HKSAR v. LU WEIFU

DCCC 1106/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1106 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Lu Weifu, you have been convicted on your own plea of a conspiracy to deal with property knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it was the proceeds of an indictable offence.

2.  The charge follows your arrest on 16 October last year after you had gone to a park in Ko Shan Road at around lunchtime and collected an envelope containing HK$200,000 in dummy notes from a 60-year-old victim of an attempted blackmail. 

3.  An unknown man had telephoned the victim pretending to be the victim’s 16-year-old son who was studying in England, saying that he was being beaten and had been kidnapped.  A man had then called the victim’s mobile phone demanding a sum of HK$200,000 otherwise his son would be chopped.

4.  The victim then instructed his domestic helper to contact his ex-in-laws asking that they should contact his ex-wife and ascertain whether his son was safe.  Fortunately, later when the victim was making a report to the police, he learned from his ex-wife that his son was safe.  An ambush was therefore laid outside the Ko Shan Theatre where the man had instructed the victim to make delivery of the money. 

5.  After arriving at the park, the victim was instructed by the man over the phone to hand the money to you, Lu Weifu, who were at that time walking towards him.  You then accepted the envelope containing the dummy banknotes which had been given to the victim by the police.

6.  After your arrest, you claimed you were simply collecting the money on behalf of a man called Ah Tim whom you had met in the mainland one or two months earlier.  You said that this man had offered to pay you if you came to Hong Kong and collected money for him.  He had not told you the source of the money.  He had paid you HK$2,000 in advance and promised you more after you had collected the money.

7.  You said that you had arrived in Hong Kong the previous day and bought a SIM card to enable you to be contacted by this man Ah Tim.  At around 11 am on the day of the offence, Ah Tim had instructed you over the phone to go to the park to collect the money, and this you did.  Your instructions from Ah Tim were to remit the money to the mainland after you had collected it.

8.  The telephone calls recorded on your mobile phone supported the suggestion that you had been receiving instructions from somebody on the mainland.  It has not been suggested by the prosecution that you knew of the blackmail.  It is obvious from the circumstances that you must have believed that the money you were coming to Hong Kong to collect was the proceeds of a criminal offence. 

9.  The international element of this offence, namely the fact that you came to Hong Kong from the mainland where you live to collect what you must have known or had reasonable grounds to believe was the proceeds of crime make this a particularly serious offence.

10.  I bear in mind that this was the first time you have been to Hong Kong and there is no suggestion that you had collected the proceeds of any other offence other than the $200,000 in question.  Your involvement was limited in terms of time to coming on 15 October in order to commit the offence on the 16th. 

11.  Despite these factors, the seriousness of this offence, in my view, warrants a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. 

12.  You pleaded guilty and you are entitled to the usual discount of one-third.  There are no circumstances warranting any further reduction of sentence.  This results in a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment. 

13.  The prosecution have applied for enhancement of sentence under section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance in view of the prevalence of this sort of offence and the harm to the community recently caused by these offences.

14.  The prosecution have submitted a statement from Chief Inspector Chan Che-man of the increase in this type of telephone deception since 2006 and the increasing amounts that are being obtained by fraudsters as a result.  Since 2008 the percentage of cases where the victim has been instructed to drop off cash rather than deposit money into a bank account (in respect of which steps had been taken to deter this sort of activity) has steadily increased.     

15.  I am satisfied that enhancement is justified in this case to deter others from coming to Hong Kong to commit this sort of offence and to protect the community from further harm.  I enhance the sentence by one-third, namely 8 months.  The sentence I pass upon you is one of 2 years 8 months’ imprisonment.