HKSAR v. ALI MUHAMMAD KAMRAN

DCCC 541/2017

[2018] HKDC 832

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 541 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

Facts

1.  This is a case of blackmail on a doctor.

2.  The doctor having willingly and wrongfully issued a false sick-leave certificate in the first place was subsequently being extorted on a few occasions money by the defendant and/or his group.  The doctor was threatened to buy (back) the certificate and/or the secretly filmed video of the certificate issuing consultation, otherwise, the same would be retained and/or sold to third parties and/or his personal safety and that of his family would be jeopardised.

3.  After trial, the defendant was acquitted of Charges 1 and 2 but was convicted of Charges 3, 4 and 5 where:-

4.  Charge 3: The gang together with the defendant managed to extort $1 million from the doctor.  The amount of benefit for the defendant was unknown but it was the defendant who went to the bank to cash the doctor’s $100,000 cheque on the same day of the blackmail.  The rest of $900,000 were handled by the gang.  

5.  Charge 4: After more than a year, the defendant single-handedly orchestrated a similar blackmail.  The defendant went to see the doctor in a clinic and asked for a million dollars.  However, following successive negotiation, the amount of ransom was reduced to $330,000 which the doctor eventually paid the defendant.  $230,000 was paid into the defendant’s personal bank account, and the rest of $100,000 was paid by cash.  The defendant gave the doctor a USB stick.  The stick which allegedly contained the video was subsequently found to contain nothing, the stick was empty.

6.  Charge 5: Two months later, the defendant alone went to see the doctor in the clinic, and likewise demanded from the doctor the shortfall of $1 million from the last occasion, ie $670,000.  The doctor having been given an empty USB stick on the last occasion rejected the defendant’s demand and went to the police station on the same day.  The doctor did not pay the defendant.  The defendant was arrested three days later at the Hong Kong Airport immigration checkpoint.

Mitigation

7.  The defendant has a clear record.  He is 26 years old and is married. He has an infant kid.  His wife and kid are still in Pakistan while he was working in Hong Kong as a security guard.  His lawyer today is asking this court to be as lenient as possible to him.

Authorities

8.  The factual matrix of each blackmail case could be so different and it is not practicable for the Court of Appeal to lay down sentencing tariff or guidelines. However, in the case of Cheung Kwun Yin CACC 164/2007, the victim woman after having developed an extramarital affair with the man defendant was demanded $1 million by him who said that otherwise, he would let her husband know of their relationship.  The Court of Appeal reduced the starting-point sentence from 3 years’ imprisonment to 2 and a half years.

Consideration

9.  Depending on the number of culprits involved in the charge, the role of the defendant, the amount of money asked for, the actual amount paid over and the actual amount received by the defendant (if known), I think each charge should carry 30 to 36 months’ imprisonment.  Looking at all three charges in the round and having considered the totality principle, I think a total starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment is appropriate in this case.  The defendant pleaded not guilty, I see no discount applicable to him.

Sentence

10.  For Charge 3, the defendant is sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment; for Charge 4, 36 months; and for Charge 5, 30 months where 6 months from each of Charges 4 and 5 are to run consecutive to the sentence of Charge 3.  The defendant is therefore today sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment in total.