HKSAR v. TSOI THONGCHAI

DCCC 1135/2025

[2026] HKDC 656

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1135 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of “Dealing/Attempting to deal with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence” (commonly known as “money laundering”), contrary to section 25(1)  and (3)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455 and sections 159G and 159J of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

Admitted facts

Charge 1

2.  At around 9 am on 20 April 2023, Ms Ho, aged 88, received a call from an unknown male (“WP1”)  who claimed to be her son and alleged that he was in need of HK$40,000 as bail money.  WP1 in fact was not Ms Ho’s son.

3.  At around 11 am on 21 April 2023, WP1 called again and requested bail money of HK$70,000 from Ms Ho.

4.  At around 1 pm on the same day, WP1 called again and asked Ms Ho to hand over HK$70,000 to his friend outside the building of Ms Ho’s residence in Mong Kok.  At around 1:57 pm on the same day, Ms Ho handed over HK$70,000 to the defendant in the area outside the building of Ms Ho’s residence.

5.  Later the same day, WP1 called again and requested an additional HK$100,000. Ms Ho contacted her daughter, who then contacted Ms Ho’s son, the latter confirmed that he had never made the request above.  The scam was revealed.  The case was reported to the Police.

Charge 2

6.  At around 10 pm on 24 April 2023, Mr Tsai, aged 69, received a call from an unknown male (“WP2”), who claimed to be his son and provided a new number (9822 ****)  to Mr Tsai for communication.  WP2 in fact was not Mr Tsai’s son.

7.  At around 9 am on 25 April 2023, WP2 called again and alleged that he was in need of HK$30,000 as bail money. Feeling suspicious, Mr Tsai contacted his son and found out that it was a scam.  The case was reported to the Police.

8.  A controlled meeting was arranged by the police.  Unused papers were put in an envelope purporting to contain money (the “Envelope”).  At around 10:30 am on 25 April 2023, WP2 called Mr Tsai and told him that a Mr Li would come to collect the money and asked Mr Tsai to provide his address.

9.  Ten minutes later, Mr Tsai received a call from an unknown male (“WP3”), who claimed to be Mr Li.  Mr Tsai and WP3 agreed to meet at the lobby of Mr Tsai’s residence in Tseung Kwan O (the “Lobby”).

10.  At around 11:35 am on 25 April 2023, in the Lobby, the defendant approached Mr Tsai.  The defendant claimed to be WP3 and stated that he came for collecting the money on WP2’s behalf.  After Mr Tsai passed the Envelope to the defendant, the defendant was then arrested by the police.

11.  Under caution, the defendant admitted to the Police that he was also involved in the incident of Charge 1.  The defendant admitted that he was asked by someone to collect the money.

12.  A Samsung phone was seized from the defendant.  Call record with WP2 was found in the phone.

13.  In respect of Charge l, during video recorded interviews, the defendant stated under caution that: he was instructed to go to collect money from an old lady on 21 April 2023; he used the Telegram app in the Samsung phone to communicate with those instructing him; he was promised to be paid HK$500 as remuneration and HK$200 as transportation fee.

14.  In respect of Charge 2, during video recorded interviews, the defendant stated under caution that: at around 1-2 weeks ago, he met a man called “Ah Sing” at a game centre; he was instructed by “Ah Sing” to go to Tseung Kwan O to collect HK$30,000 from an old man on 25 April 2023; he was promised HK$500 as remuneration; he was arrested by the police after he had collected the Envelope from Mr Tsai on 25 April 2023; and he used Telegram app in his Samsung phone to communicate with “Ah Sing”.  His telegram chat record with “Ah Sing” had been deleted.

Personal background and mitigation

15.  The defendant is aged 27 (23 at the time of the offence), educated to secondary level 4.  Prior to his arrest, he worked as a decoration worker supplier.  He is married with a 3-year old daughter.  His wife is a private tutor.  He has 3 criminal records from 2019 to 2023, two of which are drugs related offence.  I was told that the defendant was on court bail for another case while he committed the present offence.

Mitigation

16.  In mitigation, Mr Boyton mentioned these salient points.  Firstly, the defendant has entered early guilty plea, saving the court’s time and resources.  Secondly, his role is confined to collection of money.  The defendant did not know the nature of the predicate offence.  He did not actively participate in the predicate offence.  He did not have actual knowledge that the money he collected originating from phone deception.  Further, there is no other aggravating factors in this case.  He urged for a starting point of 4 years below.  

Sentence

17.  Unlike other similar cases, it is unknown why the prosecution has not filed notice for an enhanced sentence pursuant to section 27(2)(c), (d)  and (e)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.455.  The prosecution informed me that they did not intend to apply for an enhanced sentence because the facts of the present case are not sufficient to show the defendant knew that the amount involved in the two charges originated from the telephone deception cases: HKSAR v Fong Chi Yam [2020] 2 HKLRD 700.  I do not agree.  There are at least 5 objective facts showing the defendant knew the money he collected or to be collected originated from telephone deception cases.  First, the defendant was hired to earn quick money.  Second, the victim was elderly.  Third, they were usually in panic.  Fourth, piles of cash is involved.  Fifth, if the defendant did not know the money originated from telephone deception cases, during the second incident under the 2^nd Charge would suggest he knew about it.  

18.  Be that as it may, I am bound by the prosecution’s position.  The defendant is fortunate to escape from the possible enhanced sentence.

19.  That said, in sentencing, I still need to take into account the severity and prevalence of the offence and the materials facts of this case.  The "By Hand" mode phone deception cases always involve someone picking up the money left behind by the victim at a public place or collecting the money directly from the victim.  Hence, the money collection portion is part and parcel of any type of phone deception. Although the "collector" may not know the details of the underlying phone deception, the circumstances under which he/she picks up or collects the money are usually peculiar and would thus arouse his/her suspicion about the nature of the money collected.  In particular, the payer of piles of cash is usually elderly in panic.  Elderly being deceived is within the collector’s contemplation.  As such, not only the collector, like the defendant knew the money was unlawful, he should have known the elderly was deceived and knowingly assisted the mastermind behind.  

20.  It is beyond debate that telephone deception is still widespread and commonly being practised in Hong Kong today. The court must send a clear message to the general public that people who play the role of "collector" will receive severe punishment, so that there is a deterrent effect.  When there are few or no willing "collectors", the "By Hand" mode phone deception method will fail.

21.  The Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 held:

“Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may not be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are in fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes, etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted upward.[1]”

22.  In Secretary for Justice v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P held:

“Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money"was actually not derived from an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…[2]”

23.  According to the admitted facts, the defendant was involved in two incidents on 21^st and 25^th April 2023.  There were two elderly victims and the first victim suffered a loss of HK$70,000 while the second victim almost lost HK$30,000.  For the purpose of sentencing, I accept that he probably did not know the details of the phone scam against the victims.  To this extent, his culpability is perhaps less than the perpetrator(s)  of the underlying phone deception[3].  Hence, I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment each for Charge 1 and Charge 2, which is increased to 3 years and 3 months for commission of offence while on bail.  With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 26 months and made concurrent.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.

24.  The final sentence is 26 months’ imprisonment.