HKSAR v. LEE KA WAI

DCCC 874/2018

[2019] HKDC 751

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 874 OF 2018

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges: one of false imprisonment and the second one of blackmail.

2.  The amended summary of facts sets out the facts quite clearly and it encapsulates it as follows.  It says a Hong Kong gambler, who is described as “X”, was caught up in a loan shark scam in Macau casinos and as a result of the victim’s inflated debts with the loan shark he was escorted back to Hong Kong and handed over to the defendant, where he was detained and subject to threats.  He was asked to sign IOUs, a video of him naked was taken, and the victim was later rescued.

3.  The defendant was accompanied by another man called “Chan”, who has already been sentenced for these offences in another court.

4.  In a little more detail, the victim managed to run up what seemed to be a considerable debt in Macau casinos gambling, a foolish act for which one can have little sympathy.  He then falls into the hands of debt-enforcers.  He signs an IOU.

5.  The defendant is one of the people who is instructed to detain the victim until the money is paid.  He meets the victim at the Shun Tak Centre Ferry Terminal together with Mr Chan.  He is then taken to a number of locations and subjected to a number of threats.  He spends the evening with them at the Windsor Spa in North Point. 

6.  The next day he is taken to the Harbour Plaza Hotel in North Point, where he is made by another person to sign another IOU where the debts have been inflated to $700,000. 

7.  On the second day of his detention, he is taken to a room in another hotel, where the defendant takes some videos of him and some naked photographs. 

8.  Eventually the victim is freed on 16 June, after three days of detention, at a set-up meeting in a restaurant in Hung Hom, where the police are lying in ambush.

9.  On his interview, the defendant admitted the work he did in debt collecting. 

10.  The defendant has admitted all those facts.

11.  He is a 34-year-old man of clear record.  He has family.  He has brothers, who are here in court.  He has got a wife and a young daughter, who are, I think, currently in the Mainland.  There would appear to be no triad background for the defendant.

12.  The defendant is, I understand, remorseful and has, as I say, admitted everything today.

13.  He appears to have got himself into this as a result of some debts that he owed - he had been made bankrupt earlier - but generally it does seem out of character for him.

14.  As far as the approach to sentence is concerned, there are two offences here.  Neither of them have any direct guideline sentencing.  On the first charge, starting points for sentence in cases such as this, involving detaining people who have incurred debts in Macau, starting points range between 3 to 4 years’ imprisonment, and on the second charge again there is no guideline, but the second charge really is an integral part of the first charge.

15.  I have also been informed that the co-defendant has already been sentenced.  In his case, although an overall starting point of 42 months on the first charge was adopted, the final sentence after all deductions was one of 24 months.  That court in that case accepted that this was a case where there was no triad background and also that that defendant was not the mastermind.

16.  Although there is a lengthy detention and a number of threats are issued against this victim, I bear in mind this defendant has a clear criminal record.  Other than the detention, he is not said to have used any violence towards the victim.  There is no evidence of triad background and this defendant was clearly being instructed by others as to what he was to do.

17.  Taking all those factors into account, what I am going to do is in fact adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment (36 months’ imprisonment) on each charge and reduce that to 24 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  The charges arise out of the same criminal venture so I will order the sentences to be served concurrently, to a total of 24 months’ imprisonment.