- 22 -
Verdict which we are not going to repeat. It suffices for us to say that his evidence was by and large accepted and relied upon by this Court in reaching the verdict.
57. Having considered Mr Lee’s mitigation made on D3’s behalf in full, we are unable to agree with him that D3’s role in the conspiracy was just that of an “active participant”. Rather, we find that D3 was a “principal offender” in that he was one of the organizers of the Scheme which was the subject matter of the charge. In view of the seriousness of the offence, D3’s important role and the extent of involvement in the matter, we adopt 15 years’ (180 months) imprisonment as the starting point of his sentence. In so doing, we have also taken into account the non-violent nature of the Scheme.
58. Turning to mitigation, firstly we give a 50% discount to D3 for his timely plea and material assistance to the prosecution which reduces his sentence to 7 years and 6 months (90 months): see Z v HKSAR (2007) 10 HKCFAR 183.
59. Secondly, as we have already said, we do not accept the submission made on behalf of some of the defendants that the Scheme was objectively “impossible” on the basis that it was “open” and therefore could have been stopped in time by the Government. That said, when fixing the respective starting points of the defendants, we have already taken into account the fact that the Scheme, for reasons beyond the control of the defendants, was unable to proceed further and was eventually unsuccessful.
