HKSAR v. LEE CHUN-PANG

DCCC 488/2021

[2021] HKDC 1510

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 488 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

Facts

2.  About 1:45 a.m. on 6 January 2021, two police officers intercepted the defendant while the defendant was sitting on the driver’s seat of a private car outside Chak Fai House, Tin Chak Estate, Tin Shui Wai, New Territories.  Nobody else was inside the car.

3.  Upon search of the car by the police officers, a total of 62 plastic bags of suspected dangerous drugs were found inside the storage box between the front passenger’s seat and the driver’s seat. 

4.  These 62 plastic bags of suspected dangerous drugs were subsequently confirmed by the government chemist to be:

(a)  22 plastic bags containing a total of 3.98 grammes of a solid containing 3.48 grammes of cocaine (Exhibit 1);

(b)  10 plastic bags containing a total of 3.42 grammes of a powder containing 2.97 grammes of ketamine (Exhibit 2);

(c)  30 plastic bags containing a total of 10.4 grammes of a powder containing 9.01 grammes of ketamine (Exhibit 3).

5.  Apart from the dangerous drugs, the following items were also found inside the car: (a)  cash of HK$55,000 inside the storage box above the steering wheel, (b)  one Apple iPhone 6S and one Apple iPhone X on the front passenger’s seat, and (c)  cash of HK$9,249.60 and cash of CNY¥100 inside the defendant’s cross body bag.

6.  The defendant said under caution at the scene that those “coke” and “k zai” (Exhibits 1 to 3)  were for his own consumption.

7.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant said under caution that the private car driven by him at the material times was borrowed from his friend, and that he earned HK$30,000 a month by working as a construction worker.

8.  The car owner also confirmed that he lent the car to the defendant in November 2020 for the purpose of driving only.

9.  The estimated street value of the dangerous drugs (i.e. Exhibits 1 to 3)  was HK$13,028.

Criminal record

10.  The defendant has a clear record.

Personal and family background

11.  The defendant was born on 22 May 1993 in Guangdong.  He is now 28 years old.  He moved to Hong Kong in 2008 to live with his family.  He received education in Hong Kong up to Form 6.  He started working as a construction worker in 2014 and earned about HK$30,000 a month.  Since 2017, he also worked part-time at a car-wash. When he was arrested, his construction work was almost dried up and his income came mainly from his car-wash job.  He earned about HK$15,000 a month but he had to contribute HK$10,000 to his family.  He is single but has already been engaged to his 27-year-old fiancée.  Prior to his remand, he lived with his parents, one elder brother aged 30 and one younger sister aged 26.  Both parents are suffering from long-term illnesses and on prolonged medical treatments and medication. 

Mitigation

12.  Ms Stephanie Ko, learned counsel for the defendant, said that the defendant committed the offence because of his financial needs.  At the time of the offence, the defendant’s income was severely affected by the pandemic, but he needed money to alleviate his financial burdens and to feed his drug addiction.

13.  Ms Ko further said that the defendant did not have all the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.  She said that the defendant intended to use the 22 packets of cocaine (Exhibit 1)  and 10 packets of ketamine (Exhibit 2)  himself, and that he only possessed the remaining 30 packets of ketamine (Exhibit 3)  for the purpose of trafficking. Ms Ko said that the defendant would use one packet in each consumption.

14.  As to the sentence to be imposed, Ms Ko submitted that since two types of drugs were involved, it would be appropriate to adopt the “combined approach”.  She referred to the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in cocaine and ketamine, and submitted that the starting point of the sentence should be imprisonment for 49 months with an upward adjustment.  As to the extent of the adjustment, Ms Ko made various calculations under the absurdity test, the conversion test and the ratio test to cross check what the appropriate starting point should be if all the drugs were for trafficking, and a reduction would be made to account for the fact that parts of the drugs were for the defendant’s own use.

15.  Ms Ko submitted that the defendant was remorseful and his sentence should be given the relevant discount for his guilty plea.

16.  Ms Ko also placed before the Court 10 mitigation letters written by the defendant and his parents, elder brother, younger sister, fiancée, employer, former teacher, and 3 former classmates and friends.  In summary, the defendant said that he was remorseful and wished to turn a new leaf.  The writers of the other mitigation letters said that the defendant was a filial son, an honest and responsible person, and was always willing to help the others.  They considered that the defendant was deeply remorseful and would not commit any offence again.  They would support the defendant fully in his rehabilitation.  The car-wash owner had offered to re-employ the defendant upon his release.

Forfeiture application

17.  Other than the private car and the car key which will be returned to their owner, the prosecution applies for forfeiture of all other exhibits seized from the defendant in connection with this case.

18.  On the other hand, the defendant asks for the return of the HK$55,000 cash found inside the storage box above the steering wheel, and the Apple iPhone X found on the front passenger’s seat.  He does not object to the forfeiture of the other exhibits.

Reasons for sentence & Ruling on the forfeiture application

19.  In light of the defendant’s specific contention that he only trafficked in 9.01 grammes of ketamine (Exhibit 3), and the other drugs, i.e. 3.48 grammes of cocaine (Exhibit 1)  and 2.97 grammes of ketamine (Exhibit 2)  were for his own use, it is logical to determine first of all whether or not he should be sentenced on this factual basis.

20.  If the defendant’s contention is true or may be true, it may be necessary to split the present charge into two charges, one alleging that the defendant trafficked in Exhibit 3, and the other alleging he had possession of Exhibits 1 and 2.  A sentence of imprisonment of the appropriate length for the offence in each charge will be imposed, and the two sentences will be ordered to run either wholly or partly concurrently or consecutively under the totality principle.  Alternatively, if the present charge remains unchanged, the proper sentencing approach will be fixing the proper starting point of the term of imprisonment for trafficking in Exhibit 3 first, and then adjusting that starting point upward to account for the fact that the defendant should also be punished for possessing Exhibits 1 and 2, with the totality principle in mind.

21.  As to whether or not the defendant possessed Exhibits 1 and 2 for his own use, Ms Ko informed this court after taking instructions from the defendant that the defendant elected not to give evidence, and would not call any witness or adduce any evidence on this issue.

22.  I remind myself that the defendant has a right to remain silent, and that he has no burden to prove anything.  But the fact that he remained silent means that there is no direct testimony from him to substantiate his claim that he intended to use all the cocaine (i.e. the 22 packets in Exhibit 1)  and part of the ketamine (i.e. the 10 packets in Exhibit 2)  himself, or to undermine, contradict or explain the evidence from the prosecution that may lead to the inference that he possessed all the drugs including Exhibits 1 and 2 for the purpose of trafficking.

23.  Ms Ko submitted that the defendant’s claim was supported by two pieces of evidence.  First, the defendant had made a statement under caution at the time of his arrest that he had all the cocaine and ketamine for his own use.  Second, the Correctional Services Department had stated in a letter dated 19 November 2021 that the urine specimen collected from the defendant on 8 January 2021 after his remand into Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre was tested positive in cocaine.

24.  The defendant did make a statement under caution upon his arrest that he had the cocaine and the ketamine for his own use.  However, his statement was not made in court under oath, and was not tested under cross-examination.  Hence, little weight can be attached to his statement even if he is given the benefit of a good character direction on both the propensity and credibility limbs because of his clear record.

25.  Besides, this out-of-court statement made by the defendant was not on all fours with what he says now.  When he was arrested, he claimed that all the dangerous drugs (Exhibits 1 to 3)  were for his own use, but he now admits by his guilty plea to the charge and in his mitigation through his learned counsel that he did possess part of the dangerous drugs, i.e. Exhibit 3, for the purpose of trafficking.

26.  Furthermore, while the defendant’s urine specimen was tested positive in cocaine, it is noteworthy that ketamine was not detected.  The urine test results lead to the only reasonable and irresistible inference that the defendant was not a ketamine abuser, or that he had not abused ketamine for quite some time prior to his arrest. 

27.  In light of this inference of fact, coupled with the lack of evidence from any source that the defendant was a ketamine user and the quantity of ketamine that he might use, there was simply no evidence that the defendant intended or might intend to use any part of the ketamine that formed Exhibit 2 himself. 

28.  It must also be remembered that the defendant now admits that he possessed Exhibit 3, i.e. 30 packets of ketamine, for the purpose of trafficking.  It is difficult to see why he would not have the same intention regarding the 10 packets of ketamine (Exhibit 2).  After all, these 40 packets of ketamine were all placed by the defendant inside the same storage box between the front passenger’s seat and the driver’s seat inside the car.  If he had already had the definite intention to use Exhibit 2 himself, he could have placed them inside his cross body bag.

29.  As to the defendant’s claim that he possessed all 22 packets of cocaine (Exhibit 1)  for his own use, the fact that his urine specimen was tested cocaine positive proves that he was a cocaine abuser at the time of the offence.  The urine test result clearly lends support to the defendant’s claim that he had Exhibit 1 for his own use.  However, the urine test result is only a piece of evidence but not conclusive evidence to prove that he intended to use the 22 packets of cocaine (Exhibit 1)  himself.  It is not uncommon for drug addicts to traffic in any drug including the same drug they would consume in order to feed their addiction. The defendant had also admitted he trafficked in ketamine to make money.  For money, he could also traffic in cocaine.  After all, he could not use all 22 packets of cocaine in one go.

30.  Furthermore, if the defendant had the definite intention to use all 22 packets of cocaine (Exhibit 1)  himself, he could have put all of them inside his cross body bag.  He had not done so.  He put them inside the same storage box together with the other 40 packets of ketamine.

31.  The defendant elected not to give evidence.  This was his right, but this court heard no explanation from him, if he had one, as to why he would not have trafficked in the 22 packets of cocaine or any part thereof when he admitted that he had 30 packets of ketamine (Exhibit 3)  for the purpose of trafficking with a view to making money, and/or why he did not separate the cocaine from the ketamine.

32.  As to whether or not the defendant would also traffic in the 22 bags of cocaine (Exhibit 1), one factor to consider was the extent of his drug trafficking business.

33.  It was an admitted fact that cash in the sum of HK$55,000 was placed inside the storage box above the steering wheel inside the car, and that cash in the sums of HK$9,249.60 and CNY¥100 was inside the defendant’s cross body bag.  The defendant owned the money.  Leaving aside the CNY¥100, the defendant had the total sum of HK$64,249.60.  The question is how come he had that large amount of cash with him.

34.  The defendant said in mitigation through his learned counsel that he committed the offence because of financial pressure.  He had financial burden to alleviate and his drug addiction to feed.  He said that around the time of the offence, his construction work was almost dried up, and his income came mainly from the car-wash job.  He said his monthly income was only HK$15,000, and he had to contribute HK$10,000 to his family.  If so, he had only HK$5,000 for his personal use not only for his daily expenses but also for his drug addiction. On his version of events, he could not have saved this sum of HK$64,249.60.

35.  In fact, the defendant never claimed that the money was his savings.  He claimed that the HK$55,000 was the outstanding salary paid to him in one go by his employer.  However, there was not an iota of evidence from any source to substantiate his claim.

36.  On the other hand, if the HK$55,000 were his outstanding salary, it would have meant that he had been owed this sum of money for a long time, bearing in mind that he earned only HK$15,000 each month according to what was said in mitigation. There was no evidence as to how long it had taken for this sum of HK$55,000 outstanding salary to accumulate.  But since the defendant earned only HK$15,000 a month, the money must have been owed to him for more than 3 months.  If so, why did his employer suddenly have sufficient money to pay him off in one go? There was also no evidence when the employer paid him the HK$55,000.  If he were paid the money when he was driving the car before he was stopped by the police, why did the employer choose to pay him the money after midnight outside the working hour and place?  If he were paid by the employer on some other day, why would the defendant put the money inside the car?  Why did he not put the money inside his cross body bag?  His claim that the HK$55,000 was the outstanding salary paid to him in one go was just a bare statement that was full of doubts.

37.  In addition, the most telling fact is that when the defendant claimed that he had to resort to trafficking in drugs in order to alleviate his financial burden and to feed his drug addiction, he never said that he had no money because his employer failed to pay him salary on time for a period of time.  Instead, he claimed that his construction work was almost completely dried up, and that his income was severely affected by the pandemic.  The two accounts given by the defendant were inconsistent and could not exist at the same time.  In my judgment, if it were true that the defendant had been owed salary in the sum of HK$55,000 by his employer that caused him to engage in drug trafficking, he would have put this point forward at the earliest possible stage, instead of saying so only when the prosecution applied to forfeit the money. I find that the defendant’s claim is untrue and not possibly true, not to mention that the defendant’s claim was not supported by any evidence.

38.  When the defendant’s claim as to the source of this sum of HK$55,000 is rejected, what is left is the admitted fact that this sum of money was in the possession of the defendant at the time when he himself admitted that he had Exhibit 3 for the purpose of trafficking, and when he had no reason, as this court has found, for him not to have possessed Exhibits 1 and 2 for the purpose of trafficking as well. 

39.  In this regard, it was also noteworthy how this sum of HK$55,000 was placed inside the car. When the defendant was driving the car, he was sitting on the driver’s seat. On his left was the storage box between the front passenger’s seat and the driver’s seat which had been used to place all the drugs (Exhibits 1 to 3), and in his front was the storage box above the steering wheel in which the sum of HK$55,000 was found.  He had easy and ready access to each of the storage boxes from the driver’s seat.  The layout was exactly the same as a hawker putting his commodities on his left, and the cashier till in his front when putting up his commodities for sale in the market.

40.  It also leads to the question why the defendant borrowed the private car from his friend for use as early as in November 2020.  According to the defendant, he did not have sufficient work and hence income to discharge his financial burden and feed his drug addiction because of the pandemic.  If so, there was simply no reason why he would have spent extra money on using a car.  Not only was he already under severe financial strains, he had also no need to use a car when he was not even required to go to work.  It leads irresistibly to the inference that the defendant must have a purpose to serve when he borrowed the car from his friend, and one of the purposes was to make use of the car to earn money.  When all these circumstances of the case are taken into account, the only reasonable and irresistible inference must be that the defendant was borrowing the private car from his friend for the purpose of his drug trafficking activities.

41.  When all the matters discussed above are taken into account, and in the absence of any credible evidence or possibility that the sum of HK$55,000 came or might come from a legal source, the only reasonable and irresistible inference is that the said sum of HK$55,000 was the proceeds of the defendant’s drug trafficking activities.

42.  This sum of HK$55,0000 is substantial.  The defendant was found in possession of 22 packets of cocaine and 40 packets of ketamine, and the weight of the narcotics was 3.48 grammes and 11.98 grammes respectively.  Despite the number of packets and the quantity, their market price was only HK$13,028.  It therefore means that the defendant must have engaged in much more substantial drug trafficking activities before he was able to acquire this sum of HK$55,000.  For this reason, the defendant must have also trafficked in whatever he had, including the cocaine, and his claim that he did not intend to traffic in the 22 packets of cocaine (Exhibit 1)  but had them for his own use must be rejected even though he was a cocaine abuser.

43.  In HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man[1], the Court of Appeal stressed that the sentencing court must have a proper factual and evidential basis in accepting the contention that a significant proportion of the drugs were for the defendant’s consumption.  Mere assertions by counsel from the bar table will generally not suffice.  The defendant has simply failed to place any credible or reliable information before this court that he possessed any part of the drugs for the sole purpose of own use.

44.  I do not rule out the possibility that the defendant might use one or two packets of cocaine if he had not sold or disposed of all the cocaine on the night in question, but this does not change the fact that he had the cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.  His position was just like a fruit hawker.  When he failed to sell all the fruits, he might consume what was left behind.  However, he still had the fruits for sale before he failed to find a buyer.  Hence, even if he might use a small quantity of cocaine eventually, it makes no difference to the sentence to be imposed.

45.  For the reasons explained above, the defendant will be sentenced on the basis that he had all 22 packets of cocaine (Exhibit 1)  and all 40 packets of ketamine (Exhibits 2 and 3)  for the purpose of trafficking.  His allegation that he possessed Exhibits 1 and 2 for his own use is rejected, and there will be no reduction in his sentence on the ground of self-consumption of any of the drugs.

46.  I shall now consider what will be the appropriate sentence.

47.  Trafficking in dangerous drugs has always been regarded by the courts in Hong Kong to be a very serious offence.  For this reason, even if the amount of dangerous drugs being trafficked is small, the usual sentencing option is still one of imprisonment.  It is only in cases where the facts are extremely unusual or where exceptional mitigating factors exist that this sentencing option will not be employed.

48.  In the present case, despite the defendant’s guilty plea, his clear record, and all the mitigation that has been advanced on his behalf, there is simply no justification for imposing a non-custodial sentence.  In fact, Ms Ko only asked for a term of imprisonment as lenient as possible.  For these reasons, the appropriate sentencing option must be imprisonment, and the only issue is the length of the prison term.

49.  The Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines for determining the length of imprisonment for trafficking in different types of drugs.  In this case, the defendant had trafficked in two types of dangerous drugs, namely, cocaine and ketamine.

50.  In Attorney General v Pedro Nel Rojas[2], the Court of Appeal decided that the sentencing guideline for trafficking in heroin hydrochloride as laid down in The Queen v Lau Tak Ming[3] was applicable to trafficking in cocaine.  According to these authorities, the appropriate starting point for trafficking up to 10 grammes of cocaine is 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment, and for trafficking between 10 and 50 grammes of cocaine, the appropriate starting point is 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment.

51.  In this case, the weight of cocaine trafficked by the defendant was 3.48 grammes.  Purely as a matter of arithmetic calculation according to the cocaine guideline, the appropriate starting point of the sentence will be imprisonment for 36.53 months.

52.  In Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng[4], the Court of Appeal decided that the appropriate starting point for trafficking in 1 to 10 grammes of ketamine is 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment.  If the quantity was between 10 to 50 grammes, the appropriate starting point is 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.

53.  In this case, the total weight of ketamine trafficked by the defendant was 2.97 grammes in Exhibit 2 + 9.01 grammes in Exhibit 3 = 11.98 grammes.  Purely as a matter of arithmetic calculation according to the ketamine guideline, the appropriate starting point of the sentence will be imprisonment for 49.20 months.

54.  If the “individual approach” were to follow, the starting point of the sentence to be imposed on the defendant would have been imprisonment for 36.53 + 49.20 = 85.73 months.

55.  Applying the “absurdity test”, assuming all the dangerous drugs trafficked by the defendant were the more potent drug cocaine, the total quantity of 3.48 + 11.98 = 15.46 grammes of cocaine would attract a starting point of 64.91 months’ imprisonment, purely as a matter of arithmetic calculation according to the cocaine guideline.

56.  It is therefore clear that the “individual approach” would have resulted in a sentence too heavy for the defendant, and that it is more appropriate to adopt the “combined approach” as submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant. 

57.  In HKSAR v Islam S M Majharul[5], the Court of Appeal set out the methodology to follow for the combined approach.

58.  Since cocaine is the more potent drug, it will be used as the base drug for calculating the starting point of the total drugs.  As stated before, trafficking in 3.48 grammes of cocaine will attract a starting point of 36.53 months’ imprisonment.

59.  The next step is to determine how much of this starting point should be increased to allow for the 11.98 grammes of ketamine being trafficked by the defendant.

60.  As stated above, trafficking in 11.98 grammes of ketamine will attract a starting point of 49.20 months’ imprisonment according to the ketamine guideline.  On the other hand, trafficking in 7 grammes of cocaine will attract a starting point of 49.19 months’ imprisonment. 

61.  Hence, using the conversion test, it is appropriate to treat the defendant to have trafficked in 3.48 + 7 = 10.48 grammes of cocaine.  Applying the cocaine guideline, the appropriate starting point will be imprisonment for 60.43 months.  Hence, under the conversion test, the starting point will be 60.43 months’ imprisonment if cocaine is to be used as the base drug.

62.  If ketamine is to be used as the base drug, trafficking in 11.98 grammes of ketamine will attract a starting point of 49.20 months’ imprisonment, and it is necessary to consider how much of this starting point should be increased to allow for the 3.48 grammes of cocaine trafficked by the defendant, which according to the cocaine guideline will attract a starting point of 36.53 months’ imprisonment. According to the ketamine guideline, trafficking in 5.7 grammes of ketamine will attract a starting point of 36.53 months’ imprisonment.  Hence, using the conversion test, the defendant can be regarded to have trafficked in 11.98 + 5.7 = 17.68 grammes of ketamine.  Applying the ketamine guideline, the appropriate starting point will be 52.61 months’ imprisonment.  Hence, under the conversion test, the starting point will be 52.61 months’ imprisonment if ketamine is to be used as the base drug.

63.  The ratio test can also be employed to ascertain the appropriate starting point.

Dangerous drug	The starting point if all 15.46 grammes of the drugs were:	Ratio by weight	Sentence
cocaine	64.914 months	3.48/15.46 = 0.225	14.6 months
ketamine	51.276 months	11.98/15.46 = 0.775	39.74 months
		Total	54.34 months

64.  In summary, the starting points of the terms of imprisonment under the 3 cross-check tests are:

(a)  The “absurdity test”: 64.91 months.

(b)  The “conversion test”:

(i)  cocaine as the base drug: 60.43 months.

(ii)  ketamine as the base drug: 52.61 months.

(c)  The “ratio test”: 54.34 months.

65.  Taking all these matters into account to calculate a reasonable and realistic increase to the starting point, the starting point of 36.53 months’ imprisonment is increased by slightly less than 21 months to 57 months’ imprisonment.  This starting point is fixed on the basis that the defendant was merely a courier. 

66.  If it can be shown that the defendant was engaged in actual or direct trafficking of dangerous drugs, more severe sentence may be imposed: HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[6]. But there was no such evidence here.  The fact that the defendant did not put the HK$55,000 into his own cross body bag might indicate that he collected the money for others.

67.  However, the starting point of 57 months’ imprisonment has to be enhanced by 3 months to 60 months’ imprisonment because the defendant had trafficked in two types of drugs. There are no other factors that may enhance the sentence further.

68.  As to mitigating factors, the fact that the defendant engaged in drug trafficking to alleviate his financial burdens and feed his addiction cannot be mitigation.  His claim that parts of the drugs were for his own use has already been rejected.

69.  Despite all that had been said in mitigation by Ms Ko and the others, the only effective mitigating factor is the defendant’s guilty plea.  He is entitled to the usual one-third discount. 

70.  For these reasons, the defendant is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment for 40 months.

71.  As to the forfeiture application, I have already explained and found that the HK$55,000 was proceeds of the defendant’s drug trafficking activities.  This sum of money must be forfeited.

72.  As to the sums of HK$9,249.6 and CNY¥100 found inside the defendant’s cross body bag, since they were put inside the defendant’s personal bag, it is possible that they were the defendant’s own money unconnected with drug trafficking.  Hence, I rule that these sums of money together with the defendant’s cross body bag should be returned to him even though he has not objected to their forfeiture.

73.  The prosecution also asks for forfeiture of the two iPhones seized from the defendant.  The defendant asks for the return of the Apple iPhone X on the ground that it was his personal property.  The prosecution submitted that one or both of the iPhones must have been used in whole or in part for drug trafficking purpose, and that when there was no evidence as to whether only one had been so used, the two phones should be forfeited.  In my view, when it cannot be established that the defendant’s Apple iPhone X had been used in connection with the offence, it should be returned to him.  It is possible for the defendant to use only one iPhone in the course of his drug trafficking activities, and he had not objected to the forfeiture of the other phone and its SIM card.

74.  I note that the written application for disposal of exhibits submitted by the prosecution does not state the numbers of the exhibits in the same way as the Summary of Facts. I shall now make my order in relation to the forfeiture application by reference to the item numbers of the exhibits in the written application for disposal of exhibits.

75.  The car key (item 4)  and the private car (item 25)  are to be returned to their owner.

76.  One iPhone (item 11)  and its SIM card (item 12), cash HK$4,000 (item 15), cash HK$5,240 (item 16), cash HK$9.60 (item 17), cash CNY¥100 (item 18), and one bag in black (item 19)  shall be returned to the defendant.

77.  The police notebook (item 9)  and Pol. 153 (item 10)  are to be returned to the police.

78.  All other items (including the HK$55,000 which is listed as items 20 to 24)  are forfeited.