|
DCCC 1118/2024
[2026] HKDC 232
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1118 OF 2024
____________
____________
| Before : |
H.H. Judge G. Lam |
| Hearing Dates : |
5, 6, 7 and 9 January 2026 |
| Date of Verdict : |
5 February 2026 |
| Present : |
Mr. Kevin Wong, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR. |
|
Mr. Harold Lai instructed by M/s Howell & Co., for the defendant. |
REASONS FOR VERDICT
1. The defendant pleaded not guilty to a charge of "Fraud". The prosecution alleges that she deceived her then mother-in-law of a total sum of $510,855.
The Prosecution Case
Background
2. The defendant, a Thai national, and Mr. Tang Pak Hin (PW2) married in Thailand in 2017. They divorced in August 2025. In May 2022, they were still husband and wife.
3. Madam Chan (PW1) is PW2's mother. Mr. Tang Wai Tim is PW2's father.
4. According to PW1, the defendant's mobile phone number has always been known to her as +66 61 517 7872. PW1 has recorded this number in her mobile phone's contacts under the name "Tang, Bee".
The alleged deception
5. During the offence period, PW1 received a series of WhatsApp text messages (including still photographs) from "Tang, Bee", informing her that PW2 was arrested by the police in Thailand and that "Tang, Bee" needed money to secure PW2's release and to resolve his predicament. Believing that those messages from "Tang, Bee" were true and sent by the defendant, PW1 arranged for money to be transferred to bank accounts designated by "Tang, Bee".
6. On 12 May 2022, PW1 transferred $231,500 to HSBC account (No.122-753239-833) held in the name of Chan Chun Ho[1]. On 13 May 2022, PW1's husband transferred $125,000 to FPS No.164723272 held in the name of THINTES S******[2]. On 17 May 2022, PW1's husband transferred $125,000 to HSBC account (No.521-094599-838) held in the name of Tong Hin Trading Co. Chan Chun Ho[3]. On 17 May 2022, PW1's husband transferred $29,355 to HSBC account (No.521-094599-838) held in the name of Tong Hin Trading Co. Chan Chun Ho[4].
7. PW2 gave evidence that during the offence period, he was not arrested by the police in Thailand or detained in a police station.
Arrest
8. In the morning on 26 August 2023, the defendant was arrested by SPC 58482 at the Hong Kong International Airport.
The Defence Case
9. The defendant elected not to give evidence or call any defence witness. This is her right; I drew no adverse inference against her in this regard.
Assessment and Analysis of Evidence
10. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant has a clear record; I have directed myself on her good character.
11. In his written submissions, defence counsel Mr. Lai has critically analysed the evidence of PW1 and PW2. He concluded that neither of them is credible or reliable. Mr. Lai submitted that there must be a story within a story in this case. The court cannot be sure as to who sent the WhatsApp text messages to PW1.
12. The crux of this case is who texted PW1.
13. Mr. Lai has fairly and correctly accepted it is an undeniable fact that PW2 was not arrested by the police in Thailand or detained in a police station during the offence period. In his cross-examination of PW2, Mr. Lai has in fact tried to prove that PW2 was at liberty to go places in those few days and that his whereabouts were revealed on social media. In other words, the WhatsApp text messages sent by "Tang, Bee" to PW1 were lies, which induced PW1 and her husband to part with their money.
14. At the end of the day, what this court needs to decide is whether the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the defendant who sent those text messages to PW1.
15. Mr. Lai attacked PW1's credibility on the basis of the alleged WhatsApp video calls between her and the defendant. I accept that Mr. Lai's criticisms are valid; however, even if those video calls did not occur, their non-existence does not undermine the main thrust of PW1's evidence.
16. The WhatsApp text messages between "Tang, Bee" and PW1 were exchanged over period of 6 days. Subjectively, "Tang, Bee" was no stranger to PW1; she was PW1's daughter-in-law. As a juror, I believe PW1 had the ability to detect any peculiarities in the contents of the messages sent by "Tang, Bee". If someone was impersonating "Tang, Bee", that person had to have a thorough knowledge of the intricacies of the Tang family and the relationship amongst "Tang, Bee", PW1 and PW2, at the very least. On this basis, I rule out the possibility that Tang, Bee's WhatsApp account was hacked. A stranger hacker would not be able to carry on a meaningful text exchange with PW1 for a period of 6 days undetected.
17. If Tang, Bee's WhatsApp account was not hacked by a stranger, the remaining logical possibility would be someone with knowledge of the Tang family, perhaps PW2. As a juror, I do not see the slightest hint of evidence on this aspect. It was not even put to PW2 by Mr. Lai. The court's duty to consider a possible defence arises when there is some evidence pointing to that possibility. The court has no duty to come up with every imaginable defence for the defendant.
18. Since Tang, Bee's WhatsApp account was neither hacked by a stranger nor used by PW2, and PW1 detected no peculiarities in the contents of the text messages over a period of 6 days, in the absence of any evidence showing otherwise, I draw the irresistible inference that the defendant communicated as "Tang, Bee" with PW1[5]. In other words, the prosecution has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. I find the defendant guilty of "Fraud".
[1] Exhibit P1, Photos 15 to 18.
[2] Exhibit P1, Photos 21 to 23.
[3] Exhibit P1, Photos 41 to 43.
[4] Exhibit P1, Photos 55 to 56.
[5] A trial judge, sitting alone, is entitled to regard the lack of any explanation given on oath as strengthening the inference to be drawn from the prosecution case. (Li Defan and another v HKSAR [2002] 1 HKLRD 527, paragraphs 29 to 32.)
|