A Hong Kong judge has questioned what went wrong with the city’s education or core values as he sentenced two young men to 17 years in prison for causing the chilling death of a man whose body was found encased in cement.
Mr Justice Patrick Li Hon-leung on Monday jailed Keith Lau, 24, and Cheung Sin-hang, 27, concluding what he described as a “horrible incident” with a “troubling” background, revealed in earlier testimony on how the pair came under the wing of 30-year-old swindler Tsang Cheung-yan.
The High Court heard Tsang had offered the younger men free meals and accommodation, served them cocktails and promised loans without repayment in the months before he lured his 28-year-old business partner, Cheung Man-li, also known as Ah J, into his flat on March 4, 2016.
Cheung Man-li’s body was found on March 29, embedded in a cement block placed in the living room of Tsang’s unit at DAN6 industrial building in Tsuen Wan, weeks after his attackers had fled to Taiwan.
A forensic pathologist floated four possible causes of death, three of them linked to the use of a potentially lethal, chloroform-like chemical compound known as dichloromethane.
A seven-member jury unanimously found Tsang guilty of murder, before the judge sentenced him to life in prison last Friday.
While his co-defendants Lau and Cheung were found not guilty of murder by respective verdicts of 7-0 and 6-1, both were unanimously convicted of the alternative charge of manslaughter.
The three unemployed men, of clear prior record, had previously pleaded guilty to preventing the lawful burial of the deceased, admitting to placing the body in a home-made coffin then attempting to retrieve it when they found the cement block too heavy for the lift, before abandoning the plan when they broke his left arm.
Based on the evidence and these verdicts, the judge on Monday found that Cheung had grabbed the victim from behind for Lau to apply dichloromethane, in a plan orchestrated by Tsang, the mastermind.
The judge also accepted that Cheung had tried to perform CPR in a “doomed attempt” to revive the victim, but said that it was done too late.
“It was a horrible incident,” Li said. “It’s unimaginable how the defendants could have done so.”
The judge observed their offences were aggravated by the fact that they used violence and dichloromethane, in a premeditated killing.
I have to ask: What has gone wrong with our education, our core values or our human nature? - Mr Justice Patrick Li
Li also noted that “the background of this case was troubling” as Lau had been foolish enough to team up with Tsang to take out loans, believing there was no need to make repayment, while Cheung had abandoned his beloved mother and a stable job at the MTR Corporation to stay with Tsang.
“The lifestyle in DAN6 was decadent. How could young people like [Lau] adopt such an unscrupulous attitude?” Li said.
“I have to ask: What has gone wrong with our education, our core values or our human nature?”
Lau’s parents admitted in a letter to the court that they had been busy at work and so had not provided sufficient support or interaction with him, while Cheung’s mother blamed herself for not paying enough attention to his thoughts.
Both defendants also wrote to Li, expressing their remorse over the incident as well as regret for disappointing their parents. Cheung further admitted he had been greedy and fun-seeking at the time.
But Cheung also said he never thought of harming others.
Lawyers defending Lau and Cheung said both were under Tsang’s manipulative influence, and had since accepted Christianity while in custody.
Defence counsel Steve Tsui said his client, Cheung, was very remorseful.
“For the past three years he’s been reflecting on his wrongdoing,” Tsui continued. “He can never forgive himself for causing the loss of life of Ah J.”
The judge adopted a starting point for sentence of 18 years for Lau and gave him a three-year discount in light of his earlier offer to plead guilty to manslaughter. But Li also noted that Lau had defended his case as if he was not guilty of any homicide, and refused to reduce his sentence any further.
Cheung was given a lower starting point of 15 years, as Li accepted he played a lesser role in the case.
Both men were also sentenced to four years and eight months on their second count of preventing lawful burial, after receiving a one-third discount from the maximum term of seven years for their timely pleas.
Li then ordered two years from the second charge to run consecutively to the sentence for manslaughter.
Neither of the defendants reacted to their jail terms.
