HKSAR v. CHIU TSZ KIN

DCCC 671/2025

[2026] HKDC 145

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 671 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty today to four charges of fraud committed on various days between 28 November 2023 and 28 March 2024.  The offences fall into two lots involving two separate victims who were according to the charge deceived out of, the 1^st victim, of $4,900 and the 2^nd victim $9,200 with an attempt to obtain a further $14,000 by various fraudulent means.  We can see that in the 6^th charge.

2. The defendant agreed the charges and the facts as follows: I will provide a brief summary of those facts.  The first two charges concern what is described as “the first incident” and that involves a 19 year old student who was approached on the street and asked by the defendant for $1,700 for hiring a locksmith, presumably so the defendant could get back into his house.  Now rather naively, PW1 transferred $1,700 in two tranches to the defendant from his bank account via FPS through a proxy phone number provided by the defendant and registered under the defendant’s name.

3. Having done that, later on on that day on 28 November 2023, the defendant sent a screenshot of a transaction record via WhatsApp claiming that he had mistakenly transferred $3,700 to PW1’s bank account via AliPay and requested a refund from PW1.  Obviously the document must have been a forgery of some kind.  As a result, PW1 then transferred a further $2,000 to the defendant from his bank account and that constitutes the 1^st charge.

4. On 29 November, there appears to be a repeat of the same fraudulent mechanism again as a result of which PW1 transferred a further $900 to the defendant from his bank account. 

5. The defendant was arrested on 12 December 2023 for these offences claiming it was a misunderstanding at the time.  I understand from the prosecution he was released on police bail at that time. 

6. He then goes on to commit the next set of offences, which is charges 5 and 6, which is described as “incident two” starting on 27 March 2024, where a lady, a Madam Yu, a 27 year old nurse was approached again for money for hiring a locksmith.  Again, there was an allegation by the defendant that he had transferred excess monies back to this lady and as a result on six occasions a total of $9,200 was transferred to the defendant via FPS through the defendant’s phone number. And again, there was a further claim in relation to charge 6 where the defendant attempted fraudulently to claim another $14,000 from the same witness.  That witness found that she had been deceived, informed the police and the defendant was arrested.

7. The defendant is aged 32 years old.  He has criminal convictions.  The only one that is factor-relevant dates back to 2008, a case of theft where he was sentenced to a Rehabilitation Centre so it is not, I would say, particularly relevant today given the time that has passed. 

8. He is married, resides with his wife and a 5 year old daughter in Tin Shui Wai and the defendant has been detained since his arrest, I believe on 28 March 2024, so he has already served quite a considerable period of time in prison on remand.

9. In terms of mitigation, I am referred to a New Zealand case by the defence called Matthew John Young [2018] NZCA 604 for the principles of sentencing in relation to fraud cases.  Although it is not a Hong Kong case, the principles are well stated in the case that culpability be assessed by reference to the circumstances and such factors of the nature of the offending, its magnitude and sophistication, the type of circumstances and number of the victims, the motivation for the offending, the amount involved, the losses, the period over which the offending occurred, the seriousness of breaches of trust involved and the impact on the victims.

10. I have been referred by both prosecution and defence to cases involving street deceptions that occurred largely in the period of around 2015 to 16 where it was a common offence in Hong Kong.  It does show that the courts have adopted a more serious approach to frauds and obtained by deception where people are goaded on the streets into transferring sums of money to people using fraudulent means to do so.  Clearly, it is a factor that must be considered in this case and makes the offences more serious than might otherwise would be and also I did note that charges 5 and 6 were committed whilst the defendant was on police bail, so a sentence which reflects that is appropriate. 

11. Now looking at the sentencing considerations in this case, there are two separate victims.  The defendant did act alone, so it is not a concerted effort.  The frauds had some planning and sophistication to them in that forged documents appeared to have been used.  The excuses themselves are somewhat trivial, excuses used to obtain money, and the sums involved are relatively small.  The losses incurred by the first victim is $4,900 and the second victim $9,200.

12. I bear in mind when passing sentence the factors that I have already set out.  What I shall do is on each charge I shall simply take a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 20 months’ imprisonment on each charge.  So charges 1 to 5 and 6, there will be the sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment. 

13. I have to look at the overall totality. Charge 1 and 2 effectively arise out of the same incident, so I shall order them to be served concurrently to each other.

14. Charges 5 and 6 also arise out of a single attempt, a single fraudulent enterprise, and so I shall order charges 5 and 6 to be served concurrently to each other.  However, charges 5 and 6 were committed whilst on police bail.  They are separate offences from those of charges 1 and 2 and so some element of them must be served consecutively and some element concurrently having regard to the overall proper totality of sentence.

15. I consider the overall proper totality of sentence in this case should be one of 30 months’ imprisonment.  I will order 10 months of charges 5 and 6 to be served concurrently to charges 1 and 2 and another 10 months to be served consecutively to an overall total sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.