useful chart produced in final submissions by the prosecution relating to Exhibits P23, 24 and 49. 

70.  Evidence of gambling was there for all to see on the coffee table when the police raided this apartment.  It is not evidence that the scam was ongoing or that the men arrested there on 15 August were involved on 19 June.

71.  The gambling paraphernalia, the fake business cards and documents lend support to PW1’s evidence that the offences against him took place in that flat.  He had the right address.

Identification

72.  The remaining issue is the correctness or reliability of the identification of the defendant as a culprit by PW1.  Can the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is Mr Ho as described by PW1?

73.  After the arrest of the defendant on 15 August, the police arranged identification parades on 28 August.  There were three separate parades for the three men arrested at the premises.  Every one in each line-up wore shower caps.  In the first two parades PW1 picked out actors, not suspects.  In the third parade he picked out the defendant.  He said he was the tallest of the fraudsters and had said to him he was once in the special forces, liked hunting and there was always dead bodies in the sea of Hong Kong.  He said he had a deep and terrible impression of the defendant.  He was sure the man he picked out was the Mr Ho of 19 June. 

74.  In court, on 30 April 2013 he could not identify the defendant when asked if he was in court.  He explained his failure to identify anyone was because it was a long time ago, and I note that this was some eight months after the identification parade. 

75.  To avoid any risk of injustice in this case, I must warn myself of the special need for caution before convicting the defendant in reliance of the identification evidence.  I referred myself to The Queen v Turnbull and others [1977] QB 224.  An honest witness can be a mistaken witness.  A witness who is convinced and sure in his own mind may as a result be a convincing witness but may nevertheless be mistaken.  Therefore, I must closely examine the circumstances in which the identification came to be made.

76.  I must examine carefully the circumstances which include:

(1) The length of the observation period;

(2) The distance between them;

(3) Any impediments to that observation;

(4) The lighting conditions;

(5) The period of time between the offence and the subsequent identification;

(6) Any material or marked difference between the description given by the witness to the police when he first saw the accused, if any, and the accused’s subsequent appearance;

(7) Had the witness ever seen the accused before the incident?

77.  All these factors go to the quality of the identification evidence.  If the quality is good, the danger of that evidence is weakened.  Obviously, the poorer the quality, the greater the danger.

78.  There may be other evidence to support the correctness of the identification.  This need not amount to corroboration in the strict sense provided its effect is to help the court be sure that there is no mistake in identification.

79.  To carefully examine the circumstances, the following evidence I found credible is relevant. 

80.  The victim, PW1, was with Mr Ho Po-shing for hours in the apartment.  They were in the same room most of the time.  They must have been face to face and close up often.  There was much interaction and conversation. 

81.  I am sure the lighting would be good enough to see everything clearly as one would expect in a home during daylight hours.  They played cards which I doubt was in darkness.

82.  The defendant was unknown to PW1, it was the first ever meeting.  However, what the defendant said and did to PW1 is relevant because, as PW1 said, it gave him the most terrible impression of the defendant.  

83.  He attributed threatening words to the defendant.  He gave evidence that it was the defendant who snatched his bag from him and took out his $50,000 cash and bank card.  It was the defendant who demanded the PIN number from PW1.  He dealt with the card taking it outside of the apartment.  He asked PW1 for the details of the bank transfer and procedure and repeated it down the telephone to somebody else, all in front of PW1.  PW1 was sure he picked out Mr Ho from the line-up of that identification parade.

84.  I am satisfied that the lengthy interaction between Ho and PW1 would leave a deep impression and a gap of two months is not so long when one has a deep and terrible impression of another.

85.  I am satisfied the quality of the identification is good.  The circumstances in which he spent time with the defendant were not difficult circumstances or a fleeting scenario.

86.  I did take into account the fact PW1 only made one positive identification out of three, meaning he picked out two actors. The defence suggest because PW1 knew he had two wrong, he embellished the evidence against the defendant.  I do not agree or accept that submission.  His third statement made before the identification is detailed and the subsequent one does not bear evidence he embellished his evidence deliberately or subsequently.

87.  There can be a simple explanation and it is that Mr Ho made the most impression.  He is the one who PW1 recalls or remembers clearly. 

88.  It does not follow that if one makes a wrong identification as well as a positive identification, then positive identifications are tainted or of poor quality.  It will depend on why a witness selects a person in the parade.  PW1 was clear when he says why he was sure the defendant was Mr Ho and I accepted his evidence.  There was no hint he hesitated or was not entirely sure. 

89.  The fact he was unable to make a dock identification during the course of the trial eight months after the parade is not surprising, nor casts doubt on the identification eight months prior.

90.  The fact he describes Mr Ho as 1.8 metres when the defendant is 1.7 metres is not a material discrepancy that convinces me he was lying or mistaken.  It is a negligible difference in particular when I take into account PW1 is not a professional witness such as a police officer.

91.  I have taken into account the fact there is no DNA or fingerprint evidence incriminating the defendant on any relevant exhibit, it is not fatal.  The fact the defendant is not captured on any CCTV pointing at the entrance is not fatal either.  There is just as likely to be other entrances and exits or it may not be obvious that any person on the CCTV is the defendant. 

92.  I am satisfied that the identification of the defendant is of good quality and safe.  It is reliable and solid.  I am sure PW1 had a terrible and deep impression of the defendant and when he saw him again two months later, his identification of him was good and not shaky.  I am sure the defendant is Mr Ho of 19 June.

93.  There is other evidence that is capable of supporting PW1’s identification evidence.  The defendant was found in the offence location.  He had a resident card on his person not in his name.  He had given PW1 a business card, P49, to give himself legitimacy.  Very similar cards were found hidden with others in the ceiling.  The name of Ho and his telephone number were slightly different.  I asked why would these cards be hidden and why are they so similar to P49.  I am sure they were tools of the scam.  A tool, P49, was passed to PW1. 

94.  The other evidence I have mentioned above strengthens the prosecution case against the defendant and helps me to be sure there is no danger of a mistaken identification. 

95.  To conclude, I find PW1 credible and reliable. I believed his evidence and believed he suffered an ordeal at the hands of the defendant and others.  I found his identification of the defendant as a culprit, as Mr Ho Po-shing good.  I am sure it was not a mistaken identification.

96.  I rejected the defence submission that PW1’s evidence was concocted and exaggerated.  It follows I rejected the submission his identification of the defendant is weak and to accept it would be dangerous and unjust. 

97.  I found PW1 was lured to Hong Kong under false pretences and induced to play cards.  I am sure the defendant and others induced him to play whilst allegedly waiting for an engineer to meet PW1.  I referred myself to the authority submitted by the prosecution, HKSAR v Yau Wai Hung Benny and another CACC311/2005.

98.  I am sure PW1 was robbed in the premises of his cash $50,000 and a bank card.  I believe it was the defendant who snatched his bag, took his items, pocketed the cash and passed his card to another.  I am sure PW1 was threatened and put in fear for his own safety at that time by the defendant and others. 

99.  I am sure he was held at the apartment against his will until sufficient time had passed before the money arranged by PW1 to be transferred to his personal account.  This was for a period of many hours. He was unable to leave.  He was denied access to his mobile and could call no one.  He was told he had to pay this money before he left and that is what happened. 

100.  It was not part of the defence case that even if I accept PW1’s evidence, the elements of the offence the defendant faced were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.  Nevertheless, I did go on to consider the elements of each offence as well as the evidence of PW1 which I accepted in its entirety.  I found the prosecution could discharge its burden for each charge.

101.  Accordingly, the prosecution has proved Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 against the defendant and proved it beyond reasonable doubt.  The defendant is convicted of all four charges he faced.