HKSAR v. LAI YUANWEN AND OTHERS

DCCC 338/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 338 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendants have pleaded guilty to all charges that they face. The 1st and 2nd defendants faced one sole charge of handling stolen goods, contrary to section 24 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. The 3rd defendant pleaded guilty to three charges of obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance. The 4th defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of obtaining property by deception and one charge of handling stolen goods.

2. This is a case that involves four instances where elderly, vulnerable women were targeted.  They were victims of a street deception or a street scam where the 3rd, the 4th defendant and others took advantage.  All four victims lost valuables and cash to a heartless crime.

3. The modus operandi of all four instances was as follows.  All four were approached whilst alone by an unknown woman and engaged in conversation.  Whilst chatting, a second unknown woman would approach.  She would ask if they knew of a healing doctor who lived nearby because they had a child or relative who was sick.  The first unknown woman would know of the doctor and pretend that he had cured her child or relative.  Not long after, these three women would then be approached by a fourth. 

4. In the 1st and 2nd charge, this woman was the 3rd defendant who said she was the doctor’s granddaughter.  In the 3rd charge, it was the 4th defendant who played the role of the doctor’s daughter, and the 3rd defendant said she knew the doctor.  The 3rd defendant led the victim to the 4th defendant. 

5. Once contact with the doctor was established, the victim would be duped and scared senseless.  PW1 of Charge 1 was told she was possessed by an evil spirit, and if not exorcised, then the spirit would possess her son.  She had to gather her valuables so the doctor could perform a ritual or a blessing to exorcise the evil spirit.  She went home with the first unknown woman, gathered her valuables that included cash and jewellery and returned to the scene.  The 3rd defendant there swapped PW1’s valuables with oranges and a packet of sugar and pretended that a ritual had been conducted.  The victim was told not to look in her bag for a week. Believing what had happened, she did not look for a week.  That is when she discovered that she had been exploited.  The loss she suffered was over $60,000.  This offence took place in February 2013.

6. PW2, the victim of Charge 2, in similar circumstances was told by an unknown woman that her son was possessed by an evil spirit and she needed to provide valuables so the spiritual doctor could perform a ritual to exorcise the evil spirit.  Like PW1, she believed this and followed the culprits’ instructions.  She too put cash and jewellery as well as a mobile phone, keys and an Octopus card in a bag and handed it all over for the pretended ritual.  She too had her valuables swapped for a bottle of water and some soft drinks.  She did not discover this until after she had returned home.  Her loss was about HK$60,000.  This offence took place in November 2013.

7. PW3, the victim of Charge 3, was told that she was possessed similarly by an evil spirit, and to exorcise or rid herself of this spirit, she had to provide her valuables so the healing doctor could perform a ritual of spiritual blessing.  She was told that if the ritual was not performed, her son would be killed in a traffic accident.  She was convinced and went home to put her cash and jewellery worth over $200,000 in a box.  She handed all of these items to the 3rd and 4th defendants.  After the ritual, she was told to return straight home and not open her bag for a week.  However, she opened the bag on her way home and found that all her cash and valuables had been stolen, and what she was carrying was in fact four oranges and a packet of salt.  She reported the matter to the police.

8. PW4, who is a victim and her valuables are in the particulars of Charge 6, she was told similarly by a group of three women that her youngest son was possessed by an evil spirit and she had to surrender valuables to perform a ritual spiritual blessing.  She was scared and convinced which led her to put her cash and jewels in a bag and pass it over to the three women.  After a pretend ritual, the bag was returned to her.  Later, she discovered when she returned home that her valuables had been stolen.  The loss that she suffered was over $30,000.  This offence took place on 5 February 2014. 

9. Sorry, I will add that the third offence took place on 4 February 2014.

10. Where Charge 6 is concerned and the fourth victim, PW4, no identification was made by her of any of the women who duped her, but the 4th defendant had some of PW4’s jewellery in her suitcase when she was arrested the day after PW4 was deceived. 

11. All four defendants were arrested on 6 February when they tried to leave Hong Kong.  They were intercepted by immigration officers and taken to a detention room to await the arrival of the police.  I will add it is excellent police work that the four were identified within a day of duping PW4.

12. When the police arrived at Lowu, they found valuables all over this detention room.  Some were put behind the water dispenser, a bench, some in a dustbin, and some just scattered.  Clearly, the defendants had tried to offload the valuables they had with them, knowing they belonged to victims of these scams.  Despite this, some of PW3’s items were found on all four defendants.  And as I have said, in the 4th defendant’s bag, there were several items belonging to PW4, the fourth victim.

13. Under caution, the 1st defendant denied the offences and any knowledge.  Under caution, the 2nd defendant admitted that he had come to Hong Kong with the other three defendants.  Under caution, the 3rd defendant admitted the offences and, in short, said it was the 1st defendant that had taught her how to dupe old ladies.  Under caution, the 4th defendant admitted the same.  Both defendants say that they owed the 1st defendant a lot of money, so therefore committed these offences to repay their debts. 

14. This submission made against the 1st defendant is not evidence that I will take into account, but it is their explanation they put forward.  All arrived together, according to immigration records, on 2 February, at about 4 am through Lok Ma Chau.  And as I have said, all four were arrested leaving Hong Kong together.

15. Their best mitigation is their plea of guilty today.  These are serious offences.  The victims are elderly, gullible and superstitious, and that is precisely why they were targeted.  This gang took advantage of the victims’ love for their own children and threatened them with the likelihood that harm would come to their children if a spiritual blessing was not conducted.  The purpose was to scare them senseless and squeeze from them as much of their valuables as they could lay their hands on.  It can only be described as more serious that I am sure they have come here to Hong Kong to commit these offences and it is premeditated and well-planned.

16. Consequences of these scams are always devastating because many of these victims would have lost, if not everything, a significant part of their savings and valuables.  PW4 lost jewellery she had owned for over 50 years.  Even if they were not very valuable, the sentimental value is irreplaceable.  The courts have said time and time again these scams are cynical, heartless and despicable. 

17. Defence counsel have said all they can on behalf of each defendant.  I have been told that the 1st and 2nd defendants are married, have families to support and committed these offences for financial reasons.  The 3rd and 4th defendants, I have been told, committed these offences for financial reasons as well, more specifically because they owed the 1st defendant money.  D4, the 4th defendant, told the police that she had lost $40,000 to him playing mahjong.  Both have said they were tempted to repay their debts by participating in scams of this nature.   

18. I repeat what they say is not evidence against the 1st defendant.

19. Counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants says that the offence they face, sole charge they face is not so serious and only handling the stolen goods from the offences of deception. 

20. However, the facts show that all four arrived together in Hong Kong, and as soon as the third and the fourth offences were committed, they were caught leaving Hong Kong together.  On their persons and in the detention room were items belonging to the victims of the 3rd and 4th charge.  I find they were all in it together, so to speak.

21. Prosecution agrees that the starting point for the obtaining-property-by-deception charge in this fashion is 3 years’ imprisonment.  That is correct where no aggravating factors such as similar previous criminal convictions exist.  All four defendants here have clear records in Hong Kong. 

22. Having considered the facts, I am minded to apply the same starting point to each defendant, be it for a deception charge or a handling-stolen-goods charge. 

23. Defendants, please stand up.  After considering mitigation put forward, the defendants’ backgrounds, clear records, pleas as well as the facts of the case and the loss suffered by the victims, I do find a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment appropriate for each charge. Because the defendants have pleaded guilty, they are entitled to a discount of one-third. 

24. I have taken into account the totality principle. For the 1st defendant, for Charge 4, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. 

25. For the 2nd defendant, for Charge 5, I impose a term of imprisonment of 2 years. 

26. For the 3rd defendant, for Charges 1, 2, and 3, I impose terms of imprisonment of 2 years.  However, I note the gaps in between each offence and I will order that for Charge 2, 6 months of that 2 years’ sentence will be consecutive to Charge 1.  Charge 3, similarly, 6 months of that 2 years’ imprisonment will be consecutive to Charge 1. Accordingly, the 3rd defendant is sentenced to a total of 3 years’ imprisonment.

27. The 4th defendant, for Charge 3, I impose a term of imprisonment of 2 years.  For Charge 6, I impose a term of imprisonment of 2 years.  Of that 2 years, 6 months will be consecutive to Charge 3.  Accordingly, the 4th defendant is sentenced to a total of 2 years and 6 months.  Do you understand those sentences?

INTERPRETER: All defendants understand.