HKSAR v. CHEW CHUN MING, ANTHONY

DCCC 1586/2025

[2026] HKDC 676

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1586 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant faces two charges. Charge 1 is for the offence of false imprisonment, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 101I of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221. It is alleged that the defendant together with 3 other persons, i.e. NGAI Siu-hin, Wilson (“NGAI”), MAN Ka-ho (“MAN”) and an unknown male (“the wanted person”), committed this offence on 3 September 2021. Charge 2 is for the offence of blackmail, contrary to section 23(1) and (3) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. It is alleged that the defendant committed this offence between 3 September 2021 and 7 September 2021 together with NGAI and MAN.

2.  The defendant pleads guilty to both charges, and admits the relevant facts.  He is accordingly convicted of both charges.

The Admitted Facts

3.  Mr. X was at all material times a registered medical practitioner, and a married person.

4.  On 14 August 2021, X became acquainted with a female surnamed Chan (“Ms Chan”) through a dating application.  They first met in person on 15 August 2021, followed by two other meetings on 17 August 2021 and 3 September 2021.  In the latter two occasions, they had consensual sexual intercourse in a hotel. 

5.  Ms Chan was NGAI’s wife.

6.  At about 1923 hours on 3 September 2021 when X boarded the driver’s seat of his private car, which was parked at the 2^nd floor of a car park in Kowloon (“the Carpark”), NGAI, MAN and the wanted person alighted from a private car with registration number VG892.  They walked towards X’s private car, and got onto it suddenly without seeking X’s permission.  NGAI then sat in the front passenger seat, while MAN and the wanted person sat in the rear passenger seat behind X.

7.  Inside X’s private car, NGAI told X that he was the husband of Ms Chan.  He said that he knew that X had an affair with his wife, and asked X how he intended to handle the matter.  NGAI also mentioned X’s address, hobbies, workplace and places where X’s wife had been on that day.  NGAI further said that he could not make the decision alone because his “big brother” was very angry about the matter.

8.  NGAI then asked X to drive to a less crowded location. X compiled and drove his car away at about 1942 hours.  NGAI asked X to drive to the 4^th floor of the Carpark to wait for his “big brother”, and they arrived there at about 1947 hours.

9.  Whilst waiting, MAN said to X, “You don’t want to be unable to run marathon, do you? (你都唔想跑唔到馬拉松㗎)”, “You cannot perform surgery if you lose one hand (冇咗隻手做唔到手術㗎”, and “I know where your family lives (我知道你屋企住邊)”, and he went on to spell out X’s address correctly.  He further said to X, “Your wife just went to Ocean Pride for shopping, right? (你老婆啱啱係咪去完海之戀買嘢呀)”.  X felt scared because he believed that he and his family had been under surveillance.  He was eager to have the matter resolved.

10.  At about 2012 hours on the same day, the defendant arrived.  He was joined gradually by 3 other males.  X, NGAI, MAN and the wanted person then alighted from X’s private car. NGAI told X that the defendant was his “big brother” (大佬). The defendant then suggested that they should discuss the matter inside X’s car.  They then boarded X’s car, with X on the driver’s seat, the defendant on the front passenger seat, and NGAI together with MAN on the rear passenger seat.  At that time, the private car VG892 was parked just one car space away from X’s car.

11.  The defendant then asked X for a resolution to the matter.  X asked the defendant what he wanted, but nobody replied.  X then offered to compensate NGAI with HK$300,000.  MAN replied, “Gangster’s rule 298 (江湖規矩298).”  X asked what “298” meant, but nobody answered him. Believing that “298” meant HK$2,980,000, X refused.  The defendant then said, “Then 228.”  X asked what “228” meant, but again he got no reply. NGAI then said that he wanted “229”.  X asked what “229” meant, but still no one explained.  Believing that “229” meant HK$2,290,000, X offered to pay NGAI HK$2,190,000.  NGAI rejected the proposal and asked X, “Are you being stingy over only HK$100,000? (你唔係連嗰$100,000都想慳嘛?)” 

12.  Fearing for his personal safety, X agreed to pay NGAI HK$2,290,000 by instalments over half a year.  NGAI insisted that X had to settle the full amount within 3 months.  At about 2135 hours on the same day, the defendant alighted from X’s private car.  NGAI then asked X to pay according to the following schedule: HK$20,000 to be paid that day (i.e. 3 September 2021), HK$300,000 to be paid 3 days later on 6 September 2021, HK$200,000 to be paid on 10 September 2021, HK$800,000 to be paid on 30 September 2021, another HK$800,000 to be paid on 31 October 2021, and the balance of HK$170,000 to be paid on 30 November 2021.

13.  The defendant then demanded X to record the payment schedule in a letter of apology.  MAN then moved to the front passenger seat of X’s private car, and gave X a pen and a piece of paper to write.  After X had finished writing the letter of apology, MAN asked X to read it out, and video-recorded X doing so.  MAN then alighted from X’s car.

14.  At about 2135 hours on the same day, X drove his private car to another building (“the Building”) with only NGAI accompanying him.  X believed that if he did not pay NGAI, NGAI would not allow him to leave.  X then tried to withdraw HK$20,000 to pay the first instalment from an ATM in the Building with NGAI standing nearby him.  However, because of the daily withdrawal limit, X could only withdraw HK$18,000.  They then returned to board X’s private car.  NGAI later received HK$18,000 in cash from X.  He then alighted from the car and left.

15.  During the incident, X dared not leave because he was worried about his personal safety, reputation and family.

16.  The car camcorder of X’s private car, and the CCTV footage from the Carpark and the Building captured the respective movements of the relevant persons as well as the movement of X’s private car and the private car VG892 on 3 September 2021. In particular, the private car VG892 entered the Carpark and was parked opposite X’s car on the 2^nd floor of the Carpark since 1715 hours on that day.

17.  On 5 September 2021, X told NGAI via WhatsApp that he wished to pay the second instalment at a law firm, and asked NGAI for a receipt for the payment and copies of the Hong Kong Identity Cards and marriage certificate of NGAI and Ms Chan.  NGAI in response sent to X via WhatsApp a photo showing part of the apology letter.

18.  On 6 September 2021 when X was about to drive his private car from his home to his workplace at about 0645 hours, NGAI and MAN suddenly boarded X’s private car. NGAI asked X why he had instructed a lawyer and threatened to publicize X’s affair with Ms Chan if X did not pay before 1500 hours (“今日三點前要比錢, 唔係我就揚開佢”).  NGAI and MAN then alighted from X’s private car and left.

19.  On the same day, X reminded NGAI to meet at the law firm at 1600 hours.  He also sent a draft settlement agreement to NGAI and told NGAI via WhatsApp that he could not withdraw the required amount of cash which was substantial. 

20.  In response, NGAI sent a photo of X and Ms Chan to X.  The photo also contained the name of X, his mobile phone number, address, occupation, clinic’s name, and words stating that X had affairs with other people’s wives, that female patient should beware of X, and that X went to hotel for clinical consultation.  NGAI further threatened to publicize the photo because X had not kept his promise.

21.  Between 1630 hours and 1823 hours on 7 September 2021, NGAI and MAN attended X’s clinic and sat in the waiting area.

22.  The defendant was arrested on 14 June 2024. 

23.  On 30 August 2024, X positively identified the defendant in an identification parade.

Criminal record of the defendant

24.  Between 29 May 2003 and 2 September 2025, the defendant had been sentenced by the court on 6 occasions for a total of 20 offences.

25.  On 29 May 2003, the defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment for 11 charges of using a false instrument.  On 12 March 2007, he was fined HK$3,000 for the offence of common assault.  On 25 March 2009, he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for one charge of using a false instrument. On 7 July 2009, he was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for one charge of evasion of liability by deception, with 3 months of the sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed on 25 March 2009.  On 23 May 2018, he was fined HK$6,000 and disqualified from driving for 12 months for the offence of driving a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.

26.  The defendant was last sentenced on 2 September 2025 for a total of 5 offences (Cases No. DCCC405 & 424/2021).  For the offence of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence (Charge 1), he was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment. For two charges of fraud (Charges 2 and 3), he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for each charge, with 3 months of each of these two sentences to run consecutively to one another (making a total of 6 months’ imprisonment), which was to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1. For the offence of evasion of liability by deception (Charge 4), he was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentences for Charges 1 to 3.  For the offence of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause as appointed (Charge 5), he was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment, with 3 months of the sentence to run consecutively to all other sentences.  In other words, the effective total term that the defendant has to serve was imprisonment for 3 years and 9 months.  According to Mr. Boyton, the learned counsel for the defendant, the defendant’s earliest release date is 11 December 2026.

27.  The defendant does not have previous convictions for the offence of false imprisonment or blackmail.

Personal and family background

28.  The defendant was born on 23 August 1976 in Hong Kong.  He is now 49 years old.  According to Mr. Boyton, the defendant graduated from a university in San Francisco where he read psychology.  Prior to his present incarceration, the defendant was a merchant involved in the financial investment business.

29.  The defendant is married.  According to Mr. Boyton, the defendant has a daughter from his earlier marriage.  The daughter is now 13 years old and a secondary school student in Hong Kong.  The defendant lives with his wife and daughter.  His other family members include his 82 years’ old father, 76 years’ old mother, and a younger sister.

Mitigation

30.  In summary, Mr. Boyton makes two points for the defendant.

31.  First, Mr. Boyton invites this Court to examine the sentences imposed on NGAI and MAN with whom the defendant committed the two offences in question jointly.  The relevant case number is DCCC245 & 405/2023 (or [2023] HKDC 823).  His Honour Judge Edmond Lee sentenced NGAI and MAN on 14 June 2023 when he adopted 30 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for the sentence in respect of the false imprisonment offence, and 42 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for the sentence in respect of the blackmail offence.  The learned judge also considered that 48 months’ imprisonment was the proper starting point for the overall prison term.  Mr. Boyton accepts that this Court is not bound by the decision of His Honour Judge Edmond Lee, but reminds this Court that the defendant committed the present two offences jointly with NGAI and MAN, and that the principle of consistent sentencing is a factor which this Court should consider.  He submits that the various starting points adopted by His Honour Judge Edmond Lee were correct, and urges this Court to impose the same sentences on the defendant.

32.  Second, Mr. Boyton points out that the defendant was sentenced to a total of 45 months’ imprisonment on 2 September 2025, and will not be released before 11 December 2026.  He asks this Court to consider the totality of all the charges and order some of the sentences in the present case to be served concurrently with his existing sentences.

33.  Mr. Boyton submits that the defendant is entitled to the full one-third discount of the sentences because of his early guilty plea. 

34.  Mr. Boyton produces 6 mitigation letters, with four of these letters written by the defendant’s mother, father, younger sister and wife respectively.  In summary, the defendant’s family members say that the defendant is a filial son and responsible husband who has for years single-handedly shoulder the financial burden of the family, and take care of all the family members, and the elderly parents both have health issues.  They say that the defendant committed the offences due to the enormous pressure he had been facing, and he is remorseful for all his wrongdoings now.  They wish to reunite with the defendant as soon as possible, and ask the Court to deal with the defendant leniently so that he may have a chance to turn a new leaf and take care of the family members again.

35.  For the remaining two mitigation letters, one of them is from New Hophing Noodle Food Limited which says that it is willing to employ the defendant to work in this company upon his discharge from prison; and the other letter is from a charitable organization called Yuet Social Service Limited which says that the defendant was an active participant in voluntary social work including distributing meal boxes and visiting elderly people between 2019 and 2020. They also ask the Court to give the defendant a chance to turn a new leaf.

Reasons for Sentence

36.  I have studied the Reasons for Sentence delivered by His Honour Judge Edmond Lee when he sentenced NGAI and MAN. While I am not bound to follow the decision of the learned judge, I agree entirely with his analysis of the applicable sentencing principles and the facts of this case on the culpability of the offenders including NGAI, MAN and the defendant whom was referred to by the learned judge as the second wanted person (“WP2”). 

37.  According to the facts recited by the learned judge in his Reasons for Sentence, when NGAI and MAN attended X’s clinic on 7 September 2021 between 1630 hours and 1823 hours, X was at that time making a report of the case in Hunghom Police Station, and X was informed by his nurses that NGAI and MAN appeared and stayed in the clinic.  X then arranged with NGAI and MAN to meet them in a café in Central later that day at 1930 hours, and when NGAI and MAN turned up, they were arrested by the police.  On the other hand, the defendant herein was arrested only on 14 June 2024.  This explains why the defendant was not dealt with at the same time as NGAI and MAN.

38.  There is no doubt that the offences in question were committed jointly by the defendant together with NGAI, MAN and the unknown male.  They used the pretext that the victim X had an affair with NGAI’s wife to extort HK$2,290,000 from X, and demanded X to settle the amount in full by 6 instalments to be paid within 3 months.  To facilitate them making their unwarranted demand with menaces on X, they detained X illegally in the Carpark for more than 2 hours on 3 September 2021 and obtained HK$18,000 from X on the same day.  They perpetrated the blackmail offence from 3 September 2021 to 7 September 2021 with NGAI and MAN continued to threaten and pressurize X to pay HK$2,290,000 in accordance with the stipulated payment schedule.

39.  His Honour Judge Edmond Lee specifically referred to the sentencing principles stated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Fong King Choi (方琼財)[1], and found that the following serious circumstances existed in the offences committed by offenders in this case which must be reflected in the sentences to be imposed on them[2]:

(a) The offenders did not just ask the victim for one payment. Instead, they demanded the victim to make a series of 6 payments for the total sum of HK$2,290,000 within a short period of 3 months. Not only was there a series of extortionate demands, the amount of money demanded was also substantial.

(b)The offences were not committed by a single defendant, but by multiple offenders including NGAI, MAN, the unknown male and the defendant.[3] They did not act impromptu or hastily, and their acts involved a considerable degree of planning and preparation. For example, the offenders must have followed the victim and his family, so that they were able to provide the victim with his actual home address and the address of his clinic, and the whereabouts of his wife. Although no actual force was used during the crime, there were considerable intimidation, including implicit threats of causing physical harm to the victim, and exposing his scandal of engaging in extramarital affairs, and the victim was actually coerced into writing a letter of apology, and was made to read it out, and a video-recording was made when X was doing so as instructed. Furthermore, there were hints of triad connections, for instance, the defendant intervened into the matter as the “big brother” (or gangster boss) of NGAI, MAN and the others, and the offenders used terms with triad overtones like “underworld rules” when demanding money from the victim, making their intention all too clear.

(c) Although the victim ultimately suffered only a material loss of HK$18,000, the harm inflicted on him, especially the heavy psychological pressure, was self-evident. The offenders knew that the victim was a doctor, and that publicizing his extramarital affairs would inevitably have a serious impact on him. The victim was not only detained in the Carpark for over two hours, but was also subjected to pressure from the defendants continuously for a period of 5 days (from 3 September to 7 September 2021) during which the offenders pressurized him by sending him via WhatsApp photo and messages, and by attending the victim’s clinic in person. The victim must have suffered significant psychological harm as a result.

40.  Bearing all these matters into account, there is no doubt in my mind that the only appropriate sentencing option in this case is imprisonment.  I also agree entirely with the decision of His Honour Judge Edmond Lee that the appropriate starting point of the prison term for the false imprisonment offence to be 30 months’ imprisonment, and that for the blackmail offence to be 42 months’ imprisonment.  I also agree that the two offences were connected but their criminalities did not overlap with one another completely.  Hence, I also agree with the judgment of His Honour Judge Edmond Lee that, in light of the totality principle, the appropriate starting point of the overall term to be 48 months’ imprisonment.  These are the starting points that I shall adopt in sentencing the defendant before me.

41.  I then consider whether there were aggravating factors that may cause an upward adjustment of the starting points.  I have considered whether the defendant’s position as the “big brother” of NGAI, MAN and the others would increase his culpability in the offences.  As the “big brother” of NGAI, MAN and others, the defendant was surely in a position to stop NGAI, MAN and others from committing these offences, but there was no recognizable legal duty for him to do so.  It must also be noted that there was no evidence that the offences were initiated or orchestrated by the defendant, other than the fact that he appeared in person in the Carpark to add extra pressure on the victim so as to intimidate him into submission. After all, the facts showed that the defendant asked the victim to pay only HK$2,280,000, whereas MAN and NGAI demanded a sum larger than that.  Just to recap, MAN demanded the victim to pay HK$2,980,000, and NGAI asked the victim to pay HK$2,290,000, and the amount payable was fixed at the sum demanded by NGAI.  For these reasons, I do not intend to impose a sentence on the defendant heavier than those imposed on NGAI and MAN solely on the ground that the defendant was the “big brother” of NGAI and MAN.

42.  There is however one aggravating factor.  The defendant committed the false imprisonment offence on 3 September 2021, and his blackmail offence lasted from 3 September to 7 September 2021.  At that time, the defendant was on Court bail for Case No. DCCC405 & 424/2021. According to the Court record, the defendant first appeared in the District Court on 20 May 2021 in DCCC405/2021 when his case was consolidated with DCCC424/2021 involving another defendant. The consolidated cases were then adjourned to subsequent hearings for mention, and the defendant (as D1 in the consolidated cases) last appeared before the District Court on 12 August 2021.  On that day, his case was further adjourned to 28 September 2021 for him to engage legal representation.  On 28 September 2021, the defendant did not appear in Court, and through the co-defendant, i.e. D2 in the consolidated case, he alleged that he had a fever and was suspected to be under Covid attack.  His case was then adjourned to 30 September 2021 for mention, and the defendant did not appear in Court on that day or any time thereafter voluntarily.  He was eventually re-arrested on 14 June 2024.  His abscondence between 30 September 2021 and 14 June 2024 formed the subject matter of Charge 5 in DCCC405 & 424/2021.

43.  The above chronology of events proves beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the two offences in question between 3 and 7 September 2021 when he was on bail for another criminal matter that had already been brought to Court. He had abused the freedom given to him by the Court.  It is beyond argument that committing further offences whilst on Court bail aggravates the gravity of the offences committed by him.  For this reason, I shall adjust each of the starting points mentioned before upwards by 3 months.

44.  In other words, before considering mitigation, the starting point for Charge 1 is 33 months’ imprisonment, the starting point for Charge 2 is 45 months’ imprisonment, and the starting point of the overall term is 51 months’ imprisonment.

45.  As to the mitigating factors, the defendant is entitled to the full one-third discount of each of the sentences in light of his timely guilty plea.

46.  I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Boyton and the mitigation letters written by the defendant’s family members, his prospective employer and the charitable organization. 

47.  Financial pressure, family obligations and the desire of family reunion cannot constitute effective mitigating factors in light of the gravity of the offences committed by the defendant. 

48.  As to the prospect of future employment, it will be nice to the defendant if the prospective employer keeps its promise, and the defendant is willing to work there. However, it is too uncertain to say now that this arrangement will eventually work out.  In any event, the fact that the defendant will have a job after his discharge from prison means that it may not be necessary to impose a deterrent sentence to prevent him from committing offences again, but it has little weight to lower an otherwise appropriate sentence.

49.  As to the defendant’s voluntary social services, it was said that he performed the service only in the period between 2019 and 2020, and the information provided in the mitigation letter was too imprecise for this Court to assess the defendant’s contribution.

50.  All in all, I find that the only effective mitigating factor is the defendant’s guilty plea with no other ground that may reduce the sentences any further.

51.  For these reasons, the defendant is sentenced as follows:

Charge 1: 22 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 2: 30 months’ imprisonment.

52.  I further order that 12 months of the sentence for Charge 2 shall run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1, making an effective total term of 34 months’ imprisonment.

53.  I then have to consider whether this effective total term of 34 months’ imprisonment should run wholly or partially consecutively to the sentences that the defendant has to serve in DCCC405 & 424/2021.  This is the second point raised by Mr. Boyton.

54.  According to the Reasons for Sentence in DCCC405 & 424/2021 delivered by His Honour Deputy Judge W. H. Ko, the defendant committed the money laundering offence (Charge 1) in September 2014 when he dealt with a sum of HK$8,199,985 which was deposited into a bank account of which he was the sole signatory, and he withdrew the money from this bank account.  In respect of the two charges of fraud (Charges 2 and 3), these were investment scam offences committed by the defendant against two different victims involving HK$250,000 each in February 2015.  In respect of the charge of evasion of liabilities by deception (Charge 4), it was committed by the defendant against the victim in Charge 3 in December 2015 involving HK$22,500 only.  On the other hand, the offences in today’s case were committed by the defendant in September 2021 against a different victim, and were completely different in nature to the offences committed by the defendant in 2014 and 2015.  In other words, the criminalities of the offences in today’s case did not overlap with the criminalities of the offences in Charges 1 to 4 in DCCC405 & 424/2021.  As such, it is open to this Court to order the sentences imposed in today’s case to run wholly consecutively to the sentences imposed on Charges 1 to 4 in DCCC405 & 424/2021.

55.  As far as the bail offence (Charge 5) in DCCC405 & 424/2021 is concerned, it is not known why the defendant had failed to surrender to custody on 30 September 2021 because he remained silent upon arrest for that offence.  His allegation that he was sick on 28 September 2021 had not been substantiated by evidence as well.  It might well be that he did not appear in Court because he had committed the two offences in the present case between 3 September and 7 September 2021, and knowing that NGAI and MAN had already been arrested by the police on 7 September 2021, he chose not to appear in the District Court in DCCC405 & 424/2021 on 30 September 2021 so as to avoid his apprehension by the police.  In this sense, the two offences in today’s case might be said to have led to the bail offence (Charge 5) in DCCC405 & 424/2021, but there were still no overlapping criminalities between these offences that demands for a partial concurrent sentence.

56.  Of course, the totality principle requires this Court to consider further whether the two sets of sentences in two different cases if to be served by the defendant wholly consecutively will result in an unduly harsh and lengthy term of imprisonment that might be detrimental to his rehabilitation and reintegration into the society even if there were no overlapping criminalities between the two sets of offences.  On the other hand, it is of the utmost importance that the final sentence of all the cases must reflect adequately the overall criminalities of all the offences involved.  This is a balancing exercise that this Court must perform.

57.  Having considered the matter carefully, I find that the best balance can be achieved by ordering 6 months of the overall sentence of the 34 months’ imprisonment imposed in today’s case to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in DCCC405 & 424/2021, with the remaining 28 months’ imprisonment to run consecutively.  And I so order.