HKSAR v. WONG CHUN KWONG

DCCC 1544/2024

[2026] HKDC 246

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1544 OF 2024

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant is, upon his plea and agreement to Amended Summary of Facts, convicted of a charge of attempting to deal with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, 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 (2^nd Charge, the alternative charge to the 1^st Charge).

Facts

2.  On 15 August 2024, through telephone calls, PW1 was deceived by someone impersonating as his daughter’s boyfriend nicknamed Ah Lung (“the fraudster”) into providing HK$30,000 for compensating a person he had fought with to secure his release by the police.  As instructed by the fraudster, PW1 passed HK$30,000 in cash to an individual known as Chau Jai, who had been sent to collect the money.  After speaking with his daughter, PW1 realised he had been scammed and reported the initial fraud to the police.

3.  At about 9:40 am on 16 August 2024, while at home, PW1 received another call from the fraudster, again impersonating Ah Lung.  The fraudster requested a further HK$200,000 for compensating the person he had fought with.  Now aware it was a scam, PW1 pretended to accede to the fraudster’s request but stated he could only provide HK$120,000.  The fraudster then provided PW1 the details of a Standard Chartered Bank account and a Hang Seng Bank account, instructing PW1 to deposit the money into these accounts via cash deposit machines.  Instead, PW1 insisted that the fraudster send Chau Jai to collect the money.  PW1 then informed his daughter, who called the police.

4.  From around 1:20 pm that day, the fraudster called PW1 frequently to enquire about the readiness of the money.  He informed PW1 that he would send his assistant to collect the money from PW1, as Chau Jai was unavailable.  PW1 and the fraudster eventually agreed for PW1 to meet the fraudster’s assistant in Tseung Kwan O MTR Station at 4:30 pm that day.

5.  At about 4:24 pm on the same day, PW1 received a call from someone who said he was collecting money on Chau Jai’s behalf.  Dummy money was given to PW1 for use in the controlled meeting.  At about 4:36 pm, the same caller called PW1 again, requesting a description of his outfit, which PW1 provided.

6.  At about 4:43 pm on the same day, the defendant approached PW1 at the meeting point and identified himself as Chau Jai.  When PW1 expressed suspicion, noting that the defendant looked different from the person who had previously collected HK$30,000 from him, the defendant explained that he was also known by that name.  The defendant then made a call on his phone and handed it to PW1 for listening.  The person on the line claimed to be Chau Jai, confirmed that the defendant was collecting money on his behalf, and instructed PW1 to hand the money to the defendant.  PW1 complied with and passed the dummy money to the defendant.  A few seconds after the defendant took over the dummy money, he was intercepted by the police in ambush nearby.

7.  At about 5 pm on the same day, police arrested the defendant for “obtaining property by deception”.  Under caution, the defendant stated that he was not involved in the incident that occurred on the previous day.  He further stated that on 16 August 2024, a person known as Yee Shuk had instructed him to collect HK$120,000 from PW1.

8.  Upon investigation of the defendant’s mobile phone, it was discovered between 3:31 pm and 4:50 pm on 16 August 2024, the defendant communicated with someone known as “B Gor” on Telegram.  The conversation revealed, inter alia, that:

(1) B Gor instructed the defendant to prepare to go to Tseung Kwan O MTR Station for an “order” involving HK$120,000;

(2) B Gor provided the defendant with details regarding the collection task and the payer, including a phone number belonging to PW1’s landline, the way the payer was to be addressed (ie dad), points to note (ie a fight), the sum of money (ie 120,000) and the payer’s approximate age (ie 78);

(3) B Gor transferred money to the defendant for taxi fare to Tseung Kwan O and asked the defendant to notify him upon arrival;

(4) The defendant expressed his concern about contacting the payer using his own number, as it was registered by his family member;

(5) B Gor suggested the defendant to use a friend’s number and warned him not to call directly from his own number;

(6) B Gor instructed the defendant to wait for the payer at the meeting point and described his outfit. The defendant confirmed he was already in position;

(7) B Gor then told the defendant that the payer was already on his way; and

(8) The defendant sent an image showing the surroundings and confirmed he was waiting at the meeting point.

9.  In the video-recorded interview between 3:54 am and 4:37 am on 17 August 2024, under caution, the defendant stated, inter alia, that he went to the meeting point on 16 August 2024 to collect HK$120,000 from PW1, he was not acquainted with PW1, and he had been in contact with an individual known as “B Gor” prior to his arrest.

Criminal Record

10.  The defendant had one previous conviction of trafficking in dangerous drugs on 2 September 2022 for which he was put on probation for 15 months.

Mitigation

11.  Defence counsel submitted that the defendant was brought up in a broken family.  His parents divorced when he was only 4 years old and he was brought up mainly by his grandmother. He moved back and lived with his father a few years prior to the incident.

12.  Defence counsel submitted that the defendant was told to collect HK$120,000 from an elderly male for a reward of HK$2,000.

13.  He conceded that the present offence involved an elderly victim.  He said the defendant has pleaded guilty saving the court’s time and the need for the elderly victim to attend court to give evidence.

14.  He also submitted that the defendant was only aged 16 when he committed the offence, and he is now only 17.  He urged this court to call for a Detention Centre, Rehabilitation Centre and Training Centre Suitability Report before sentencing the defendant. 

15.   He further submitted that if the court is not sending the defendant to any of the institutions mentioned, the sentencing starting point for the offence should be 3 years.  He conceded that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence.  He referred this court to the case of 香港特別行政區訴洪永俊 [2011] 2 HKLRD 167 and 香港特別行政區訴岑華擴[2015] 2 HKLRD 945.  He submitted that the present case should be distinguished from the 岑華擴case as the defendant here is a local young person and his role is not as serious.

16.  Subsequent to the receipt of the suitability report for Detention Centre, Rehabilitation Centre and Training Centre, and after considering the report which suggests the defendant is unsuitable to go to any of these institutions, defence counsel submitted that this court should call for a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre report as well as a Community Service Order report.  He said that the family members of the defendant are very supportive of the defendant in his rehabilitation.  He said that the defendant adopted a cooperative and polite attitude, he has realised his wrong and has been abiding by the rules and regulations whilst he was in remand.  Defence counsel asked this court to deal with the defendant leniently.

Detention Centre/ Rehabilitation Centre/ Training Centre Suitability Report

17.  In gist, the suitability report concluded that the defendant was the only child in a broken family and was mainly taken care of by his maternal grandmother when he was young.  He was deprived of effective guidance and supervision.  The defendant failed to catch up with the curriculum in his secondary school.  He started mingling with undesirable peers since Form 2, which led to his involvement in the offence of “trafficking in dangerous drug” for which he was subsequently convicted and put on probation.

18.  It was said that during the probation period, the defendant continued his studies, but he seldom go to school and continued mingling with undesirable peers, and later he was tempted to try ketamine in March 2023.  He left school after completing Form 3 in July 2023 and he enrolled in a diploma course, but he was expelled from the course because of insufficient attendance rate.  After that, the defendant engaged in part-time employments.  Under adverse influence, he started taking cocaine and became a member of triad society, and he also took part in triad related activities and illegal trades.

19.  The defendant committed the present offence and was caught red-handed on 16 August 2024.  When he was subsequently released on bail, he re‑associated with his triad peers and relapsed into taking cocaine.  It was said that although the defendant became a father in July 2025, he showed no intention of turning over a new leaf.  He continued to engage in illegal activities and he further tried MDMA, “Happy Water” and Etomidate on a few occasions in addition to cocaine.  After the court proceedings on 20 January 2026, he was convicted of the present offence and was remanded for the present suitability report. 

20.  Upon examination, the medical officer is of the view that the defendant is a drug dependant and medically unfit to fully participate in the Detention Centre, Rehabilitation Centre and Training Centre programmes.  The report therefore considered the defendant unsuitable for detention in any of these centres.

Discussion

21.  Before sentencing, the court has considered all that was said on behalf of the defendant in mitigation, the report called for as well as the mitigation letter from the defendant’s father. 

22.  It is well established that money laundering is a serious offence and personal background of the defendant is seldom a valid mitigating factor.  Normally, immediate custodial sentence is the only appropriate option.

23.  In view of the very young age of the defendant, the court has called for suitability report for DC, TC and RC.  The report however suggested that the defendant is a drug dependant and is therefore not suitable for detention in any of these centres.  Although defence counsel did urge this court to call for further reports, ie DATC report or CSO report, the court did not call for these reports in view of the seriousness of the offence and the conduct of the defendant after his arrest in this case.  In the circumstances, despite the very young age of the defendant, immediate custodial sentence is the only appropriate option.

24.  On conviction upon indictment of this offence, a person is liable to a fine of $5 million and to imprisonment for 14 years. 

25.  In the case of HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, Stock VP (as he then was) explained that it was not realistically possible or desirable to lay down sentencing guidelines in relation to the offence of money laundering because of the highly variable circumstances in which these offences were committed and the widely different roles played by those convicted of those offences.  He said that deterrence was paramount in the sentencing exercise as the criminality in laundering arose from the encouragement and nourishment it gave to crime in general.

26.  He said that the amount of money laundered is a significant factor, and the court should also take into account of factors such as:

(a) the nature of the predicate offence;

(b) the state of the offender’s knowledge;

(c) where the operation involved an international dimension, this would be a significant aggravating feature;

(d) the sophistication of the offence, including the degree of planning;

(e) where the offence was committed by or on behalf an organized criminal syndicate would be an aggravating feature;

(f) whether there was one transaction or many, and the length of time over which the offence was committed;

(g) whether the offender continued to launder funds after he had discovered the nature of the funds were proceeds of an offence or a serious offence was involved; and

(h) the role of the offender and the acts performed by him.

27.  In this case, the predicate offence is a telephone deception case “Guess Who”, ie fraud, for which upon conviction on indictment, a person is liable to imprisonment for 14 years, or obtaining property by deception, for which a person upon conviction on indictment is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.

28.  According to the agreed Amended Summary of Facts, the defendant knew well that the payer was to be addressed as “dad”, the case involved was a fight and the victim was an elderly person.  The defendant also knew quite well that the collection of money in the circumstance was tainted with illegality as he was concerned about contacting the payer with his own phone number, which indicates he has basic knowledge of the predicate offence. 

29.  There is no evidence of international element.  The operation of this “Guess Who” telephone deception involved participation by several persons.  The defendant’s role is limited to collection of the money from the victim upon instructions.  He committed this offence by one single act of money collection after receiving the order from B Gor on the same day.  The amount involved is HK$120,000.

30.  In the case of SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, Yeung JA (as he then was) said that money laundering is a serious offence and must be deterred.  In considering the sentence, the emphasis should be on the amount of “black money” laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant.  Paragraph 13 of the judgment stated:

“… 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, and other organized crimes etc, or the defendant’s benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted upwards.”

31.  In that case, the Court of Appeal referred to the case of Hsu Yu Yi,where the sentencing starting point for laundering money between $1 million and $2million is 3 years, between $3 million and $6 million is 4 years, and could be over 5 years if the “black money” involved is above $10 million. 

32.  Considering the factors aforesaid and the circumstances of the present offence, in particular the young age of the defendant, the amount of money involved, one victim was involved, the period within which the offence was committed and the role of the defendant, the court finds that the appropriate sentencing starting point would be 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

33.  The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to full one-third sentencing discount.  He is therefore sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.

Enhancement of Sentence

34.  The prosecution has applied for enhancement of sentence pursuant to section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, on the grounds of prevalence of this specified offence and the nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of this specified offence. 

35.  In support of the application, there is a statement from Chief Inspector Cheng Sze Wai dated 6 January 2026 lodged with the court. 

36.  Defence has no objection to the application.

37.  The present case is a telephone deception “Guess who” case.  From the table in paragraph 21 on page 7 of the statement, one could see that telephone deception cases rose from 615 cases in year 2018 to 3,213 cases in year 2023, 9,204 cases in year 2024, and 7,608 cases in the first 11 months of year 2025.  The accumulated monetary loss from these years are respectively HK$60.95 million in year 2018 to HK$1,102.8 million in year 2023, HK$2,911.04 million in year 2024 and HK$1,532.41 million in the first 11 months of year 2025.

38.  For “Guess Who” telephone deception cases, the number of cases in year 2018 was 262 going to 2,237 cases in year 2023, 1,153 cases in year 2024, and 1,677 cases in the first 11 months of year 2025. The number of cases of victims handing cash to culprits was 2 in the year 2018, 1,130 cases in year 2023, 328 cases in year 2024 and 380 cases in the first 11 months of year 2025, with accumulated monetary loss HK$0.18 million in year 2018 to HK$139.31 million in year 2023, HK$43.49 million in year 2024, and HK$56.85 million in the first 11 months of year 2025.

39.  Having considered the statement, the court is fully satisfied the grounds of the application for enhancement of sentence has been made out, accordingly, the court would enhance the sentence. This court considers that the enhancement of sentence at 25% appropriate. 

40.  The sentence for the defendant is therefore, after enhancement, 25 months’ imprisonment.