HKSAR v. CHENG CHEUK HANG (also known as CHENG KA HO)

DCCC 822/2024 & DCCC 1066/2025

(Heard together)

[2026] HKDC 45

IN DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 822 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

IN DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1066 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

DCCC 822/2024

1.  The defendant was convicted on his plea and agreement to Amended Summary of Facts to 4 charges of “conspiracy to defraud”, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 159C(6)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. 

2.  It has also been ordered that Charge 5 against the defendant be left on court file and not to be proceeded with without leave of the court.

Facts

Charge 1

3.  On 17 August 2023, PW1 was approached by a purported buyer on Carousell who expressed interest in buying a mobile phone with HK$7,100 from PW1.  On the same day, relying on the buyer’s representation that the buyer had already transferred HK$7,500 into his bank account, PW1 handed over the phone to the buyer’s representative.  PW1 later discovered that the HK$7,500 deposit was made by a cheque and the cheque was dishonoured.

Charge 2

4.  On 9 August 2023, PW2 was approached by a purported buyer on Facebook who expressed interest in buying a camera lens with HK$8,000 from PW2.  On 18 August 2023, relying on the buyer’s representation that the buyer had already transferred HK$8,000 into her bank account, PW2 handed over the camera lens to the buyer’s representative.

5.  On the same day, the purported buyer falsely told PW2 that he had mistakenly transferred HK$19,600 (via two deposits)  into PW2’s bank account. Believing in the buyer, PW2 transferred HK$9,800 back to the buyer and promised to transfer the remaining sum next week.  However, on 20 August 2023, PW2 discovered that the deposits of HK$8,000 and HK$19,600 were made by cheques and the cheques were dishonoured.

Charge 3

6.  On 17 October 2023, PW3 was approached by a purported buyer on Facebook who expressed interest in buying an iPhone from PW3 with HK$11,200.  On 19 October 2023, the buyer first transferred HK$100 into PW3’s bank account to confirm that PW3’s bank account number was correct.  PW3 did receive the HK$100.  Later on, relying on the buyer’s further representation that the buyer had transferred HK$12,000 into her bank account, PW3 handed over the iPhone to the buyer’s representative.  As the agreed purchase price was HK$11,200, PW3 transferred HK$900 back to buyer.  PW3 later discovered that the HK$12,000 deposit was made by a cheque and the cheque was dishonoured.

Charge 4

7.  On 5 November 2023, PW4 was approached by a purported buyer on Carousell who expressed interest in buying an iPhone from PW4.  On 7 November 2023, the purported buyer agreed to purchase the iPhone with HK$11,000 and told PW4 that he had transferred the sum into PW4’s bank account.  Believing in the buyer, PW4 handed over the phone to the buyer’s representative.  PW4 later discovered that the HK$11,000 deposit was made by a cheque and the cheque was dishonoured.

The Arrest

8.  The defendant was arrested for “conspiracy to defraud” on 12 December 2023.  Under caution, he stated that he used to help people deposit cheques, earning HK$1,000 per day. 

9.  In the video-recorded interview conducted on the same day, he stated that in August or September 2023, he found a part-time job on Facebook and the job was about helping people to deposit cash and cheques.  He normally received work instructions on WhatsApp and he received the cheques from the company through Lalamove.  He received an income of about HK$1,000 per day and he recognised himself as the person who deposited the cheques in the CCTV screen captures for Charges 3 and 4.

DCCC 1066/2025

10.  The 1^st defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant”)  was convicted on his own plea and agreement to Amended Summary of Facts to a charge of “conspiracy to defraud”, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 159C(6)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200 (1^st charge)  and a charge of “possession of an identity card relating to another person”, contrary to section 7A(1A)  of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap 177 (2^nd charge).

Facts

11.  Between January 2024 and March 2024, there were 41 incidents of e-shopping fraud involving a total of 41 victims.

12.  The modus operandi of these 41 incidents followed a common pattern where victim in each incident posted luxury goods (for example phones, laptops and handbags)  for sale on online trading platforms such as Carousell and Facebook Marketplace.  The fraudsters claimed that they were interested in purchasing those items.  After agreeing on the price of the goods and exchanging telephone numbers, fraudsters would arrange for their representatives to meet the victims face-to-face for the transactions.  Throughout these meetings, the fraudsters maintained contact with the victims via WhatsApp messages and/or telephone calls, and requested their bank account numbers for purported payment.

13.  At the meeting point, in 17 incidents out of the 41 incidents (specifically incidents 3, 5-7, 10-12, 15, 16, 18-20, 34-36, 40 and 41), fraudsters first deposited HK$100 cash into victims’ bank accounts, purportedly to verify their account numbers.  In all 41 incidents, fraudsters falsely represented to victims that they had deposited the full agreed price for the goods.  The victims also received images of deposit slips or SMS messages that resembled bank notifications confirming receipt of funds.  Believing that money had been transferred into their bank accounts, victims handed over their goods to the fraudsters.

14.  In 23 incidents out of the 41 incidents (specifically incidents 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 28, 32, 34-37, 40 and 41), after collecting goods from the victims, the fraudster further falsely represented to have mistakenly deposited excess funds into the victims’ bank accounts, making the victims not only losing the goods but also extra amount of money.  Following the fraudsters’ instructions, victims transferred these funds via FPS to telephone numbers provided by the fraudsters.

15.  It transpired that all the deposits into the victims’ bank accounts were made using blank cheques.  All these cheques subsequently bounced.  The purported SMS messages from bank and images of the deposit slips were all fraudulent.  The victims found out later that in fact they did not receive any money, at which point they reported the case to the police.

Charges 1 and 2

16.  The details of 30 incidents, in which there is incriminating evidence against the defendant, are as follows:

Incident	Date of first contact	Date of meeting	Subject property	Agreed price of the Subject property (HK$)	Amount falsely represented as deposited by the fraudsters (HK$)	Amount transferred by victim (HK$)
3	31/1/2024	2/2/2024	iPhone	9,500	19,000	9,600
4	3/2/2024	23/2/2024	Bracelet	12,888	52,312	39,312
6	5/2/2024	6/2/2024	Earrings	4,500	14,000	500
8	6/2/2024	8/2/2024	Mobile phone	6,600	9,000	0
10	8/2/2024	9/2/2024	Mobile phone	8,400	18,000	700
11	14/2/2024	16/2/2024	Mobile phone	9,800	19,700	10,000
14	11/2/2024	16/2/2024	Camera	22,300	23,000	700
15	18/2/2024	19/2/2024	Mobile phone	10,000	39,400	29,500
16	9/2/2024	19/2/2024	iPhone	4,300	14,800	10,000
17	18/2/2024	19/2/2024	one laptop, one mouse, one mouse pad, one transformer, one backpack, one iPad and one keyboard protective case	41,000	41,000	0
18	18/2/2024	21/2/2024	iPad	10,000	29,600	19,700
19	19/2/2024	22/2/2024	Camera	26,900	36,800	200
21	20/2/2024	22/2/2024	Bracelet and diamond ring	28,500	29,000	0
22	21/2/2024	23/2/2024	Handbag	37,000	66,400	19,600
23	26/2/2024	26/2/2024	iPhone	9,300	10,100	800
24	26/2/2024	27/2/2024	Cross-body bag	14,000	14,000	0
26	26/2/2024	27/2/2024	Handbag	24,000	24,000	0
27	27/2/2024	28/2/2024	iPhone	13,000	13,000	0
29	27/2/2024	28/2/2024	Camera	30,000	30,000	0
30	27/2/2024	28/2/2024	Camera set	28,888	28,000	0
31	27/2/2024	28/2/2024	iPhone	8,900	11,100	0
32	28/2/2024	29/2/2024	Macbook	10,199	20,200	10,000
33	28/2/2024	29/2/2024	Macbook	24,999	30,000	0
34	28/2/2024	28/2/2024	Camera and 2 lenses	18,200	37,400	19,200
35	28/2/2024	29/2/2024	iPhone	9,299	37,600	28,400
36	3/3/2024	4/3/2024	Macbook	10,000	19,800	11,900
37	3/3/2024	4/3/2024	iPhone	11,000	20,800	19,600
38	3/3/2024	4/3/2024	iPhone	8,150	9,000	0
39	4/3/2024	5/3/2024	2 handbags	22,000	31,800	0
40	4/3/2024	5/3/2024	Mobile phone	7,700	47,000	47,500

17.  On 25 March 2024, the defendant was arrested at his residence.  At the defendant’s residence, police seized several items including (a)  a HKID card of Chan Tsz-hing issued on 14 April 2005; and (b)  4 mobile phones, one containing a SIM card with telephone number 91556711.

18.  Police investigations revealed that Chan’s HKID card had been used to register 5 telephone numbers, and these numbers were later used to contact victims via WhatsApp and direct calls, or provided to victims for them to transfer money via FPS in incidents 4, 8, 11, 14-19, 21-23, 26, 27, 29-40. Chan Tsz-hing had reported the loss of his ID card in 2021.

19.  Regarding telephone number 91556711, police investigations revealed that:

(a)  Victims in incidents 36-40 received fraudsters’ WhatsApp messages from this number.

(b)  The number appeared as the contact information on an online trading shop, which was linked through the WhatsApp profiles of the fraudsters in incidents 3, 6, 10, 24, 29 and 34.

(c)  Victims in incidents 32, 33 and 35 were contacted by fraudsters on Carousell with accounts linked to this number.

(d)  Victims in incidents 36, 37, 39 and 40 were instructed by the fraudsters to transfer money via FPS to this number.

20.  Victims in incidents 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14-19, 21-24, 26, 27, 29-40 suffered a total loss of HK$757,335, representing the combined value of the agreed price of goods and the amount transferred to the fraudsters, and after deducting any cash deposits made by the fraudsters.

Criminal record

21.  The defendant has 4 previous criminal convictions involving convictions of 4 charges, none similar to conspiracy to defraud, but there was one similar conviction to possession of an identity card relating to another person in year 2007.

Mitigation

22.  The defendant is now aged 34, single, and lives with his mother.  He received education up to Form 4 in Hong Kong.  He once worked as a golf caddy. At the time of arrest, he was working as a part-time warehouse keeper earning about HK$14,000 per month.  Before arrest in DCCC 1066/2025, he had been performing voluntary work for elderly people and making donations to charities.

23.  Defence counsel referred this court to the Court of Appeal case of HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai, CACC 100/2014, HKSAR v Wong Ming Chun [2025] 2 HKLRD 193, as well as HKSAR v Fan King Lam, CACC 220/2010. 

24.  As for DCCC 822/2024, defence counsel submitted that Charges 1 to 4 involved 4 different victims unknown to the defendant.  The total amount of goods stolen was valued at HK$37,700 and the total amount of money stolen was HK$10,700, spanning from 17 August 2023 to 7 November 2023 (nearly 3 months period).  He said that the modus operandi is simple in nature, involving not a substantial period of time and not substantial amount of loss, and that the defendant was not the mastermind in this case.  He submitted that whilst 1 to 4 charges involved 4 different victims and the modus operandi is the same, he urged this court to order the sentence for Charges 1 to 4 to run concurrently with each other.

25.  As for DCCC 1066/2025, defence counsel submitted that the identity card in question was used to register 5 different mobile phones for the purposes of contacting the victims and transfers by FPS in incidents 4, 8, 11, 14-19, 21-23, 26, 27 and 29-40, totalling 26 incidents, and that the SIM card 91556711 was used for the purpose of contacting the victims, transfer by FPS and registration of account in the online platform for incidents 3, 6, 10-24, 29, 32-40, totalling 27 incidents.  He said that victims in the said 30 incidents suffered a total loss of HK$757,335. 

26.  He said that Charge 1 was committed in the period between 31 January 2024 and 5 March 2024.  As far as criminality is concerned, the defendant was not the mastermind but it is accepted that the role of the defendant was not minor.  It is also submitted that both Charges 1 and 2 arose out of the same set of circumstances and that the sentence for these two charges should run concurrently with each other.

27.  Defence has no objection to the prosecution’s application in the two cases for enhancement of sentence under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, and they have no dispute as to the statements of Woman Detective Senior Inspector Ng Pak-wai Victoria in support of these two applications.  Defence counsel submitted that the extent of enhancement should not be more than 20% to 25%. 

28.  It was also accepted by defence that the defendant committed the offence in DCCC 1066/2025 whilst he was on bail in DCCC 822/2024.

29.  He submitted to court mitigation letters from the defendant, defendant’s mother, childhood friend and a clergy, and they all ask this court to deal with the defendant leniently. 

30.  It is said the defendant is now deeply remorseful as to what he has done causing a lot of disturbance in the society and also distress from members of family, and that he wishes to start afresh once on release from prison.

31.  Defence counsel also asked this court to consider the timely plea of the defendant in both cases and the totality principle when sentencing the defendant, and to sentence the defendant as leniently as possible.

Discussion

32.  Before sentencing, this court has carefully considered all submissions on behalf of the defendant, including the mitigation letters lodged as well as the legal authorities in the area.

33.  These two cases are typical “e-Shopping Fraud” cases.  They do not involve a breach of trust.

DCCC 822/2024

Charges 1 to 4 - Conspiracy to defraud

34.  On conviction upon indictment of this offence, a person is liable to imprisonment for 14 years. 

35.  There is no sentencing guideline for this offence for the very reason that the modus operandi, sophistication of the scheme, number of persons involved, number of victims affected, amount of money involved, duration during which the offence was committed, the effect of the offence on the victim and the role of the defendant varies immensely.  Therefore, the sentencing starting point in each case will depend on the facts of the particular case.

36.  According to the defendant, he is responsible for depositing the cheques upon instructions.  The commission of the offence clearly involves other persons because that would mean that there is another person who gives instructions to the defendant, other persons who go and collect the goods, so there is no doubt that a criminal syndicate was involved.

37.  It is said in the case cited by the defence, the Leung Yiu Fai case, that fraud on the Internet is serious for the following reasons:

(1)  The defendant preyed on ordinary members of the public and all members of the public are exposed to such fraud. The number of victims involved could be very substantial.

(2)  The crimes committed by the defendant has serious adverse effect on Internet trade, as people tend to be cautious to Internet trade, which affects the rights of the bona fide internet traders.

(3)  Internet fraud would easily be copied and the lack of deterrence in the sentence of these offences will lead to a surge of these cases.

(4)  Internet transactions do not involve face-to-face encounters, the offender could easily use different methods to hide his identity, which make it difficult for the crime to be solved.

(5)  It is generally difficult for the victims to recover their loss.

38.  The Court of Appeal emphasised the need for deterrence as a sentencing consideration for this type of offence.

39.  The mitigation letters lodged before this court all says that the defendant is deeply remorseful and he would start afresh upon release from prison.  However, it is well established that any remorse that the defendant had has already been subsumed in the one-third sentencing discount for his plea.  Moreover, it is noted that this is the defendant’s fifth conviction and he has been sent to DATC and prison for substantial periods in the past.

40.  Considering the circumstances of the case, the court considers that a sentencing starting point of 2 years and 3 months appropriate for each of the 4 charges in DCCC 822/2024. 

41.  The defendant has pleaded guilty and is therefore entitled to full one-third sentencing discount.  This is the most valid mitigating factor.  He is therefore sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for each charge.

Enhancement of sentence

42.  Prosecution seek for an enhancement of sentence for Charges 1 to 4 in this case, all being specific offences within the meaning of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, and has furnished information to this court pursuant to section 27(2)  of the Ordinance.

43.  According to the statement of Woman Detective Senior Inspector Ng Pak-wai Victoria dated 18 December 2025, the modus operandi of these fraud charges fall within the “e-Shopping Fraud” cases under technology crime. Police enforcement action to combat these e-Shopping Fraud is hampered by many factors by reason of the modus operandi. 

44.  From Annex A of the statement, one could see the sharp rise in e-Shopping Fraud from 2,194 cases in the year 2019 to 11,559 cases in the year 2024.  For the first 11 months in the year 2025, the number of such cases has already risen to 11,449. 

45.  From Annex C of the statement, one could see also that the amount of loss of victims of e-Shopping Fraud has also risen from HK$27.3 million in the year 2019 to HK$356.3 million in year 2024, and for just the first 11 months in the year 2025, the loss is already HK$350.9 million.

46.  This court agrees with Ms Ng that judging from the crime trend, the contribution to the overall technology crime reports, as well as the increasing popularity of e-shopping activities in Hong Kong, the e-Shopping Fraud related crimes and the associated money laundering activities in supporting the commission of such crime are prevalent in Hong Kong.  These crimes are of obvious concern to the society of Hong Kong, in terms of the harm caused to the community and the repeated occurrences.

47.  Defence has no objection to the application.  This court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the grounds in support of the application by the prosecution and would therefore approve the application, and will enhance the sentence by 25%. 

48.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to 22 months and 15 days’ imprisonment for each of the 4 charges.

Total sentence in DCCC 822/2024

49.  The defendant has together with others in the syndicate defrauded 4 victims from 17 August 2023 to 7 November 2023 (in nearly 3 months’ time), involving total loss to the victims of HK$47,900.  None of these sums were recovered.

50.  Considering the overall culpability of the defendant in this case, the court considers a total sentence of 25 months and 15 days’ imprisonment (after plea and enhancement)  just and proportionate.  Accordingly, 1 month each in the sentence of Charges 2, 3 and 4 are to run consecutive to the sentence of Charge 1, the rest to run concurrently. 

51.  For DCCC 822/2024, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 25 months and 15 days’ imprisonment.

DCCC 1066/2025

Charge 1 - Conspiracy to defraud

52.  The facts of this case bear high resemblance to the case of Wong Ming Chun referred to this court by defence counsel.  The Court of Appeal in the Wong Ming Chun case spells out the serious features concerning the crime in question[1]. 

53.  Similarly, in the case here, when the defendant was arrested, various phones were found in his residence.  There was also a SIM card found and the same SIM card concerns a telephone number used to contact victims via WhatsApp messages, as the contact information on online trading platform, or used to ask the victims to transfer money via FPS to this number, in defrauding the 14 victims.  Further, a HKID card belonging to another was found in his possession.  The same was used to register 5 telephone numbers for contacting victims or asking victims to transfer via FPS, in defrauding 26 victims.

54.  Clearly, the defendant played a major role in the operation.  Considering the number of victims (namely 30), defrauded during the period covered by Charge 1 in this case, the defendant clearly had been acting in concert with few others in the least.  This is a well-organised sizeable criminal syndicate.

55.  The defendant’s case here is more serious than the Wong Ming Chun case as it involves 30 victims.  The total loss of these victims, including goods and money transferred, amounted to HK$757,335.  All of these sums are unrecovered. 

56.  Numerous Facebook and Carousell accounts were used, and a number of mobile phones were used.  As said earlier, one of the SIM card was in possession of the defendant at the time of arrest, and the use of these items were said earlier.  The defendant here clearly played a key role in the criminal syndicate.

57.  Considering the circumstances of the case, the appropriate sentencing starting point for Charge 1 is 5 years’ imprisonment. 

58.  The defendant committed this offence whilst he was on court bail in DCCC 822/2024 for a similar offence, ie conspiracy to defraud.  This is an aggravating feature in sentencing as the commission of this offence demonstrated a serious disregard for the law and persistence in offending.  The sentencing starting point is enhanced by 4 months to 5 years 4 months’ imprisonment.

59.  The defendant has pleaded guilty.  This is the most valid mitigating factor and he is therefore entitled to full one-third sentencing discount.  He is sentenced to 42.66 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1.

Enhancement of sentence

60.  Prosecution has, as in the case of DCCC 822/2024, applied to enhance the sentence of Charge 1 on similar grounds.  In support of the application, the prosecution has furnished a statement also from Ng Pak-wai Victoria dated 22 December 2025.  The application is not objected by the defence and the contents of the statement also not disputed by defence. 

61.  For similar reasons, the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the grounds to the application have been made out by the prosecution and the appropriate enhancement of the sentence is by 25%. 

62.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 53 months and 9 days’ imprisonment for Charge 1.

Charge 2 - Possession of an identity card relating to another person

63.  Upon conviction on indictment of the charge, a person is liable to a fine at level 6 and to imprisonment for 10 years. 

64.  The defendant is a Hong Kong resident. Agreed facts reveal that he used the HKID card to register various telephone numbers to carry out the conspiracy to defraud offence in Charge 1.

65.  This court considers 15 months’ imprisonment after plea is appropriate.  The defendant has one similar conviction in the year 2008.  That was 17 years ago and this court would not enhance the sentencing starting point. 

66.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2.

Total sentence in DCCC 1066/2025

67.  Considering the totality principle, as the court has already taken into consideration the fact that the defendant has made use of the subject HKID card to further the offence of conspiracy to defraud and the accepted principle being the defendant should not be sentenced twice for the same act, the sentence of Charge 2 is to run totally concurrent with the sentence of Charge 1. 

68.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to a total of 53 months 9 days’ imprisonment in this case.

Total sentence in DCCC 822/2024 and DCCC 1066/2025

69.  This court needs to consider the defendant’s overall culpability in the two cases before this court can decide the just and proportionate total sentence on the defendant.

70.  As said earlier, there are a number of very serious features concerning the offences.  The total number of victims in the two cases concerning the defendant are 34. The total loss of these victims is HK$805,735.  They all lost valuable items which they posted on various online shopping platforms such as Facebook and Carousell for sale, and in some cases, these victims have been defrauded money as the defendant or the accomplice would say that he had mistakenly overpaid those victims.

71.  For DCCC 822/2024, the defendant committed the 4 conspiracy to defraud offences between 17 August 2023 and 7 November 2023.  For DCCC 1066/2025, he committed the conspiracy to defraud offence between 31 January 2024 and 5 March 2024.  There is no overlapping of dates in the commission of the offences.  In fact, there is a gap of around two-odd months between the two cases.

72.  The modus operandi of the conspiracy to defraud offences are similar in the two cases. 

73.  From the agreed Amended Summary of Facts, one could see that the role of the defendant in DCCC 1066/2025 has become more important, in that he was involved in different facets in the planning of the fraud scheme, as opposed to his earlier role in DCCC 822/2024.

74.  The defendant committed the offences together with a few others targeting innocent members of general public using e-shopping platforms selling luxury goods.  The modus operandi of the fraud involved detailed planning and preparation, using different accounts and telephone numbers for communication and bank accounts of third parties in receiving the defrauded funds.  A reported lost HKID card found in possession of the defendant was also used in the preparation.  The same applies to the SIM card found in the defendant’s possession at the time of arrest. 

75.  Further, committing multiple offences within a short period of time is a very serious matter in itself.

76.  Considering the circumstances of the two cases, in particular the defendant’s overall culpability, this court finds that the just and proportionate sentence for the defendant in the two cases is 63 months and 9 days’ imprisonment.  Accordingly, 10 months’ imprisonment in the sentence of DCCC 822/2024 is to run consecutively to the sentence of DCCC 1066/2025, the rest to run concurrently.

77.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to a total of 63 months and 9 days’ imprisonment for the two cases.