HKSAR v. SHAFEEV VLADISLAV

HCCC 383/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 383 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charge

1.  On 3 November 2025, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 and sections 159G and 159J(1)(a)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.  The count involved 128.64 kilogrammes of a solid containing 107.18 kilogrammes of ketamine.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 9 September 2025 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed his guilty plea to the charge and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.  The facts of the case can be summarized as follows. 

3.  On 5 April 2024, a logistics company (“DH”)  was engaged by a client called “Jonh” to collect 2 consignments (“Consignment A” and “Consignment B”)  and deliver them to an address in Mong Kok (“the Mong Kok premises”).  

4.  On 9 April 2024, a driver of DH first collected Consignment A at the cargo terminal of the Hong Kong International Airport and presented it to the Customs for clearance.  Customs officers found a plastic bag inside containing a total of 98.97 kilogrammes of a solid containing 82.46 kilogrammes of ketamine.  Consignment B was later also examined and was found to contain a total of 29.67 kilogrammes of a solid containing 24.72 kilogrammes of ketamine.  The dangerous drugs found in the two consignments were the subject matter of the charge.

5.  On 9 April 2024, a Customs Officer, disguised as a driver of DH, conveyed the two consignments by a lorry to somewhere near the Mong Kok premises.  There, the Defendant approached the lorry and confirmed that he was to collect the 2 consignments.  The Defendant further inspected the 2 consignments and confirmed that they belonged to him.  The Defendant was then arrested and searched and a bunch of 3 keys was found on him.

6.  The Defendant was then escorted to the Mong Kok premises the door of which could be opened with the use of the keys found on him.  Upon search, 6 suitcases and an electronic scale were, inter alia, found at the premises.  Under verbal caution, the Defendant admitted that the suitcases and the electronic scale belonged to him.  

7.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that:

(1)  He had purchased an air ticket to come to Hong Kong alone on 31 March 2024 to collect the two consignments for a person known as “Lava” at a reward of USD1,000;

(2)  Lava had sent him the vehicle registration mark for collecting the two consignments and the Defendant was to convey the consignments to someone pending Lava’s instruction;

(3)  His Russian friend named “John” had rented the Mong Kok premises for him. Lava had instructed him to rent another apartment for people to come and pick up the consignments, and John had rented another flat for him at Fa Yuen Street (“the Fa Yuen Street premises”); and

(4)  Upon Lava’s instruction, he had purchased five of the suitcases found in the Mong Kok premises for the 2 consignments. He would throw away the “unnecessary goods” and only pack the “necessary goods” into the suitcases. The packed suitcases would then be handed over to the customers.

8.  Immigration records showed that the Defendant had previously been in Hong Kong four times: (1)  from 17 November 2023 to 30 November 2023; (2)  from 15 December 2023 to 16 December 2023; (3) from 7 January 2024 to 18 January 2024; and (4)  from 5 February 2024 to 9 February 2024.  The Defendant last entered Hong Kong on 31 March 2024.

9.  A viewing of the messages in the Defendant’s mobile phone showed that the Defendant had exchanged Telegram messages with John to have John book the Mong Kok premises and the Fa Yuen Street premises for him.  The two had also exchanged messages on 9 April 2024 to monitor the delivery of the consignments.

10.  Consignment A and Consignment B contained a total of 128.64 kilogrammes of a solid containing 107.18 kilogrammes of ketamine.  The estimated street value of the dangerous drugs seized was HK$58,788,480.

11.  In the Summary of Facts, the Defendant admitted that at the material time, he had attempted to traffic in the dangerous drugs in question.

Background and mitigation

12.  The Defendant was at the time of the offence aged 24, and is now 26 years old.  He was born in Russia in 2000 and spent most of his life there.  He graduated from a college in 2018 after completing a 4-year degree specialising in shipbuilding, and he subsequently worked as a sales manager in Moscow until 2020.  After that, he was trading in cryptocurrency full time in Moscow, earning around HK$17,000 per month.

13.  The Defendant is the sole child of the family.  His father passed away in 2004, and thereafter, he was raised by his mother.  His mother is working as a chief accountant and his grandparents are aged 74 and 75 respectively.

14.  The Defendant has a girlfriend and he was planning on proposing to her, but such plan has now been halted in light of the present matter.

15.  The Defendant’s family and girlfriend have been devastated because of his being arrested for the present offence.  The Defendant is highly remorseful and wishes to turn over a new leaf and be able to return to Russia as soon as possible such that he can be reunited with them.

16.  It was submitted by his counsel, Mr. Pannu-Yuon, that the Defendant was merely a tiny cog that was utilised within the much larger scheme and his role was within the lowest band of being a “courier” or “storekeeper”.   It was not disputed, however, that there was an international element in the subject offence.

Sentence

17.  In sentencing the Defendant, I will follow the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, bearing in mind also the Court of Appeal’s guidance in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 HKLRD 1186.

18.  The first step is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question. 

19.  In respect of ketamine, the Court of Appeal pointed out in HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin [2013] 1 HKLRD 627 that if more than 3 kilogrammes of ketamine is involved, the starting point can exceed 20 years although the increase in sentence should not be proportional to the increase in the drug quantity.  In HKSAR v So Wing On, CACC 296/2012, which involved 21.31 kilogrammes of ketamine, and HKSAR v Wong Kam Chuen, CACC 75/2012, which involved 39.73 kilogrammes of ketamine and a crossing-the-border element, the starting points of 21 and 22 years were respectively adopted.  In HKSAR v Yeung Kwok Ming and Another, CACC 224/2007, the 1^st count involved trafficking in 426 kilogrammes of ketamine and a starting point of 30 years was adopted.  More recently in HKSAR v Wong Ka-ho & Anor., HCCC 162/2019, [2021] HKCFI 494, the Court of First Instance used a starting point of 23 years for some 63 kilogrammes of ketamine.  

20.  In the present case, the charge involved a total quantity of 107.18 kilogrammes of ketamine.  In my view, a notional starting point of 24 years and 6 months is appropriate for trafficking in this very large quantity of dangerous drugs.

21.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant based upon the Summary of Facts before the Court.  In short, the Defendant was involved together with others in preparing to collect and deliver the two consignments of dangerous drugs in Hong Kong.

22.  The third step is to decide where within the relevant guideline band the Defendant should come.  In my assessment, the Defendant’s role was that of a courier cum storekeeper with an international element.

23.  The fourth step is to deal with aggravating factors, if any.  Given his aforesaid role as part of a trafficking syndicate and the fact that the Defendant had come to Hong Kong to commit the offence, I will enhance the notional starting point of 24 years and 6 months by 1 year and 6 months, taking it to 26 years’ imprisonment.

24.  The fifth step is to consider the mitigating factors, if any.  In light of the seriousness of the offence, the only strong mitigating factor in the Defendant’s case is his guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, he is entitled to a full one-third discount to reduce the enhanced starting point of 26 years to a final sentence of 17 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

25.  Lastly, I consider this sentence fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the Defendant.  Accordingly, the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 17 years and 4 months.

Exhibits

26.  An Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application, not objected to by the Defence, was granted.