HKSAR v. MOK SIU WING AND ANOTHER

HCCC 394/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 394 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.  On 10 November 2025, the Defendants, MOK Siu-wing (“D1”)  and LAM Yuen-tak (“D2”), each pleaded guilty to one count of “Conspiracy to Traffic in a Dangerous Drug”, contrary to sections 4(1)(a), (3)  and 39 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 in the Magistrates’ Court and was committed to this court for sentence.  The particulars are that D1 and D2, between on or about 11 May 2023 and 12 May 2023 (both dates inclusive), in Hong Kong, conspired together and with other unknown persons to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely cocaine.

2.  This morning, both defendants appeared before me, having confirmed their pleas and the admission to the facts.  I have considered the admitted Summary of Facts, the antecedents of both Defendants, the mitigation submissions filed on their behalf (including their own mitigation letters and those of their family members), and the relevant authorities submitted by both parties.  In determining the appropriate sentence, I adopt the structured six-step approach set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290, as elaborated in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150.

THE FACTS

3.  On 12 May 2023, plainclothes police officers of the Narcotics Bureau mounted an anti-narcotics operation on the 4^th floor of Ming Fat Industrial Centre (“MFIC”), No. 1 Kin Fat Street, Tuen Mun.

4.  At about 1:30 pm, DPC 18208 (PW1)  spotted D1 coming out from Unit 10 on the 4^th floor, holding two brown paper bags.  PW1 and his team intercepted D1 immediately.  Upon searching D1, the two brown paper bags were found to contain two packets (each consisting of plastic wrappings and in the form of a block)  containing a total of 1.99 kilogrammes of a solid containing 1.70 kilogrammes of cocaine.  The Government Chemist later confirmed the narcotic contents.

5.  Under verbal caution, D1 said, “It was ‘Kit Chai’ who asked me to take 2 packets of drugs to deliver them downstairs.  Those drugs do not belong to me.”

6.  At about 1:35 pm, the police entered Unit 10 on the strength of a search warrant.  Inside Unit 10, they found and seized:

•  A carton box (“Box A”)  containing 65 packets – 55.533 kg of cocaine;

•  A carton box (“Box B”)  containing 80 packets – 65.745 kg of cocaine;

•  A carton box (“Box C”)  containing 31 packets – 26.51 kg of cocaine;

•  A carton box (“Box D”)  containing 45 packets – 39.307 kg of cocaine;

•  One electronic scale;

•  A number of brown paper bags;

•  Three bottles of water on a mahjong table.

7.  In total, the police seized 221 packets containing 220.963 kg of solid containing 187.095 kg of cocaine from Unit 10.  The estimated street value of all the cocaine was HK361,852,719 (in crack form).

8.  Under further caution, D1 stated, “The full name of ‘Kit Chai’ is ‘LAM Yuen-kit’ and his phone number is 6266 6917.  He should be waiting for me downstairs right now.”

9.  At about 1:35 pm, DPC 9187 (PW3)  saw D2 sitting in the driver’s seat of a private car (VX 9187)  parked outside MFIC.  When PW3 approached and revealed his police identity, D2 tried to drive away but was stopped.  Upon searching the vehicle, police found four mobile phones (including one with phone number 5443 2536)  and several keys in a sling bag in the rear passenger seat.

10.  At about 1:52 pm, D2 was arrested for “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”.  Under verbal caution, D2 said, “This unit was rented by me.  I have no knowledge whatsoever on the drugs.”

11.  Police officers then escorted D2 back to Unit 10, where the keys seized from his vehicle were used to open the padlock at the entrance of Unit 10 and the locks of the doors inside.  D2 was the tenant of Unit 10 for the rental period between 23 December 2021 and 22 December 2023, for a monthly rental of HK$12,500.

12.  The CCTV cameras of MFIC captured the following events:

11 May 2023	5:29 pm – 5:31 pm	D1 and 2 others unloaded 5 carton boxes from a truck on G/F and moved them to Unit 10 using 2 trolleys.
	5:36 pm – 5:38 pm	D2 opened the entrance door of Unit 10 for D1 and 2 others to move the 5 carton boxes into Unit 10.
	5:41 pm	D1 and another person left Unit 10.
	5:44 pm	D1 returned to Unit 10.
	5:47 pm	D2 and another person left Unit 10.
	6:40 pm	D1 left Unit 10.
	7:17 pm – 7:21 pm	D1 left Unit 10 carrying 2 brown paper bags, delivered them to a white private car outside MFIC, and returned to Unit 10.
12 May 2023	1:10 pm	D1 returned to Unit 10.
	1:33 pm	D1 left Unit 10 carrying 2 brown paper bags and was intercepted by police.

13.  In his video-recorded interview, D1 admitted, in gist, that:

•  “Kit Chai” (Lam Yuen-kit)  knew he was in need of money and asked him to traffic in dangerous drugs. He agreed. He knew the drugs were cocaine.

•  D2 was the elder brother of “Kit Chai”.

•  On 11 May 2023, “Kit Chai” instructed him to find a black private car and drive it to MFIC.

•  He assisted in unloading 5 big carton boxes from a Medium Goods Vehicle and delivering them to Unit 10.

•  He was left alone in Unit 10 and instructed to open the 5 carton boxes and rearrange the drugs into 4 carton boxes.

•  A WhatsApp chat group was set up by D2 (phone no. 5443 2536)  for carrying out drug activities.

•  In the Chat Group, he was instructed to weigh 2 packets of cocaine (about 1 kg each), take photos, and put each packet into a paper bag for delivery to a driver downstairs. He received HK$2,000 per packet as a promised reward (though he had yet to receive any payment).

•  He confirmed that a total of 221 packets of cocaine were seized, which he had delivered to Unit 10 on 11 May 2023.

•  He had used the electronic scale to weigh the cocaine and the brown paper bags to contain the drugs for delivery.

•  He agreed to be the registered owner of VX 9187 at the request of “Kit Chai”, but it was only used by “Kit Chai”.

14.  D2’s fingerprint was found on the door of a room in Unit 10.

THE ANTECEDENTS OF THE DEFENDANTS

D1 – MOK Siu-wing

15.  D1 is now 28 years old.  He has a clear criminal record.  He was born and raised in Mainland China and migrated to Hong Kong due to family reunion at the age of 1.  He received education up to Form 3 level in Hong Kong.  After leaving school, he worked as a car-repairing apprentice, a shoes salesperson, a chef, and a driver. At the material time, he was a construction worker, earning around HK$30,000 per month.

16.  D1 is single.  His parents passed away in 2021.  His mother committed suicide due to mental issues, and his father passed away due to pneumonia.  At the material time, he lived with his elder sister, brother-in-law, girlfriend, and his young son (aged almost 6).  He was a responsible father and boyfriend, contributing around HK$25,000 per month to his girlfriend for living expenses.

17.  At the time of the offence, D1 had financial difficulties due to his girlfriend’s surgery and her unemployment thereafter.  He became the sole breadwinner of his family.  He also planned to move away from their residence.  These financial pressures led him to seek “quick money” and he fell into bad company.

D2 – LAM Yuen-tak

18.  D2 is now 30 years old.  He was born in Chongqing, China in May 1996, and arrived in Hong Kong when he was 6 years old.  He has three previous criminal records in July 2018 for traffic offences, for which he was fined, disqualified from driving for 6 months, and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service.

19.  D2 completed secondary 5 education in Hong Kong and worked as a driver.  At the time of the offence, he was employed by Luen Shing Petroleum Logistics Limited as the logistics manager, earning HK$51,000 per month.  He also rented Unit 10 for his own logistics business.  At the material time, his total monthly income was around HK$70,000.

20.  D2 had a close relationship with his mother and financially supported his parents.  He paid all the utility bills for his parents’ home and gave his mother an additional HK$10,000 per month for living expenses.  His younger brother, Lam Yuen-kit (“Kit Chai”), approached D2 to ask if he could use D2’s unit to store goods for 3 to 4 days from 11 May 2023, in return for paying the rental for the whole month.  D2 agreed without asking the nature of the goods at first.  He was also asked by his younger brother to open a WhatsApp group with D1 for the arrangement of storing the goods.  It was only after his younger brother asked D2 to act as a “lookout” for the goods in the unit shortly before his arrest that D2 realised the goods were narcotics.  He nevertheless continued to assist.

DEFENDANTS’ BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

D1’s Mitigation

21.  I have carefully considered the mitigation submissions filed on behalf of D1 by his counsel Mr. David Iu, including his own mitigation letter and the letter from his girlfriend.

22.  In his own letter, D1 expressed deepest remorse and heartfelt regret for his offence.  He was a law-abiding citizen with a stable income and no prior criminal record.  At the time of the offence, his family was facing severe financial distress, including his girlfriend’s medical expenses for surgery and relocation costs.  Following her surgery, his girlfriend went through a recovery period during which she was unable to find employment.  Family conflicts regarding childcare escalated to the point where police intervention was required.  The entire financial burden of the household fell solely on his shoulders.  The sudden onset of these financial pressures subjected him to immense stress.  He suffered from insomnia every night.

23.  Seeking an outlet for his stress, he turned to friends for counsel.  However, due to his naivety and lack of life experience, he fell into the wrong company.  In a moment of delusion and foolishness, he was misled by bad influences, ended up becoming a scapegoat, and went astray.  He deeply realises that the mistakes he made have caused harm to both society and his family.

24.  During his time in remand, D1 has turned to the Christian religion and has begun studying a theology course offered by a church.  He has maintained a clean disciplinary record with no infractions.  He has also enrolled in a degree programme at Hong Kong Metropolitan University, hoping to make good use of his time in prison to acquire knowledge that will be useful in the future.

25.  D1’s girlfriend wrote a letter on his behalf.  She stated that D1 has always been a quiet person with no bad habits.  Their child is currently attending kindergarten and is being raised solely by her.  She is deeply convinced that D1 has genuinely repented and thoroughly realised his mistakes.  His only wish now is to be present and participate in the various stages of their child’s growth.

26.  The mitigating factors advanced on behalf of D1 are:

•  Clear record – no prior criminal convictions.

•  Young age – 26 at the time of the offence.

•  Frank admissions under caution – D1 admitted his involvement immediately.

•  Early guilty plea – D1 pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

•  Assistance to the authorities – D1 gave a Non-Prejudicial Statement (“NPS”)  on 13 May 2023 (approximately 12 hours after his arrest)  against D2 and other accomplices and agreed to testify as a prosecution witness. This contributed to D2’s plea of guilty.

•  Remorse – D1 has shown genuine remorse and has taken active steps towards rehabilitation.

•  Family responsibilities – D1 is the sole breadwinner of his family, with a young son and a girlfriend who needs his support.

D2’s Mitigation

27.  I have carefully considered the mitigation submissions filed on behalf of D2 by his counsel, Ms. Josephine Tjia, including his own mitigation letter, the letter from his parents, and the letter from his employer.

28.  In his letter to the Court, D2 expressed deep remorse and self-blame.  He clearly knows there is no excuse for him to traffic in dangerous drugs.  He feels deep sorrow that his wrong choice not only affects his future and his life, but also affects countless people and their families, and the whole community.  During his remand, he has reflected deeply on his actions.  His family members visit him every day, always with tears in their eyes, feeling great pain in their hearts due to what he has done.  He feels great shame and self-blame.  He wishes the Court to be lenient and give him a chance to turn over a new leaf.

29.  D2’s parents wrote a letter on his behalf.  They stated that D2 has a mild temper since a young age, is a well-behaved, filial, and thoughtful child.  He treats people with sincerity, is friendly, and has no bad habits.  After finishing his studies, he started working faithfully.  They deeply understand his character and remarks that he is a kind person.  They will ensure that he will become a law-abiding, upstanding and useful person in society.

30.  The mitigating factors advanced on behalf of D2 are:

•  Low-ranking role – D2’s role was limited to storekeeper/lookout. He was not involved in the planning or financing of the operation.

•  Frank admissions – D2 admitted his involvement and gave a full account of his role.

•  Early guilty plea – D2 pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

•  Remorse – D2 has shown genuine remorse.

•  Family responsibilities – D2 financially supports his parents and has a close relationship with his mother.

•  Good character – D2 has a stable job and no previous drug-related convictions (only traffic offences).

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS

31.  Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence.  The Court of Appeal has established the six-step sentencing approach in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.  I shall apply that approach.

Step 1: Identify the Relevant Guideline Band

32.  The quantity of cocaine involved is 187.095 kilogrammes.  This is a staggering quantity, far exceeding 30,000 grammes.  In HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138, the Court of Appeal revised the sentencing guidelines for cocaine as follows:

Quantity	Starting Point
Up to 10g	2 to 5 years
10 – 50g	5 to 8 years
50 – 200g	8 to 12 years
200 – 500g	12 to 16 years
500 – 1,500g	16 to 20 years
1,500 – 5,000g	20 to 24 years
5,000 – 15,000g	24 to 27 years
15,000 – 30,000g	27 to 30 years
Above 30,000g	Discretionary

33.  For quantities above 30kg, the sentencing judge has discretion, bearing in mind the practical and realistic ceiling of 35 years’ imprisonment after trial, as stated in HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa [2024] HKCA 760 at §§26-27.

Step 2: Assess the Defendants’ Roles and Culpability

34.  The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150 and HKSAR v Raman Kapusamy [2024] 2 HKLRD 955 emphasised that the role and culpability of the offender must be assessed.

D1’s Role

35.  D1 was a hands-on trafficker.  He physically handled the drugs: he unloaded the 5 carton boxes from the truck, moved them into Unit 10, opened them, rearranged the drugs, weighed them using the electronic scale, placed them into brown paper bags, and delivered them to drivers downstairs.  He was in the Chat Group set up by D2 and received instructions directly.  He was promised HK$2,000 for each packet delivered.  He admitted knowing the drugs were cocaine.  He played an active and essential role in the conspiracy.

36.  He is therefore a low-to-mid ranking operative, actively involved in the physical handling and delivery of the drugs.  His culpability is higher than a mere courier or storekeeper.

D2’s Role

37.  D2 was the tenant of Unit 10, where the drugs were stored.  He opened the entrance door to allow the carton boxes to be moved into the unit.  He set up the WhatsApp Chat Group for carrying out drug activities.  He acted as a lookout, and his fingerprint was found on the door of a room in Unit 10.  His vehicle was parked outside MFIC with the keys to Unit 10.  He was in contact with his younger brother, the mastermind, and D1.

38.  D2’s role is that of a storekeeper/lookout.  He provided the premises and logistical support for the operation.  He was not directly involved in the physical handling of the drugs or delivery.  He is therefore a low-ranking operative, but nevertheless an essential part of the conspiracy.

Step 3: Identify the Starting Point within the Band

39.  For the offence of conspiracy to traffic in 187.095 kg of cocaine, the starting point falls within the discretion of the Court.  As held in Sum Ka Wa (supra.), the realistic ceiling for drug trafficking cases is 35 years’ imprisonment.

40.  In Sum Ka Wa, the Court of Appeal stated at §26:

“…we think we should state that realistically and for all practical purposes, there is a prevailing sentencing limit for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, which is 35 years’ imprisonment after trial. We would not be prepared to say that a sentence must never exceed such a figure: if we did, we might quickly regret doing so, and we must always acknowledge that the maximum sentence for the offence prescribed by the legislature is life imprisonment. Factors such as the sheer enormity of the quantity of dangerous drugs concerned, the very high position of the defendant responsible for the offence and its financing, the defendant's antecedents, as well as other relevant factors aggravating the offence, may cause judges in the future to look beyond that limit. However, such exceptional circumstances apart, it is the experience of the courts of this jurisdiction in sentencing under the various guidelines, which have existed for trafficking in dangerous drugs over more than four decades, that 35 years’ imprisonment after trial is in reality likely to be the longest sentence that will be approved by this Court.”

41.  The quantity here – 187 kg – is truly staggering.  It is one of the largest quantities ever to come before the courts in Hong Kong.  It is comparable to the 422.5 kg of cocaine in HKSAR v Heric Rivas & Ors HCCC 191/2012 (unreported, 13 May 2013)  (which attracted starting points of 37-38 years for some defendants). However, I note that Heric Rivas involved foreign nationals and an international distribution centre.  The present case is a domestic conspiracy, albeit on a massive scale.

42.  Taking into account the sheer enormity of the quantity (187 kg), the fact that this was a sophisticated operation involving multiple participants, and the high street value (over HK$246 million), I consider that a starting point of 33 years’ imprisonment after trial is appropriate for the overall conspiracy.

43.  However, I must differentiate between the two defendants based on their respective roles.  As held in Lee Ming Ho (supra.), the starting point for each offender must reflect their individual role and culpability.

44.  For D1, whose role as a hands-on trafficker/deliverer is more active and integral to the operation, I adopt a starting point of 33 years and 6 months’ imprisonment (402 months).

45.  For D2, whose role as storekeeper/lookout and tenant is lower in the hierarchy, I adopt the base starting point of 33 years’ imprisonment (396 months).

Step 4: Consider Aggravating Factors for Enhancement

46.  I now consider aggravating factors personal to each Defendant.

Aggravating Factors for D1

47.  The sheer quantity of cocaine involved in this case is an aggravating factor in itself.  However, this is already reflected in the high starting point.

48.  I find no other aggravating factors specific to D1.  He has a clear record.

Aggravating Factors for D2

49.  The sheer quantity of drugs involved is an aggravating factor but again this is already reflected in the high starting point.  D2 has three previous convictions for traffic offences in 2018, for which he was fined, disqualified from driving, and ordered to perform community service.  As the previous convictions were relatively minor and of a completely different nature, I will not enhance D2’s sentence.

Step 5: Consider Mitigating Factors for Discount

D1’s Discounts

50.  D1 is entitled to the following discounts:

(i)  One-third discount for guilty plea – D1 pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. This is the most substantial mitigating factor. He is entitled to a full one-third discount.

(ii)  Further discount for assistance to the authorities – D1 gave 2 Non-Prejudicial Statements after his arrest, naming “Kit Chai” and D2, and agreed to testify as a prosecution witness against D2 and other accomplices. This led to D2’s guilty plea. This is a significant factor.

51.  The principles governing discounts for assistance to the authorities were set out in HKSAR v Lo Sze Tung Stephanie [2018] HKCA 421 and HKSAR v Chan Yat Wah (CACC 154/2023, unreported, 9 July 2024).  As held in Lo Sze Tung Stephanie,where a defendant gives a non-prejudicial statement and agrees to testify for the prosecution, the “usual” discount (including the one-third plea discount)  is in the range of 40% to 50%.

52.  In the present case, D1 offered to testify against D2.  D2 pleaded guilty, which meant D1’s offer was not taken up.  However, as held in Lo Sze Tung Stephanie, D1 is still entitled to a discount greater than the one-third because his assistance contributed to D2’s guilty plea and saved court’s time.

53.  I consider the value of D1’s assistance to be substantial.  He made admissions under caution, gave 2 detailed NPS identifying the mastermind “Kit Chai” and D2, and agreed to testify.  He is entitled to a discount of around 46.5% (including the one-third plea discount).  This is consistent with the approach in Lo Sze Tung Stephanie and Chan Yat Wah.

54.  Applying a 46.5% discount to D1’s enhanced starting point of 402 months:

•  402 months × 46.5% = 186.93 months

•  The total discount applied is therefore 187 months

•  The resulting sentence for D1: 402–187 = 215 months (17 years and 11 months)

D2’s Discount

55.  D2 pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.  He is entitled to a full one-third discount.

•  Applying a one-third discount to D2’s starting point of 396 months:

•  396 months × 1/3 = 132 months

•  The discount applied is therefore 132 months

•  The resulting sentence for D2: 396–132 = 264 months (22 years)

Step 6: Apply the Totality Principle and Finalise Sentence

56.  I must stand back and ensure the sentences are fair, just, and proportionate to each Defendant’s overall criminality (Herry Jane Yusuph at §79).

57.  The sentences reflect the gravity of conspiring to traffic in a staggering quantity of cocaine (187 kg), with a street value exceeding HK$246 million.  They are adequately deterrent and punitive.  They also reflect the respective roles, the early guilty pleas, and the substantial assistance provided by D1.

FINAL SENTENCES

58.  For D1 – MOK Siu-wing:

•  Starting Point: 33 years (396 months)

•  Enhancement: 6 months

•  Enhanced Starting Point: 33 years 6 months (402 months)

•  Discount: 46.5% (including plea and assistance)

•  Final Sentence: 17 years and 11 months’ (215 months)  imprisonment

59.  For D2 – LAM Yuen-tak:

•  Starting Point: 33 years (396 months)

•  Enhancement: 0 month

•  Discount: 1/3 (132 months)

•  Final Sentence: 22 years’ (264 months)  imprisonment

CONCLUSION

60.  D1 and D2, along with others, conspired to traffic in a staggering 187 kg of cocaine.  This was a sophisticated operation involving the storage and distribution of a vast commercial quantity of dangerous drugs.  Such offending causes immense harm to the community and must be met with severe deterrent sentences.

61.  D1’s timely assistance to the authorities is a significant mitigating factor and has been fully reflected in the substantial discount granted.  D2’s role as the tenant and lookout, while lower in the hierarchy, remains an essential part of the conspiracy.

62.  The sentences I have imposed are, in my judgment, fair, just, and proportionate.

ORDERS

63.  Accordingly:

•  D1 – MOK Siu-wing is sentenced to 17 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.

•  D2 – LAM Yuen-tak is sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment.