HKSAR v. TSOI KING LAM also known as TSOI KING CHEONG AND ANOTHER

DCCC 800/2023

[2026] HKDC 227

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 800 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  In this part of the proceedings, I am tasked to deal with the sentence of D3, Tsoi King Lam, and D5, Chan Yan-kit. 

2.  D3 pleaded guilty to conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, Charge 3 and Charge 11, conspiracy of the same nature.  Charge 12, dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, and Charge 15, failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause.  He is convicted upon his plea and admission of the facts. 

3.  D5, Chan Yan Kit is convicted after trial of the 13^th charge, “Conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”.  He pleaded not guilty and had been convicted after trial.  Except for Charge 15, the substance of the offences was what is generally known as money laundering charges. 

4.  For Charge 3 and Charge 11, there were evidence of a predicate offence. They are both telephone deception cases: two elderly victims agreed to a part with their money in the mistaken belief that their relatives, (namely their sons-in-law)  had been arrested and in urgent need for bail money.  In both cases, D3 turned up at the agreed time to receive the money. 

5.  Charge 3 involved $80,000 and took place between 8 and 9 September 2022.  Charge 11 involved $70,000 and took place on 15 to 16 September 2022. D3 after his arrest admitted he was asked by someone to receive the money and had handed over the same to the other culprit, who are still at large. 

6.  The other charge related to D3 was Charge 12 involving a total of $197,000 paid in cash deposits into his account of which D3 was the sole signatory.  The money had been withdrawn either by D3 in cash or by way of cash transfer.  After D3’s arrest, he was offered bail but he failed to turn up for trial of the case on 5 February 2025. 

7.  D5 was convicted after trial of the 13^th count.  The case involved a sum of $420,000 paid into his account on 16 September in six instalments.  D5 was the sole signatory for the account.  Under caution, D5 admitted that he had authorised his friend to use his account by handing over the account number and the online banking password. 

8.  Charges 3 and 11 were cases of telephone deception.  Although the amounts involved had not been exceptionally large, this court could take judicial notice of the fact that the victims were elderly citizens who had not been particularly vigilant.  The amounts involved, though seemingly not excessive, would represent a substantial, if not all, of the resources they had in then command. 

9.  For Charges 12 and 13, there was no evidence of predicate offence, but this use of one’s account had been generally been a means for which the unscrupulous used to hide their identities and as a shield for their other nefarious activities.  By using this method, the true culprits were usually not traceable.  Having an account is a privilege and people having been granted such privilege should bear proportionate responsibility to prevent its abuse. 

10.  The Court of Appeal had been reluctant to give any stringent guideline for sentencing as all the culpabilities of the same offence would be dependent on the particular matrix of the case, which could result in very different degree of culpability.  In the case of Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the Court of Appeal approved the rough framework for sentencing as set out by Cheung JA in the judgment of Hsu Yu Yi [2015] 5 HKLRD 536: if the amount was within the bracket of 1 million to 2 million, the proper starting point should be 3 years.  In this case I see no valid reason to depart from the same.

11.  In the case of D3, there are aggravating circumstances.  Two counts of telephone deception took place within a very short span of time, and in both cases, D3 was tasked to collect money.  Therefore, he could not be saying that he had no idea what had been going on. 

12.  The victims have been both elderly citizens and the money deceived had been promptly handed over to the other culprits.  The victims had no recourse for their loss.  It is immorally apprehensible to cheat on the aged, the unsuspecting and gullible.  Therefore, for the 3^rd and 11th count, I would adopt a starting point of 4 years. 

13.  In the case of Count 12 and Count 13, there have been no evidence of the predicate offence.  The amounts involved were quite substantial.  Having taken into account of the suggestions by the Court of Appeal, I would adopt for both cases a starting point of 2 years. 

14.  For Count 3 and Count 11, the prosecution sought to enhance his sentence based on the prevalence and harm to the society of the crime.  The prosecution provided an affirmation of the Chief Inspector, Cheung Sze Wai, of the Hong Kong Police Force.  He set out his work experience, his training related to intelligent analysis and crime investigation.  I am satisfied he is a qualified expert to give evidence on matters relating to offences of telephone deception. 

15.  The defence had not asked to cross-examine the expert witness,  The Chief Inspector explained that the present case (Charge 3 and Charge 11), fell within the category of “Guess-who”, a species of telephone deception cases, which have been steadily on the rise in numbers and accumulation of monetary loss by victims. 

16.  Guess-who deception cases increased from 497 in 2021 to 1,540 cases in 2022.  In the year 2023, the numbers rose up to 2,237, and 1,920 victims suffered from monetary loss.  He was of the view that the crimes are “of obvious concern to the society in terms of the harm caused to the community and their rampancy”. 

17.  I am satisfied that the application is with vaild reason and backed up by statistics.  As a normal citizen, the undersigned had also come across numerous news reports of telephone deception cases, both in the internet and in the printed press.  It does not take an expert to conclude that such crimes not only affected the immediate victims, they have also been rampant, morally repugnant and damaging to the social fabric.  I therefore decided to enhance the sentence by one-third. 

Mitigation

18.  The 3^rd defendant was aged 34.  He was a delivery worker, with three children aged from 1 to 8 years from a dissolved marriage.  There was no evidence that he was a master in the crimes, but it is clear that he has instrumental for their execution.  Conduct rendered the victims not to suffer loss without any recourse.

19.  His previous conviction up to 2022 was not similar to the present ones.  Owing to his age and also his previous convictions, he could not expect to receive additional lenient treatment from this court.  Apart from his plea of guilty, there is not much room for reduction. 

20.  For Charges 3 and 11, for each count, he is sentenced to 4 years, reduced each to 36 months by reasons of his guilty plea.  Taking into account of the aggravating factor alluded earlier and other circumstances of case, 12 months of the 11th count will be running consecutive to the 3^rd count, making a total of 48 months, and the 48 months now is enhanced by 30 per cent, making a total of 62 months. 

21.  For the 12^th count, he is sentenced to 24 months reduced to 16 months.  For the failing to surrender charge, his sentence to 2 months’ imprisonment reduced to 1 month. 

22.  After taking into account of the totality principle, I would order the 12^th count to run consecutive with the 3^rd and 11^th, but the 15^th count of 1 month will be running consecutive to all other sentence.  In all, D3 is to serve a total of 63 months. 

Charge 13 (D5)

23.  There was no evidence that D5 was involved in any predicate offence.  However, by letting others use his account, he has enabled others to use the account for other nefarious purposes.  Therefore, I would order to adopt the 24 months as a starting point. 

24.  He is aged 38.  He has no previous similar convictions, a decoration worker by trade.  In view of his age and the fact that he had previous convictions, he cannot expect the court to exercise additional clemency. 

25.  I have also called for reports from the probation officers and a psychiatric report and psychologist report.  They revealed no neurological reasons for the commission of the present offence. 

26.  Having considered the matters as a whole, I see no valid mitigating factor in his favour.  He is therefore sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.