HKSAR v. YANG RENLIN

DCCC550/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 550 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to one offence of Attempted Fraud contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200.

2.  You have admitted that on 31 March 2011, in Hong Kong, together with another person unknown, by deceit, falsely represented to Madam Wong Wai-pik that, a) her son had been held captive, and b) she was required to pay up HK$50,000 to secure the safe release of her son.

3.  On 31 March 2011 at about 10.45 am you telephoned Madam Wong’s landline which had been forwarded to her mobile phone. There was no caller display when she received the call.  Over the phone the man who called her said, “Mum”.  She thought it sounded like her son.  Following that, the man said to her, “Mum, you must help me.  I am detained.”  She asked him the reason and he told her to speak to his big brother.  After that, another man talked to her over the phone and he told her that her son owed him HK$200,000 and that she should settle the debt for him.  He then asked her to give him her mobile phone number after which she told him the number and he hung up.

4.  Soon after that the man called Madam Wong’s mobile phone again.  She was scared and she told the man she needed to go to the toilet and asked him to call her back in 10 minutes.  The man then hung up.  Following that Madam Wong went to the police station and made a report to the police.  With the assistance of police, she confirmed that her son was not captured by anyone or detained.

5.  The man called Madam Wong’s mobile phone again and repeated the same demand.  She told him she would go to Hang Seng Bank at Pei Ho Street to withdraw $50,000.  The police thereafter handled the matter and gave her some dummy money.  Madam Wong went to the bank and, whilst there, she received a call on her mobile phone from the man and the man told her to keep the line connected at all times.  After that, the man asked Madam Wong if she was then wearing a red coat, in a wheelchair and was being pushed by a helper.  She looked around and she saw the defendant talking over the phone and standing outside an exchange shop opposite to the bank.  The man then asked her to go to the rear lane of Hang Seng Bank and put the money on a motor cycle. 

6.  She did as told and put it on a motor cycle.  The then defendant rushed over to the motor cycle, picked it up and walked away.  However a police officer was laying ambush in the vicinity and intercepted the defendant at once. The defendant discarded the paper bag and put up a struggle before he was subdued by the officer.  He was arrested and cautioned and under caution, the defendant said, “Sir, I called the woman and asked her to give me money.” 

7.  In an interview later that day, the defendant admitted under caution that he called Madam Wong’s landline number which was chosen at random inside a guest house in Yau Ma Tei.  He told Madam Wong that her son owed him $200,000.  He identified Madam Wong when he arrived at Pei Ho Street. He directed her to put down the money at the rear lane and when he noticed the police so he discarded the paper bag and fled.

8.  On this occasion the defendant entered Hong Kong on the strength of a two-way permit at about 11.25 on 28 March 2011 via Zhuhai. He was allowed to stay in Hong Kong for seven days.

9.  Mr Sammy Hui, counsel for the defendant, has mitigated fully on the defendant’s behalf and I have taken into account all that he has had to say today.  The defendant is aged 36 and of clear record.  He has had education up to primary level in China.  He has worked previously as a factory worker and on a construction site.  He had been addicted to heroin for three to four years but is not a drug addict now.  He is single and resides with his parents in Taishan, China.  Mr Hui has said the reason why the defendant committed this offence was because he was influenced by his bad friends and came to know that this was an easy way to earn quick money.  Out of greediness he committed the present crime. 

10.  The defendant has written a letter to me stating that his siblings are all married with their own family and he is the only single child and he bears the burden of supporting his parents on his own.  As he was only earning $2,000 a month on a casual basis some his family was in a poor financial position, therefore, to earn some quick money he came to Hong Kong to commit this crime.  He says he has learnt a bitter lesson and is extremely remorseful and he is, of course, willing to bear the legal consequences.

11.  Mr Hui has rightly referred me to the relevant cases. The tariff cases laid down by the Court of Appeal are two cases HKSAR v Hung Yung Chun & Anor, CACC453 of 2009 and HKSAR v Yang Chia Cheng, CACC367 of 2009 where the court has laid down the tariff for these types of offences as a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment had you been convicted after trial and an enhancement of 50 per cent as a result of the prevalence of these offences. 

12.  Those cases were all similar in fact to the present case where elderly victims received telephone calls - elderly being those of 50 years of age are included - and a person claimed to be her son and claimed that they were detained.  The phone was allegedly passed to somebody else and then that person told her that the son owed them $200,000 and demanded repayment on behalf of the son.  The victim was then asked for their mobile phone number then they were called back and told to go to the bank at once to withdraw the cash, and throughout this time the victim was kept on the telephone talking to the man on the other line.  The victim would then go to the bank and withdraw money and, in some of these cases, the money was successfully taken by the culprits but in this case, and very fortunately, the money was not.  In those cases the victims soon came to realise that they had been deceived and their son had never called for help.

13.  In the latest case of this kind in the Court of Appeal in Yang Chia Cheng, Yeung J stated that:

“The crimes committed by these defendants, such as yourselves are very serious. People like you, defendant, took advantage of the victim’s love towards their childen and threatened them or were the targets of these swindlers, like you, to members of the underprivileged classes and their purpose was to squeeze as much money out of them as possible.”

14.  The crimes committed by yourself, defendant, and other applicants in this type of crime have done great harm to the victims and to society as a whole.  Heavy sentences must be imposed to deter anyone from committing these crimes.  Like yourself none of these applicants were local residents.  Your sole purpose of coming to Hong Kong was to commit this crime.

15.  It is not in dispute by your counsel, Mr Hui, that telephone deceptions are prevalent and a number of these cases are on the increase.  The Court of Appeal in Yang Chia Cheng endorsed the enhancement of sentences by 50 per cent pursuant to the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance.  The court was of the view this type of phone deception was serious. The victims were overcome by fear and by making the victims maintain telephone communication with them, they created obstacles to any attempt to find out the truth. 

16.  In this case fortunately and wisely the victim pretended she had to go to the toilet and immediately reported the matter to the police.  As a result the police were able to capture you, defendant red handed.

17.  Defendant you have said that you committed this offence because of the poor health of your parents and your life in China.  When you saw this woman, you asked her whether she was the one in the wheelchair. You knew she was a person in very poor health by seeing she was in a wheelchair.  You must have seen she was in her fifties.  Yet, despite that, you still went on with your serious crime. 

18.  Defendant I accept, of course, that you have pleaded guilty and that you are remorseful for your misdeeds but, of course, you were caught red handed.  I am, of course, obliged to follow those sentences as laid down by the Court of Appeal.  It makes no difference that you were not successful in obtaining any money. 

19.  Had I convicted you after trial, defendant, I would have taken a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment.  However, given your plea of guilty, I give you full credit for your plea and reduce that term to one of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  However, in view of the prevalence of this offence I enhance that sentence by 50 per cent.  The sentence arrived at after enhancement is one of 48 months and therefore the total term of imprisonment is one of 4 years’ imprisonment to which you are so sentenced.