HKSAR v. LAW CHI KIN AND ANOTHER

HCCC 55/2023

[2026] HKCFI 856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 55 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The 1st and 2nd defendants pleaded guilty to the following charges, and admitted the Summary of Facts in the committal proceedings at the Eastern Magistracy on 6 March 2023. The statement of offence and particulars of offence of the charges stated as follows:

(1) Charge 1 (against the 1st defendant), conspiracy to steal. Between a day unknown in August 2020 and 5 September 2020, both dates inclusive, in Macau and in Hong Kong, conspired together with Yiu Kam-lung (“Yiu”) and Fong Ho-wing (“Fong”), to steal cash of HK$19,737,300, property belonging to Hong Kong Long Far Industrial Company Limited.

(2) Charge 2 (against the 2nd defendant), dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence. Between 5 September 2020 and 9 September 2020, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, together with Fong, dealt with property, namely cash of HK$19,737,300, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the said property in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.

2.  The case was then committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.  Before this court today, both the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant have confirmed their plea and their agreement to the Summary of Facts through counsel. 

3.  The facts of this case have been well and succinctly summarised by counsel for the 2nd defendant in his Mitigation Submissions, as follows.  The present case involved the 1st defendant and other persons in a money escort service from Macau to Hong Kong. A trading company known as Hong Kong Long Far Industrial Company Limited engaged the 1st defendant and other persons to escort a sum of HK$19,737,300 from Macau to Hong Kong on 5 September 2020. 

4.  Upon arriving at the Hong Kong border, the 1st defendant reported to the immigration that he had a fever and therefore he was transferred to the North Lantau Hospital for treatment. 

5.  Upon the 1st defendant’s instruction, the 2nd defendant, who was the 1st defendant’s wife, took the money together with another person, Fong, and they eventually split the money into two suitcases and put them in different places. 

6.  Eventually, HK$13,800,000 was recovered in the 2nd defendant’s mother-in-law’s residence in Chuk Yuen Estate.  A further sum of HK$108,000 was recovered in the 2nd defendant’s flat in Lei Yue Mun Estate. 

7.  Under caution, the 2nd defendant stated that she knew the 1st defendant was hired for the courier job carrying things from Macau to Hong Kong for a reward of $40,000.  She also followed the instruction of the 1st defendant to handle the money when he was quarantined. 

8.  The 2nd defendant admits that between 5 September 2020 and 9 September 2020, she and Fong dealt with the HK$19,737,300 cash, knowing that the said property in whole or in part directly or indirectly represent the proceeds of an indictable offence. 

9.  In the admitted Summary of Facts, the 1st defendant expressly admits that between August 2020 and 9 September 2020, he conspired with Yiu and Fong, in Macau and in Hong Kong, to steal the HK$19,737,300 cash, and the 2nd defendant expressly admits that between 5 September 2020 and 9 September 2020, she and Fong dealt with the HK$19,737,300 cash, knowing that the said property in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented the proceeds of an indictable offence. 

10.  In this case, the amount stolen was HK$19,737,300.  Of this amount, HK$13,800,000 and HK$108,000 were recovered by the police on 9 September 2020 from the house of the 2nd defendant’s mother-in-law and the house of the 2nd defendant respectively.  On 10 September 2020, a man surnamed Chow voluntarily returned a total of HK$550,000 in cash related to this case to the police.  On 9 September 2020, one Ms Ma representing the owner also recovered HK$4,400,000 in cash related to this case from a storage room in Kwai Chung.  All in all, a substantial part of the stolen money was recovered, leaving only about HK$879,300 that could not be recovered. 

11.  Regarding the personal background of the 1st defendant, he is 54 years old and married to the 2nd defendant.  Prior to the incident in question, he was a transportation worker and driver earning around HK$20,000 per month and he had been in this job for some 10 years. 

12.  Prior to his remand, the 1st defendant was living with his second wife (ie the 2nd defendant) and their 18-year-old son who was studying in Secondary Form 5.  The 1st defendant has no history of drug use.  He has 15 prior criminal convictions, 12 of which are related to dishonesty, but all of them were committed before he turned 21.

13.  I am told that starting in late 2019, the 1st defendant’s income was severely impacted by social events and the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving him without stable employment or income.  He also accumulated approximately HK$60,000 by way of credit card debts. 

14.  While chatting with his former colleagues in a casual gathering, one of his former colleagues learned of the 1st defendant’s situation and proactively suggested that he could help with carrying cash from Macau to Hong Kong so as to earn a remuneration of HK$40,000 to HK$50,000.  The 1st defendant subsequently agreed to participate in the conspiracy to steal the money in order to “make quick money”.  The 1st defendant was promised $5 million out of the money carried in return after the incident in question. 

15.  Regarding the personal background of the 2nd defendant, she was born in mainland China in 1971.  She is married to the 1st defendant.  She received education up to primary level in Hong Kong and was working as a beautician earning around $18,000 per month prior to her arrest.  After she was granted bail, the 2nd defendant is now working in a restaurant known as MercyHK, organised by an NGO, as a waitress, earning around $7,000 per month. 

16.  The 2nd defendant has two previous criminal convictions. However, neither of them are similar to the present case. 

17.  I shall deal first with the sentence for the 1st defendant.  In HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776, the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines on the appropriate range of sentence for theft involving a breach of trust:

(1) over $15 million: 10 years or more;

(2) $3 million to $15 million: 5 to 9 years;

(3) $1 million to $3 million: 3 to 4 years;

(4) $250,000 to $1 million: 2 to 3 years; and

(5) less than $250,000: less than 2 years.

18.  In HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017, the Court of Appeal adjusted the aforesaid sentencing guidelines laid down in Cheung Mee Kiu to ensure logical consistency:

(1) over $15 million: 10 years or more;

(2) $3 million to $15 million: 5 to 10 years;

(3) $1 million to $3 million: 3 to 5 years;

(4) $250,000 to $1 million: 2 to 3 years; and

(5) less than $250,000: less than 2 years.

19.  The amount involved in Charge 1 is HK$19,737,300.  According to the two Court of Appeal authorities cited above, one should be looking at a starting point of well over 10 years’ imprisonment.  However, the 1st defendant has only pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to steal, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years’ imprisonment, which is not disputed by the prosecution.  This obviously disentitles the court to adopt a starting point of over 10 years’ imprisonment, a proposition also agreed to by the prosecution. 

20.  Further, I consider that this cannot be considered as the worst type of case for a single offence of theft.  The modus operandi of the theft was not sophisticated, and most of the money stolen has been recovered. 

21.  In all the circumstances of this case, I would adopt a starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment on Charge 1. 

22.  I consider that the only factor which would reduce the 1st defendant’s sentence is his timely guilty plea, for which I will give him a one-third discount.  Accordingly the 1st defendant is sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment. 

23.  I turn now to the sentence for the 2nd defendant.  The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, has laid down the considerations when sentencing money laundering cases.  These include the following.  First, the question of the amount of money laundered is not the be-all and end-all of a case, but it is a significant feature.  Second, the court should take into account other significant features, inter alia:

(1) the nature of the predicate offence;

(2) the state of the offender’s knowledge;

(3) where the operation involved an international dimension, this will be a significant aggravating feature;

(4) the sophistication of the offence, including the degree of planning;

(5) where the offence was committed by or on behalf of an organised criminal syndicate would be an aggravated feature;

(6) whether there was one transaction or many and the length of time over which the offence was committed;

(7) whether the offender continued to launder funds after he had discovered the nature of the funds were proceeds of an offence or a serious offence was involved;

(8) the role of the offender and the acts performed by him.

The list is said to be non-exhaustive.

24.  The 2nd defendant submits that in the present case there is no evidence showing that the 2nd defendant knew the full picture of the scheme.  The way used by the 2nd defendant to handle the money was a simple one, by just transporting and placing the money in different places.  It did not involve the use of complicated methods such as multi-layer bank accounts or buying shadow accounts from other people.  The period covered by the charge was very short for only a few days. Furthermore, the 2nd defendant committed the present offence out of foolishness and upon the instruction of the 1st defendant, her husband. 

25.  Taking into account all that was said on behalf of the 2nd defendant and taking into account all the circumstances of this case, I would adopt a starting point of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2.  I will again give the 2nd defendant a one-third discount for her timely guilty plea.  Accordingly, the 2nd defendant is sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.