11th September 2026 – (Hong Kong) Returning a disputed Mark Six jackpot to colleagues would not wipe out a police theft case already under way, a solicitor has warned, saying any late repayment might at best become a plea in mitigation if charges follow.
The dispute centres on 15 staff in the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department’s Market Revitalisation Section who pooled money for tickets and hit half a first-division unit, worth more than HK$31 million. The health inspector who handled the purchase then refused an equal share-out and later went missing. What began as an argument over uneven splitting has been recorded as theft.
Colleagues reported the matter on the night of 9th September. Aberdeen Division’s Duty Team 5 is handling the inquiry. Sources identify the inspector as a 36-year-old man surnamed Ling who is now wanted. The prize stems from the Mark Six 50th Anniversary Snowball second round drawn on Saturday, 5th September, when a first division of about HK$228 million was split among 3.5 units, paying more than HK$63 million for each HK$10 stake.
HK01 reporters called at Ling’s Hong Kong Island flat this evening. Voices of a child and a domestic helper were heard inside before a woman answered that Mr Ling was not there. She did not open the door for interview and did not speak again. A neighbour said the household was unfamiliar and that no one had recently come to the door seeking trouble over the affair.
According to HK01, Solicitor Vitus Leung said civil restitution of the prize is possible but does not amount to dropping the criminal case. With police already involved, any decision to charge turns on whether there is enough evidence of a dishonest intention permanently to deprive others of their property. Even if Ling reappeared and divided the money now, officers would not simply walk away from a prosecutable allegation on that basis alone.
Leung added that when colleagues club together for Mark Six tickets, the fair inference — even without a detailed prior formula — is that winnings should follow the proportions each person put in. Oral agreements or messages in electronic chats can also show a shared understanding. Demanding a larger cut only after the win, refusing to pay others out and then disappearing is, in his view, conduct amounting to theft. Paying the money back afterwards is a remedial step that may help when asking a court for a lighter sentence, but it does not cancel the risk of prosecution.