Urine-tainted soda case ends with 12-month probation for retired man

A 63-year-old retired man who poured urine into bottled soft drinks and placed them back on supermarket shelves on two occasions has been sentenced to 12 months’ probation, after a magistrate condemned his conduct as “childish” and reckless but accepted that probation was the most appropriate outcome.

The case was heard on Tuesday at the Kowloon City Magistrates' Courts, where Magistrate Andrew Mok Tze-chung said the offenses were very serious and showed a disregard for the consequences.

Addressing the defendant, the magistrate said that given his age, it was difficult to understand why he would commit such crimes, but noted his guilty plea and clean criminal record in deciding the sentence. When asked whether he was willing to accept probation, the defendant replied that he was.

The defendant, surnamed Law, pleaded guilty earlier to two counts of administering a noxious substance with intent to injure. The court heard that his actions stemmed from anger following disputes with supermarket staff.

The case came to light after staff from Swire Coca-Cola reported that Coca-Cola products sold at Wellcome and ParknShop had been contaminated. When bottles were opened, they emitted a strong urine smell.

In July last year, a nine-year-old boy bought a bottle of Coca-Cola at a Wellcome supermarket and fell ill after drinking it. The incident was reported to the Department of Health. Subsequent inspections at multiple Wellcome and ParknShop branches found abnormal bottles of “Coca-Cola Plus,” including opened caps, urine odor, yellowish liquid, and unusually high liquid levels.

Surveillance footage showed the defendant repeatedly placing the contaminated bottles onto supermarket shelves before leaving. He was arrested at his home the following month. 

Under police caution, he admitted that he had put bottles containing urine on the shelves after becoming upset during arguments with supermarket staff. Laboratory tests later confirmed that the drinks contained urine.

The court heard that psychiatric reports described the defendant as having difficulties with emotional and stress management but found no need for a hospital order. Psychological assessments said he required long-term rehabilitation and support.

Meanwhile, background and probation reports noted that the defendant, a university graduate and former real estate agent, had shown remorse and now understood that suppressing emotions was not an appropriate way to cope. Given his emotional condition, a community service order was not recommended.

The offenses occurred between July 21, 2024, and August 6, 2025, at supermarkets including a Wellcome branch at Nam Cheong Place in Sham Shui Po. The court accepted that the defendant had been in custody for about six months and ruled that probation, alongside ongoing psychiatric and psychological treatment, would best serve both his rehabilitation and the interests of society.