HKSAR v. RONG WENNIAN

DCCC 366/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 366 OF 2014

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to launder money.

2.  The facts admitted by the defendant are that on 28 February this year, the victim in the case, an off-duty police officer, PW1, received an anonymous telephone call at 10.45 in the morning.  The caller claimed that the victim’s son had been acting as a guarantor for a loan of $200,000.  The caller said that they would not hurt the victim’s son provided he paid $30,000.  The off-duty police officer realized that this was obviously a scam because his only son is 11 years of age. 

3.  Following the initial phone call, the victim received a number of further telephone calls instructing him how to deliver the money.  Arrangements were made that at lunchtime that same day he would go to the Metropark Hotel in Lai Chi Kok Road in Mong Kok.  He arrived there at about 1 pm.  He was instructed that he was to place the money in a rubbish bin in the vicinity.  He alerted his colleagues in the police force and an ambush was laid for whoever came to pick up the money. 

4.  The victim used a brown envelope in which he placed some blank A4-size papers.  Later on the defendant was seen to come along, pick up the envelope and walk away.  The defendant looked inside the envelope and obviously realized what it was and then went back and disposed of the envelope.  He was later arrested by the police officers who had been waiting in ambush. 

5.  In a video-recorded interview the defendant said that he had been asked by somebody he called “Ah Ming” on the mainland to come to Hong Kong in order to earn some quick money.   He arrived a few days before the offence.  He arrived on 24 February.  And on the morning of the 28 February he received a call from Ah Ming to go and pick up some money from a rubbish bin outside the Metropark Hotel.  He picked up the envelope, discovered that it contained paper and he was instructed by Ah Ming to dispose of it. 

6.  The defendant is 17 years of age and has a clear record both here and on the mainland.  He lives on the mainland with his parents.  His mother is a housewife and he has a 5-year-old brother. 

7.  I am told that the defendant left school at the age of 13.  He had been working since 2010 as a bus ticket seller earning some 2,800 Renminbi per month but he lost that employment recently.  From his earnings he gave 1,500 Renminbi per month to his family. 

8.  He frankly admits that he came to Hong Kong solely for the purpose of committing this offence.  He was paid $1,500 upfront and would receive some of the proceeds after the money had been collected.

9.  Notwithstanding the defendant’s age, defence counsel readily concedes that a prison sentence for this offence is inevitable, notwithstanding the provisions of section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.  Although the defendant is only 17 years of age, he is not in the category of somebody who is “extremely young”. 

10.  In mitigation it was urged upon me that the defendant is extremely remorseful for what he has done and he is concerned about the shame he has brought to his family and the loss of financial support that will be inevitable following his incarceration. 

11.  An application has been made for enhancement of sentence in this case under the provisions of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance.  In support of that application, a statement has been submitted by Detective Chief Inspector Lam Cheuk-ho, who is attached to the Regional Crime Unit.  His statement sets out the figures concerning telephone deception cases and he states in his statement that it is clear from the statistics that this is a prevalent offence.  It is also a serious offence under the provisions of the ordinance. 

12.  Counsel for the defendant does not challenge the submission that this is a prevalent offence and nor does he challenge the fact that the usual enhancement for involvement in this type of criminal offence is 25 per cent. 

13.  As offences of this kind go, the organisation in this offence is not sophisticated.  The intended victim is an off-duty police officer with an 11-year-old son, so the threat could not have been a genuine threat.  I am told, however, that in the commission of these offences, these phone calls are made randomly.  As the figures demonstrate, this type of offence is extremely prevalent in Hong Kong and deterrent sentences must be passed.

14.  Taking into account all the facts that have been placed before me, I propose to take a starting point at the lower end of the sentencing scale for offences of this kind.  I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and reduce that by one-third to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea.  I enhance that sentence by 25 per cent.  The 2-year sentence will be increased by 6 months.  The defendant will go to prison for 2 years and 6 months.