HKSAR v. HO CHI HO AND ANOTHER

DCCC 613/2025
DCCC 614/2025
DCCC 615/2025

[2025] HKDC 1700

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 613 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 614 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 615 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

_____________________________________

RULING ON THE PROSECUTION’S
APPLICATION FOR CONSOLIDATION

_____________________________________

A.  INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the prosecution’s application for consolidation of DCCC 613/2025, DCCC 614/2025 and DCCC 615/2025.  D1 & D2 of DCCC613/2025 and D1, D2 & D3 of DCCC 615/2025 object to the application, i.e. D1, D2, D6, D7 and D8 in the consolidated case.  For easy reference, I would refer the defendants thereafter by their respective number in the consolidated case.  The charges laid against each Defendant in the said cases have been summarized by the prosecution as below:-

Case no.	Charges   [Charge number in the consolidated case]	Defendant in the consolidated case
DCCC 613/2025	(Charge 1) Conspiracy to engage in bookmaking  [1]	D1 and D2
	(Charge 2) Conspiracy to promote or facilitate bookmaking or betting with a bookmaker [2]	D1 and D2
	(Charge 3) Money laundering [3]	D1
DCCC 614/2025	(Charges 1-4) Money laundering [4-7]	D3
	(Charges 5-6) Money laundering [8,9]	D4
	(Charge 7) Money laundering [10]	D5
DCCC 615/2025	(Charge 1) Engaging in bookmaking [11]	D6
	(Charges 2-3) Money laundering [6,8]	D6
	(Charge 4) Money laundering [12]	D6 and D7
	(Charges 5-11) Money laundering [13-19]	D7
	(Charge 12) Conspiracy to engage in bookmaking [20]	D8
	(Charges 13-14) Money laundering [21,22]	D8 and D9
	(Charge 15) Money laundering [23]	D9
	(Charge 16) Conspiracy to promote or facilitate bookmaking or betting with a bookmaker [24]	D6
	(Charge 17) Conspiracy to promote or facilitate bookmaking or betting with a bookmaker [25]	D8

B.  BACKGROUND

2.  In 2022 Police carried out a decoy operation against a mobile app called “Bigman App” (the App).  The App was managed and operated by “Big Man HK Technology Limited” (the Company)  since July 2019.  The App contained different gambling games.

3.  Only “Star Tokens”, which could be purchased or cashed out at HK$1 per unit, could be used to play games inside the clubs enrolled via the App.  In topping up and cashing the “Star Token” bank accounts of D3, D4, D5, D7 and D9 were involved. 

4.  Investigation revealed that:

·  D1 was at the time of the arrest the sole director and a shareholder holding 5% shares of the Company running the App.  At that time, D2 was an employee of the Company.

·  D1 was one of the two authorized signatories of the Company’s bank account and only single signature is required to operate the bank account.  D1 admitted managing the bank account.

·  D6 was involved in purchasing bank accounts from unknown persons for receiving the deposits made by players using the App.

·  The WhatsApp record retrieved from the mobile phones of D6 and D8 showed that they were involved in the operation and the promotion of the App.

5.  D1 to D9 were arrested or re-arrested on different dates, and were separated into 5 cases when first appeared at the Magistrates’ Court:-  

(a)  STCC 3246/2022: against D1-D2

(b)  STCC 5132/2024: against D3

(c)  STCC 5097/2024: against D4

(d)  STCC 336/2025: against D5

(e)  STCC 4/2025: against D6-D9

6.  Prosecution intended to apply consolidation of all the 5 cases in Magistrates’ Court, but for certain practical considerations, prosecution only applied for the consolidation of  STCC 5132/2024, STCC 5097/2024 and STCC 336/2025, and reserved the right to apply consolidation of all the cases in District Court.

7.  At the last mention hearing at the District Court on 24 July 2025, the prosecution applied for consolidation of the present 3 cases.  D1, D2 and D6-D8 have indicated their objection on the said application.

C.  The Law

8.  Rule 7 of the Indictment Rules, Cap.221C provides:

“Subject to section 18 of the Ordinance, charges for any offences may be joined in the same indictment if those charges are founded on the same facts, or form or are a part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character.”

D.  PROSECUTION  CASE

9.  From the respective Charge Sheet and the Summary of Facts for the 3 cases, the charges faced by the defendants stemmed from the same incident, namely the business and/or the App operated and managed by the Company.

10.  The charges concerned in the 3 cases could be categorized into 2 main aspects (i.e. offences related to (i)  bookmaking; and (ii)  money laundering), which rely on, inter alia, the same factual basis.

11.  The facts and evidence relating to the separate offences were sufficiently connected. The evidence relating to Charges 1-25 are intertwined and involved the same important common witness.

12.  There is no evidence suggesting that, by having D1-D9 tried together, they may be prejudiced or embarrassed in their defence: Section 23(3)  of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221.

E.  DEFENCE CASE

D1, D2, D6 & D8

13.  While D1 and D2 were related to the Company, it is not alleged that D6 or D8 was employed by or involved in the Company.  D1 and D2 also not jointly charged with D6 and D8. 

14.  In the absence of any factual nexus that brings or may bring D1 and D2, D3 to D9 and their alleged offences together, it is improper and wrong to join D1 and D2 together with the other defendants in the same Charge Sheet.  Further, it will definitely bring unnecessary burden to the Court.

D7

15.  When deciding applications for consolidation and joinder, the Court should have regard not only to what is permitted by the rules, but also to whether the interests of justice are best served by one long trial or several shorter ones.

16.  8 out of 25 counts of the consolidated case are against D7, all are about money laundering.  The consolidation would result in an unduly long or complicated trial and place an unfair burden on the trial judge. The court should consider to sever the cases into 2 categories: i.e. offences related to (i)  bookmaking; and (ii)  money laundering.

F.  DISCUSSION

17.  As revealed in the brief facts, this is a case of bookmaking operation via mobile App and making use of stooge accounts.   Thus when D1 & D2 and D6 & D8 say their case is unrelated to each other because D6 & D8 were not related to the Company, they are digressing from the issue.  The issue is whether they engaging, facilitating, or promoting booking via the App.  That all 25 charges stemmed from the same operation is beyond argument.

18.  I consider and agree with the prosecution that this is a case in which the predicate offences (i.e. bookmaking related offences)  are known.  The stooge accounts involved in handling the crime proceeds derived from the predicate offences, which themselves form part of the series of offence.  Separating the money laundering offences from the bookmaking offences would deprive the court of the opportunity to consider the full picture of the syndicate’s scope, which is relevant to the assessment of the defendants’ criminality.

19.  The prosecution and D7 correctly divide the charges concerned into 2 categories, i.e. offences related to (i)  the engaging, facilitation, or promotion of booking via the App (D1, D2, D6 & D8)  and (ii)  money laundering (D1, D3 to D9).  However, D1, D2, D6 to D8 submit that to avoid the court being unnecessarily overburdened, the charges should be severed.

20.  D1, D2, D6 and D8 propose to sever the charges into 3 shorter trials: (1)  charges against D1 & D2, (2)  charges against D3 to D7, (3)  charges against D8 & D9.  Thus the trial of D1, D2, D8 and D9 could be conducted in Chinese and save time and costs.  Should that be the case, evidence related to the bookmaking and the App would need to be heard in three separate trials, as D1, D2, D6 and D8 are all charged with offences related to booking, while the translation work would need to be done in anyway for D3 to D5.

21.  D7 suggests to sever the cases into 2 categories, the main trial against D1, D2, D6 and D8 concerning offences related to bookmaking.  Where these defendants have money laundering offences, it would be just and convenient to consolidate them in the main trial.  Individual separate trials against the 5 stooges for their respective money laundering offences.  D7 might have overlooked, while the prosecution rightly points out, that D7 and 3 other stooges are jointly charged with D6 or D8 for money laundering.

22.  In the present bookmaking operation, D1, D6 and D8 apart from offences related to bookmaking (Charge 1, 2, 11, 20, 24, 25 of the Consolidated Charge Sheet)  they are also charged with money laundering, on their own (Charge 3 of the Consolidated Charge Sheet)  or jointly with another defendant:

·  D6 and D3, D4 & D7  are jointly charged with money laundering (Charge 6, 8, 12 of the Consolidated Charge Sheet);

·  D8 and D9 also jointly charged with money laundering (Charge 21, 22 of the Consolidated Charge Sheet).

Only D5 has one count of money laundering on his own (Charge 10 of the Consolidated Charge Sheet).

23.  It is the prosecution case that D1 used the Company’s account to deal with the bookmaking transaction and D6 & D8 operate some of the stooge accounts.  The use of stooge accounts is part of the bookmaking operation, as mentioned above this is relevant to the scale of the operation.   

24.  9 defendants and 25 counts seem to be numerous, yet 5 out of the 9 defendants are stooges, 19 out of the 25 counts related to money laundering, as some stooges are charged for more than one bank account: D3 is charged for 3 bank accounts, D7 is charged for 7 bank accounts. 

25.  The 8 counts related to D7 are amounting to almost one third of the charges.  D7 submits that the prosecution case could be agreed and the defence of D7 is the same for all his 7 bank accounts.  

26.  It is unlikely that the banker affirmations would be challenged by the other defendants.  D3, D4, D5 and D9 have no objection to the consolidation.  I do not consider the court would be unnecessarily overburdened by the consolidation.  There is also no evidence suggesting that the defendants may be prejudiced or embarrassed in their defence by consolidating the 3 cases.  

G.  CONCLUSION

27.  It is clear from the brief facts that the 3 cases are founded on the same facts, the charges faced by D1-D9 form a series of offences of the same or similar character, the evidence of the charges are intertwined involving the same common key witness (the undercover officer).

28.  I am of the view that the 3 cases should be consolidated.  Leave for consolidation is granted accordingly.