HKSAR v. CHEN YU TSUNG

 DCCC287/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 287 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  This defendant has pleaded guilty to three counts of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 21(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455.

2.  The charges relate to three separate occasions: 30 March 2009, 29 July 2009, and lastly, 25 January 2010, where three elderly persons were deceived over the telephone of a sum of money. These are commonly referred to as telephone deception cases.

3.  The facts are that three elderly victims, aged between 61 and 78, were called by a male alleging that their son or relative was being detained and that a sum of money would have to be paid to secure their release. This charade was successful and the money was paid on each occasion by depositing the money into a bag and leaving it at a designated place.

4.  Unfortunately, this is an all too familiar crime; a scam that targets elderly, more vulnerable people. The defendant’s role in this scam is to collect the bag of money once it has been left by the victim who hopes it will safely secure the release of their loved ones.

5.  There is no proof he made the phone calls or knew of the contents of the phone calls, hence this charge, as opposed to an obtaining property by deception charge. Nonetheless, he knew he was there to collect money derived by deception. He admits this and informed the police he would receive a 5 per cent commission of the total amount collected.

6.  He also admits that he would travel to Hong Kong from China upon instructions, and wait for further instructions whereupon he would be given a description of the victim just before the bag of money was deposited. Once the money was deposited, he would quickly collect it and, I am sure, disappear out of the jurisdiction.

7.  On 25 January 2010, sharp-eyed police officers spotted him at about 7 am in Tsim Sha Tsui. They surmised he was suspicious and their instincts paid off several hours later. He was kept under close observation and caught red-handed when he collected the money the victim of Charge 3 left in a flower bed at around 12.20 pm.

8.  He admits receiving on these three separate occasions $100,000, $800,000 and $60,000 respectively; a total loss of $960,000. This amount is not an insignificant amount of money, especially where the victim of the 2nd charge is concerned.

9.  The defendant is a 46-year old Taiwanese national living and working in Mainland China. He has a clear record in Hong Kong. However, that is not of great significance as he has no connection at all with Hong Kong other than coming here to involve himself in the commission of these offences.

10.  He has pleaded guilty and made an admission to the police, obviously co-operating fully with the authorities. There is no evidence or any admission he is the mastermind of these deceptions but he is an essential cog in this scheme, playing a very significant role, and of this he must have been well aware.

11.  I have heard mitigation, considered the facts of the case, the particulars of the offence charged and the loss to the prosecution witnesses involved.

12.  After taking into account all these factors, I take the following starting points for each offence. Where Charge 1 is concerned, I take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months. Where Charge 2 is concerned, I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. Where Charge 3 is concerned, I take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

13.  As the defendant has pleaded guilty to these offences he is entitled to a discount of one-third for his pleas. Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to 1 year and 8 months for Charge 1, 2 years’ imprisonment for Charge 2, and 1 year and 8 months for Charge 3.

14.  I do take into account the dates these offences were committed. I do take into account the totality principle. I will make the offences partly concurrent and partly consecutive. Six months of Charge 2 will run consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance concurrently. Four months of Charge 3 will run consecutively to Charges 1 and 2 and the balance concurrently. Therefore, the defendant will serve a total sentence of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.