Operator, staff of unlicensed Hong Kong massage parlour escape vice conviction after top national security cop caught there says he saw no sex for sale
- Former director of force’s national security branch Frederic Choi says he never saw any immoral services at the spa during his patronage
- Magistrate finds sexual services were provided at spa but not enough evidence to show establishment operated as vice venue
The owner and staff of a massage parlour patronised by a former Hong Kong national security director have been fined up to HK$20,000 (US$2,570) for operating without a licence but acquitted of running a vice establishment, after the senior policeman said he never saw any sexual services for sale.
Eastern Court Magistrate Jason Wan Siu-ming on Tuesday found that such services had been provided at Viet Spa in Wan Chai, frequented by Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police Frederic Choi Chin-pang, formerly the director for the force’s national security branch.
But Wan said he could not be sure the parlour was fully or mostly used as a vice venue – a detail that would determine the legal definition of such establishments – after considering Choi’s testimony that he had never seen any employees offer immoral services during his patronage.
The magistrate convicted owner Wu Ping-hung, 63, and workers Li Yiqing, 38, and Nguyen Thi Thu Huong, 36, for their roles in the unlicensed spa, but acquitted them and a fourth defendant, masseuse Zhang Mingfang, 37, of charges relating to a vice establishment.
Wu was fined HK$20,000 and masseuses Li and Nguyen HK$8,000 each for managing the illegal premises.
Choi, 52, was found along with a masseuse inside a room at the venue during a police raid on March 19 last year.
He was stripped of his post and reassigned as the force’s head of training and discipline. An internal investigation cleared him of illegal conduct, but he still faces a civil service disciplinary hearing.
The trial in August heard that two undercover officers had visited the spa five times in total between October 2020 and March 2021 to gather evidence. After receiving massages at each visit, they were offered a chance to buy additional services involving bodily contact with the masseuse.
A mobile phone seized from the spa showed a price list containing the various sexual services offered at the venue, the court heard.
Choi, giving evidence as a defence witness, said he had visited the parlour four or five times since mid-2020 but had never been prompted to use any service of a sexual nature.
Wan ruled that the top officer’s evidence had weakened the prosecution’s case as he found no reasons to question his credibility.
“The conclusion I can draw on the evidence is that, out of about 10 random visits to the subject premises during the relevant period of time, sexual services were being offered on about half of the occasions,” Wan said. “Adopting the natural meaning of the word, one can hardly say it is mainly used as a vice establishment.”
The price list found in the mobile phone could at best be taken as an indication that someone had promoted sexual activities at the premises, but it remained unclear whether such services had been eventually provided to patrons, the magistrate noted.
Nonetheless, the court ruled that workers Li and Nguyen were involved in the parlour’s daily operations, while owner Wu was in charge of the premises.
The magistrate rejected Wu’s assertion that he had sublet the venue and was not involved in the spa’s business. He highlighted a lack of evidence about the purported tenant and Wu’s previous applications for the government’s anti-epidemic fund, in which he claimed to be the parlour’s owner.
In handing down the sentence, Wan said a fine for each of the convicted defendants was suitable given the minor scale of the spa’s operation.
Operators of unlicensed massage parlours face up to six months behind bars and a HK$50,000 fine for a first offence, with subsequent convictions liable to two years imprisonment and a HK$100,000 penalty.
Anyone who operates or manages a vice establishment can face up to three years in prison if the case is heard at the magistrates’ court level.
