DCCC490/2024 HKSAR v. CHUNG YAM SHING AND OTHERS - LawHero
DCCC490/2024
區域法院（刑事）H.H. Judge G. Lam17/3/2025[2025] HKDC 486
合併案件：DCCC490/2024DCCC1249/2024
DCCC490/2024
由此
A A
B DCCC 490 & 1249/2024 B
(Consolidated)
[2025] HKDC 486
C C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 490 AND 1249 OF 2024 (CONSOLIDATED)
F F
____________
G G
HKSAR
H H
v
I CHUNG Yam-shing (D1) I
CHOI Kwai-yiu (D2)
J FUNG Shiu-hei James (D3) J
____________
K K
L L
Before : H.H. Judge G. Lam
Date : 18 March 2025
M Present : Mr. Brian Cheng, PP, of the Department of M
Justice, for HKSAR.
N Mr. Michael L.Y. Leung instructed by M/s Yung, N
Yu, Yuen & Co., for D1.
O Mr. Lam Shun Chiu instructed by M/s H.Y. Leung O
& Co. LLP, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid,
for D2.
P P
Mr. Jonathan Kwan instructed by M/s Wat & Co.,
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D3.
Q Offences : (1) to (3) Dealing with property known or Q
believed to represent proceeds of an indictable
R offence（處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪 R
行的得益的財產）
S S
T REASONS FOR SENTENCE T
U U
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
D1 to D3 each pleaded guilty to a "Money laundering" offence
B B
(Charges 1 to 3 respectively). In gist, their personal bank accounts each
C C
received money transferred from the bank account of a phone scam victim.
D D
E E
Summary of Facts
F F
The predicate offence (phone deception)
G G
H 2. About 9:00 a.m. on 6 April 2020, Madam Woo (PW1; aged 83) H
I received a call made to her home landline from a Putonghua-speaking male I
J
(Male 1). Claiming to be a mainland police officer, Male 1 told PW1 that J
she was wanted by the mainland Police for a financial case. He asked PW1
K K
for her HKID card number, Home Return Permit number, phone number
L L
and residential address. PW1 disclosed the same to Male 1.
M M
N N
3. About 4:00 p.m. on 9 April 2020, another Putonghua-speaking
O O
male (Male 2) called PW1's mobile phone number claiming to be Male 1's
P P
supervisor. Male 2 told PW1 that he would help her investigate the case and
Q prove her innocence. He asked PW1 for all her bank accounts numbers. Q
R PW1 disclosed the same to Male 2. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
4. About 9:00 a.m. on 16 April 2020, Male 2 called PW1's mobile
B B
phone number again telling her that someone named Xiao-lin would collect
C C
the U-Key and password of PW1's bank account at her home 2 days later for
D D
investigation. PW1 agreed. In the same evening, PW1 checked the balance
E E
of her account with China Minsheng Bank (CMB Account), which was
F F
US$949,247.65.
G G
H 5. About 11:00 a.m. on 17 April 2020, a Chinese male (Male 3) H
I went to PW1's home claiming to be Xiao-lin. PW1 handed over the U-Key I
J
and password of the CMB Account to him. Male 3 said nothing and left. J
K K
6. On 1 June 2020, PW1 checked her CMB Account and
L L
discovered 15 transactions not authorized by her. She tried to call Male 2
M M
but was unable to reach him. The Police was alerted. It was later confirmed
N N
that the CMB Account had a total of 16 unauthorized transactions. PW1 lost
O O
a total sum of HK$8,740,900.
P P
Q Money laundering Q
R R
7. Police investigation discovered that of the 16 unauthorized
S S
transactions, some money in the CMB Account were remitted to the
T T
respective bank accounts of D1 to D3 with the following details :-
U U
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
B (a) a sum of HK$1,500,000 was remitted to a Bank of China B
Account1 (D1's Account) on 20 April 2020;
C C
(b) a sum of HK$2,000,000 and a sum of HK$1,000,000 were
D D
remitted to a CMB Wing Lung Account 2 (D2's Account)
E respectively on 20 and 26 April 2020; and E
F
(c) a sum of HK$393,600 was remitted to a Standard Chartered F
3
Bank Account (D3's Account) on 6 May 2020.
G G
H D1's Account H
I I
8. D1's Account was opened by D1 on 26 September 2006.
J J
K K
9. Between 8 July 2019 and 24 April 2020, D1's Account
L L
received a total of 57 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of
M HK$4,816,157.57. A total of 115 withdrawals were made, which M
N aggregated to a sum of HK$4,815,721.67. Of the 115 withdrawals, 63 were N
O made in cash, which aggregated to a sum of HK$4,601,132.18. Between 1 O
January and 24 April 2020 (the offence period of Charge 1), a total of 23
P P
deposits were received, which aggregated to a sum of HK$4,590,802.18.
Q Q
R R
S S
1
No.01260710094613.
T 2
No.61250091326. T
3
No.41386831781.
U U
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
10. Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and
B B
withdrawals, the Police found a "mirror transaction pattern".
C C
D D
D2's Account
E E
11. D2's Account was opened by D2 on 23 March 2020.
F F
G G
12. Between 30 March and 18 May 2020 (the offence period of
H H
Charge 2), D2's Account received a total of 34 deposits, which aggregated to
I I
a sum of HK$11,806,158.99. A total of 100 withdrawals were made, which
J J
aggregated to a sum of HK$11,806,062.41. Of the 100 withdrawals, 98
K K
were made by FPS, which aggregated to a sum of HK$11,329,369.80.
L L
M 13. Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and M
N withdrawals, the Police found a "mirror transaction pattern". N
O O
D3's Account
P P
Q 14. D3's Account was opened by D3 on 27 March 2020. Q
R R
15. Between 27 March and 18 June 2020 (the offence period of
S S
Charge 3), D3's Account received a total of 30 deposits, which aggregated to
T T
a sum of US$194,698.57 and a sum of HK$2,132,417.58. A total of 62
U U
V V
由此
- 6 -
A A
withdrawals were made, which aggregated to a sum of US$159,955.88 and a
B B
sum of HK$2,132,528.23.
C C
D D
16. Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and
E E
withdrawals, the Police found a "mirror transaction pattern".
F F
G Inland Revenue Records G
H H
17. IRD records showed that for the financial year 2020/21, D1's
I I
annual salary was HK$16,000; D2's was HK$2,178; and D3 received
J J
HK$132,000 in fees as a sub-contractor.
K K
L Arrest and admissions L
M M
18. The Police arrested D1 to D3 respectively on 20 June, 22 June
N N
and 20 July 2022 for "Fraud" or "Deception".
O O
P P
19. In his video recorded interview, D1 claimed that on 23
Q December 2021, he started working as a restaurant manager earning Q
R $19,200 per month. His income was from his salary only. He admitted R
S
having sold D1's Account to an unknown person in January or February S
2020 for $1,000 due to financial difficulties. He gave the ATM card, the
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
ATM card's password and the online banking password to that person. D1
B B
did not keep the monthly statements of D1's Account after he had sold it.
C C
Regarding the deposits made to D1's Account from 8 July 2019 to
D D
January/February 2020, D1 claimed that he was not sure since he had lost
E E
the ATM card for a while. A replacement card was issued to him.
F F
G 20. In his video recorded interview, D2 claimed that from 6 April G
H to 6 May 2020, he was a waiter earning a daily wage of $500. His income H
I was from his salary. He admitted that he was in financial difficulties when I
J
he opened D2's Account in 2020. A person surnamed So suggested D2 to J
sell his bank account. He then gave the ATM card to So in return for a
K K
reward of $1,000. D2 claimed that the phone number and email address
L L
contained in the opening mandate were not his. So gave that phone number
M M
to D2 and told him to put it on the bank form.
N N
O O
21. In his video recorded interview, D3 claimed that from 6 April
P P
to 6 May 2020, he was a self-employed truck driver earning about $15,000
Q per month. His source of income was his salary. D3 confirmed that D3's Q
R Account belonged to him and he had used it. He said he was unsure if there R
S
were other people using that bank account. S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 8 -
A A
Mitigation
B B
C D1 C
D D
22. He is 37 and has a clear record. His counsel Mr. Leung
E E
informed me that D1 is separated and has a daughter (aged 8) who resides
F F
with his wife. D1 now works as a construction site supervisor earning about
G $21,000 per month. G
H H
I 23. In mitigation, Mr. Leung submitted that D1 sold his bank I
J
account for $1,000 in 2020 owing to financial difficulties. At that time, D1 J
often quarrelled with his wife over financial matters. Since he always puts
K K
his family first, he has incurred heavy debts from credit cards and financial
L L
companies. Unfortunately, he was unable to save his marriage. In August
M M
2024, D1 attempted to commit suicide but was saved.
N N
O D2 O
P P
24. He is 42 and has a clear record. His counsel Mr. Lam informed
Q Q
me that D2 is divorced. He resides with his father and younger brother in a
R R
public housing unit in Tung Chung. D2 has been working mainly in the
S restaurant and catering business. S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 9 -
A A
25. In mitigation, Mr. Lam submitted that in late 2019, D2 lost his
B B
job as a warehouse attendant. Around the same time, D2's father asked him
C C
to move out of the Tung Chung flat because D2's father intended to re-marry.
D D
D2 ended up moving into a cubicle in Tsim Sha Tsui paying a weekly rent.
E E
As D2 was desperate for money, he accepted So's offer to sell his bank
F F
account. In early May 2020, D2 received his bank statement and realized
G the magnitude of the transactions involved in D2's Account. He closed the G
H account on 18 May 2020. H
I I
J
D3 J
K K
26. He is 43 and has 5 conviction records (none were related to
L "Money laundering"). His last conviction is dated April 2023, meaning it L
M took place after the present case. His counsel Mr. Kwan informed me that M
N D3 is divorced with 2 children who do not reside with him. He was a causal N
worker earning about $15,000 per month. He paid maintenance for his
O O
children each month regularly.
P P
Q Q
27. In mitigation, Mr. Kwan submitted that D3 merely lent his
R R
bank account to a friend and received no remuneration for doing so.
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 10 -
A A
Sentence
B B
C 28. The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant C
D to section 27(2)(c) and (d) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance D
E
(Cap.455) on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm E
caused to the community.
F F
G G
29. I bear in mind the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Xu
H H
Mai Qing CACC 464/2005, whereas Yeung JA (as he then was) held "Under
I I
section 27(11) of OSCO, what the prosecution has to prove is the prevalence
J J
of the offence, not the increase in the number of such offences4."
K K
L 30. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 5 February L
M 2025. I am satisfied that in 2020, money laundering cases were prevalent in M
N Hong Kong in terms of the number of cases as well as the total value of N
monetary loss.
O O
P P
31. There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money
Q Q
laundering by bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" is still widespread
R R
and commonly being practised in Hong Kong today. What true criminals
S S
T T
4
Paragraph 16 on p.4 of the judgment.
U U
V V
由此
- 11 -
A A
need are gullible scapegoats like D1 to D3 in the present case who would
B B
take the blame for them when the law enforcement takes action. The court
C C
must send a clear message to the general public that people who play the
D D
role of "ML Stooge" will receive severe punishment, so that there is a
E E
deterrent effect. When there are fewer or no willing "ML Stooges", the
F F
criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts would fail.
G G
H 32. This is a typical case of money laundering by way of a stooge H
I bank account. D1 to D3 all claimed complete ignorance of the phone I
J
deception against PW1; however, the scam would have been meaningless J
without D1 to D3's bank accounts. Assuming what they said is true, given
K K
their roles, the total sums which went through the 3 bank accounts and the
L L
overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance
M M
the sentence by 25%.
N N
O O
33. The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1
P P
HKLRD 201 held :-
Q Q
Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly
reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained
R R
by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove
S the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may not S
be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are in
T fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black T
U U
V V
由此
- 12 -
A A
money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking,
B B
kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes,
etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted
C C
upward.5
D D
E 34. In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded E
F myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] F
G
5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have G
also borne in mind the amounts of money involved, the duration of each
H H
offence, each defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well
I I
as his personal circumstances.
J J
K K
35. In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P
L L
held :-
M M
Generally speaking, the sentence passed in a "money laundering" case is
N
primarily to reflect the amount of the "illicit/black money" involved. N
Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money" was actually not derived from
O an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of O
the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…6
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T 5
Paragraphs 12 and 13 on pp 204-205. T
6
See paragraph 44, p 114.
U U
V V
由此
- 13 -
A A
D1
B B
C 36. I accept there is no evidence in the present case showing that: C
D (i) except the HK$1,500,000 from PW1, the funds received by D1's Account D
E
were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) either D1 was involved in or E
had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of D1's
F F
Account, D1 should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to
G G
its transactions on a regular basis. These were his duties and he has
H H
neglected them.
I I
J J
37. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that almost
K K
HK$4.6 million went through D1's Account within a period of almost 4
L months. By giving his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of L
M unknown origins to pass through D1's Account, D1 played a pivotal role in M
N helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds N
without revealing their identities.
O O
P P
38. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 4 years'
Q Q
7
imprisonment . With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32
R R
months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any
S S
T 7
According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point is 4 years or so where the "black T
money" involved is between $3 million and $6 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)
U U
V V
由此
- 14 -
A A
further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence D1 to 40 months'
B B
imprisonment for Charge 1.
C C
D D
D2
E E
39. I accept there is no evidence in the present case showing that:
F F
(i) except a total of HK$3,000,000 from PW1, the funds received by D2's
G G
Account were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) either D2 was
H H
involved in or had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole
I I
owner of D2's Account, D2 should have retained its ultimate control and
J J
paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis. These were his duties
K K
and he has neglected them.
L L
M 40. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that HK$11.8 M
N million went through D2's Account within a period of almost 2 months. By N
giving his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown
O O
origins to pass through D2's Account, D2 played a pivotal role in helping the
P P
mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without
Q Q
revealing their identities.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 15 -
A A
41. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 5 years'
B B
imprisonment 8 . With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 40
C C
months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any
D D
further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence D2 to 50 months'
E E
imprisonment for Charge 2.
F F
G D3 G
H H
42. I accept there is no evidence in the present case showing that:
I I
(i) except the HK$393,600 from PW1, the funds received by D3's Account
J J
were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) either D3 was involved in or
K K
had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of D3's
L Account, D3 should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to L
M its transactions on a regular basis. These were his duties and he has M
N neglected them. N
O O
43. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that HK$2.1
P P
million and almost US$200,000 (i.e. approximately HK$3.65 million9 in
Q Q
total) went through D3's Account within a period of almost 3 months. By
R R
giving his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown
S S
8
According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point could be over 5 years where the "black
T money" is above $10 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment) T
9
Adopting HK$7.80 to US$1 as the exchange rate.
U U
V V
由此
- 16 -
A A
origins to pass through D3's Account, D3 played a pivotal role in helping the
B B
mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without
C C
revealing their identities.
D D
E E
44. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 4 years'
F F
imprisonment 10 . With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32
G months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any G
H further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence D3 to 40 months' H
I imprisonment for Charge 3. I
J J
K K
(G. Lam)
L District Judge L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T 10
According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point is 4 years or so where the "black T
money" involved is between $3 million and $6 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)
U U
V V
由此
A A
B DCCC 490 & 1249/2024 B
(Consolidated)
[2025] HKDC 486
C C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 490 AND 1249 OF 2024 (CONSOLIDATED)
F F
____________
G G
HKSAR
H H
v
I CHUNG Yam-shing (D1) I
CHOI Kwai-yiu (D2)
J FUNG Shiu-hei James (D3) J
____________
K K
L L
Before : H.H. Judge G. Lam
Date : 18 March 2025
M Present : Mr. Brian Cheng, PP, of the Department of M
Justice, for HKSAR.
N Mr. Michael L.Y. Leung instructed by M/s Yung, N
Yu, Yuen & Co., for D1.
O Mr. Lam Shun Chiu instructed by M/s H.Y. Leung O
& Co. LLP, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid,
for D2.
P P
Mr. Jonathan Kwan instructed by M/s Wat & Co.,
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D3.
Q Offences : (1) to (3) Dealing with property known or Q
believed to represent proceeds of an indictable
R offence（處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪 R
行的得益的財產）
S S
T REASONS FOR SENTENCE T
U U
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
D1 to D3 each pleaded guilty to a "Money laundering" offence
B B
(Charges 1 to 3 respectively). In gist, their personal bank accounts each
C C
received money transferred from the bank account of a phone scam victim.
D D
E E
Summary of Facts
F F
The predicate offence (phone deception)
G G
H 2. About 9:00 a.m. on 6 April 2020, Madam Woo (PW1; aged 83) H
I received a call made to her home landline from a Putonghua-speaking male I
J
(Male 1). Claiming to be a mainland police officer, Male 1 told PW1 that J
she was wanted by the mainland Police for a financial case. He asked PW1
K K
for her HKID card number, Home Return Permit number, phone number
L L
and residential address. PW1 disclosed the same to Male 1.
M M
N N
3. About 4:00 p.m. on 9 April 2020, another Putonghua-speaking
O O
male (Male 2) called PW1's mobile phone number claiming to be Male 1's
P P
supervisor. Male 2 told PW1 that he would help her investigate the case and
Q prove her innocence. He asked PW1 for all her bank accounts numbers. Q
R PW1 disclosed the same to Male 2. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
4. About 9:00 a.m. on 16 April 2020, Male 2 called PW1's mobile
B B
phone number again telling her that someone named Xiao-lin would collect
C C
the U-Key and password of PW1's bank account at her home 2 days later for
D D
investigation. PW1 agreed. In the same evening, PW1 checked the balance
E E
of her account with China Minsheng Bank (CMB Account), which was
F F
US$949,247.65.
G G
H 5. About 11:00 a.m. on 17 April 2020, a Chinese male (Male 3) H
I went to PW1's home claiming to be Xiao-lin. PW1 handed over the U-Key I
J
and password of the CMB Account to him. Male 3 said nothing and left. J
K K
6. On 1 June 2020, PW1 checked her CMB Account and
L L
discovered 15 transactions not authorized by her. She tried to call Male 2
M M
but was unable to reach him. The Police was alerted. It was later confirmed
N N
that the CMB Account had a total of 16 unauthorized transactions. PW1 lost
O O
a total sum of HK$8,740,900.
P P
Q Money laundering Q
R R
7. Police investigation discovered that of the 16 unauthorized
S S
transactions, some money in the CMB Account were remitted to the
T T
respective bank accounts of D1 to D3 with the following details :-
U U
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
B (a) a sum of HK$1,500,000 was remitted to a Bank of China B
Account1 (D1's Account) on 20 April 2020;
C C
(b) a sum of HK$2,000,000 and a sum of HK$1,000,000 were
D D
remitted to a CMB Wing Lung Account 2 (D2's Account)
E respectively on 20 and 26 April 2020; and E
F
(c) a sum of HK$393,600 was remitted to a Standard Chartered F
3
Bank Account (D3's Account) on 6 May 2020.
G G
H D1's Account H
I I
8. D1's Account was opened by D1 on 26 September 2006.
J J
K K
9. Between 8 July 2019 and 24 April 2020, D1's Account
L L
received a total of 57 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of
M HK$4,816,157.57. A total of 115 withdrawals were made, which M
N aggregated to a sum of HK$4,815,721.67. Of the 115 withdrawals, 63 were N
O made in cash, which aggregated to a sum of HK$4,601,132.18. Between 1 O
January and 24 April 2020 (the offence period of Charge 1), a total of 23
P P
deposits were received, which aggregated to a sum of HK$4,590,802.18.
Q Q
R R
S S
1
No.01260710094613.
T 2
No.61250091326. T
3
No.41386831781.
U U
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
10. Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and
B B
withdrawals, the Police found a "mirror transaction pattern".
C C
D D
D2's Account
E E
11. D2's Account was opened by D2 on 23 March 2020.
F F
G G
12. Between 30 March and 18 May 2020 (the offence period of
H H
Charge 2), D2's Account received a total of 34 deposits, which aggregated to
I I
a sum of HK$11,806,158.99. A total of 100 withdrawals were made, which
J J
aggregated to a sum of HK$11,806,062.41. Of the 100 withdrawals, 98
K K
were made by FPS, which aggregated to a sum of HK$11,329,369.80.
L L
M 13. Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and M
N withdrawals, the Police found a "mirror transaction pattern". N
O O
D3's Account
P P
Q 14. D3's Account was opened by D3 on 27 March 2020. Q
R R
15. Between 27 March and 18 June 2020 (the offence period of
S S
Charge 3), D3's Account received a total of 30 deposits, which aggregated to
T T
a sum of US$194,698.57 and a sum of HK$2,132,417.58. A total of 62
U U
V V
由此
- 6 -
A A
withdrawals were made, which aggregated to a sum of US$159,955.88 and a
B B
sum of HK$2,132,528.23.
C C
D D
16. Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and
E E
withdrawals, the Police found a "mirror transaction pattern".
F F
G Inland Revenue Records G
H H
17. IRD records showed that for the financial year 2020/21, D1's
I I
annual salary was HK$16,000; D2's was HK$2,178; and D3 received
J J
HK$132,000 in fees as a sub-contractor.
K K
L Arrest and admissions L
M M
18. The Police arrested D1 to D3 respectively on 20 June, 22 June
N N
and 20 July 2022 for "Fraud" or "Deception".
O O
P P
19. In his video recorded interview, D1 claimed that on 23
Q December 2021, he started working as a restaurant manager earning Q
R $19,200 per month. His income was from his salary only. He admitted R
S
having sold D1's Account to an unknown person in January or February S
2020 for $1,000 due to financial difficulties. He gave the ATM card, the
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
ATM card's password and the online banking password to that person. D1
B B
did not keep the monthly statements of D1's Account after he had sold it.
C C
Regarding the deposits made to D1's Account from 8 July 2019 to
D D
January/February 2020, D1 claimed that he was not sure since he had lost
E E
the ATM card for a while. A replacement card was issued to him.
F F
G 20. In his video recorded interview, D2 claimed that from 6 April G
H to 6 May 2020, he was a waiter earning a daily wage of $500. His income H
I was from his salary. He admitted that he was in financial difficulties when I
J
he opened D2's Account in 2020. A person surnamed So suggested D2 to J
sell his bank account. He then gave the ATM card to So in return for a
K K
reward of $1,000. D2 claimed that the phone number and email address
L L
contained in the opening mandate were not his. So gave that phone number
M M
to D2 and told him to put it on the bank form.
N N
O O
21. In his video recorded interview, D3 claimed that from 6 April
P P
to 6 May 2020, he was a self-employed truck driver earning about $15,000
Q per month. His source of income was his salary. D3 confirmed that D3's Q
R Account belonged to him and he had used it. He said he was unsure if there R
S
were other people using that bank account. S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 8 -
A A
Mitigation
B B
C D1 C
D D
22. He is 37 and has a clear record. His counsel Mr. Leung
E E
informed me that D1 is separated and has a daughter (aged 8) who resides
F F
with his wife. D1 now works as a construction site supervisor earning about
G $21,000 per month. G
H H
I 23. In mitigation, Mr. Leung submitted that D1 sold his bank I
J
account for $1,000 in 2020 owing to financial difficulties. At that time, D1 J
often quarrelled with his wife over financial matters. Since he always puts
K K
his family first, he has incurred heavy debts from credit cards and financial
L L
companies. Unfortunately, he was unable to save his marriage. In August
M M
2024, D1 attempted to commit suicide but was saved.
N N
O D2 O
P P
24. He is 42 and has a clear record. His counsel Mr. Lam informed
Q Q
me that D2 is divorced. He resides with his father and younger brother in a
R R
public housing unit in Tung Chung. D2 has been working mainly in the
S restaurant and catering business. S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 9 -
A A
25. In mitigation, Mr. Lam submitted that in late 2019, D2 lost his
B B
job as a warehouse attendant. Around the same time, D2's father asked him
C C
to move out of the Tung Chung flat because D2's father intended to re-marry.
D D
D2 ended up moving into a cubicle in Tsim Sha Tsui paying a weekly rent.
E E
As D2 was desperate for money, he accepted So's offer to sell his bank
F F
account. In early May 2020, D2 received his bank statement and realized
G the magnitude of the transactions involved in D2's Account. He closed the G
H account on 18 May 2020. H
I I
J
D3 J
K K
26. He is 43 and has 5 conviction records (none were related to
L "Money laundering"). His last conviction is dated April 2023, meaning it L
M took place after the present case. His counsel Mr. Kwan informed me that M
N D3 is divorced with 2 children who do not reside with him. He was a causal N
worker earning about $15,000 per month. He paid maintenance for his
O O
children each month regularly.
P P
Q Q
27. In mitigation, Mr. Kwan submitted that D3 merely lent his
R R
bank account to a friend and received no remuneration for doing so.
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 10 -
A A
Sentence
B B
C 28. The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant C
D to section 27(2)(c) and (d) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance D
E
(Cap.455) on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm E
caused to the community.
F F
G G
29. I bear in mind the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Xu
H H
Mai Qing CACC 464/2005, whereas Yeung JA (as he then was) held "Under
I I
section 27(11) of OSCO, what the prosecution has to prove is the prevalence
J J
of the offence, not the increase in the number of such offences4."
K K
L 30. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 5 February L
M 2025. I am satisfied that in 2020, money laundering cases were prevalent in M
N Hong Kong in terms of the number of cases as well as the total value of N
monetary loss.
O O
P P
31. There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money
Q Q
laundering by bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" is still widespread
R R
and commonly being practised in Hong Kong today. What true criminals
S S
T T
4
Paragraph 16 on p.4 of the judgment.
U U
V V
由此
- 11 -
A A
need are gullible scapegoats like D1 to D3 in the present case who would
B B
take the blame for them when the law enforcement takes action. The court
C C
must send a clear message to the general public that people who play the
D D
role of "ML Stooge" will receive severe punishment, so that there is a
E E
deterrent effect. When there are fewer or no willing "ML Stooges", the
F F
criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts would fail.
G G
H 32. This is a typical case of money laundering by way of a stooge H
I bank account. D1 to D3 all claimed complete ignorance of the phone I
J
deception against PW1; however, the scam would have been meaningless J
without D1 to D3's bank accounts. Assuming what they said is true, given
K K
their roles, the total sums which went through the 3 bank accounts and the
L L
overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance
M M
the sentence by 25%.
N N
O O
33. The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1
P P
HKLRD 201 held :-
Q Q
Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly
reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained
R R
by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove
S the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may not S
be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are in
T fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black T
U U
V V
由此
- 12 -
A A
money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking,
B B
kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes,
etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted
C C
upward.5
D D
E 34. In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded E
F myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] F
G
5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have G
also borne in mind the amounts of money involved, the duration of each
H H
offence, each defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well
I I
as his personal circumstances.
J J
K K
35. In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P
L L
held :-
M M
Generally speaking, the sentence passed in a "money laundering" case is
N
primarily to reflect the amount of the "illicit/black money" involved. N
Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money" was actually not derived from
O an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of O
the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…6
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T 5
Paragraphs 12 and 13 on pp 204-205. T
6
See paragraph 44, p 114.
U U
V V
由此
- 13 -
A A
D1
B B
C 36. I accept there is no evidence in the present case showing that: C
D (i) except the HK$1,500,000 from PW1, the funds received by D1's Account D
E
were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) either D1 was involved in or E
had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of D1's
F F
Account, D1 should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to
G G
its transactions on a regular basis. These were his duties and he has
H H
neglected them.
I I
J J
37. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that almost
K K
HK$4.6 million went through D1's Account within a period of almost 4
L months. By giving his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of L
M unknown origins to pass through D1's Account, D1 played a pivotal role in M
N helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds N
without revealing their identities.
O O
P P
38. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 4 years'
Q Q
7
imprisonment . With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32
R R
months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any
S S
T 7
According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point is 4 years or so where the "black T
money" involved is between $3 million and $6 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)
U U
V V
由此
- 14 -
A A
further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence D1 to 40 months'
B B
imprisonment for Charge 1.
C C
D D
D2
E E
39. I accept there is no evidence in the present case showing that:
F F
(i) except a total of HK$3,000,000 from PW1, the funds received by D2's
G G
Account were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) either D2 was
H H
involved in or had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole
I I
owner of D2's Account, D2 should have retained its ultimate control and
J J
paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis. These were his duties
K K
and he has neglected them.
L L
M 40. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that HK$11.8 M
N million went through D2's Account within a period of almost 2 months. By N
giving his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown
O O
origins to pass through D2's Account, D2 played a pivotal role in helping the
P P
mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without
Q Q
revealing their identities.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 15 -
A A
41. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 5 years'
B B
imprisonment 8 . With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 40
C C
months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any
D D
further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence D2 to 50 months'
E E
imprisonment for Charge 2.
F F
G D3 G
H H
42. I accept there is no evidence in the present case showing that:
I I
(i) except the HK$393,600 from PW1, the funds received by D3's Account
J J
were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) either D3 was involved in or
K K
had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of D3's
L Account, D3 should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to L
M its transactions on a regular basis. These were his duties and he has M
N neglected them. N
O O
43. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that HK$2.1
P P
million and almost US$200,000 (i.e. approximately HK$3.65 million9 in
Q Q
total) went through D3's Account within a period of almost 3 months. By
R R
giving his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown
S S
8
According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point could be over 5 years where the "black
T money" is above $10 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment) T
9
Adopting HK$7.80 to US$1 as the exchange rate.
U U
V V
由此
- 16 -
A A
origins to pass through D3's Account, D3 played a pivotal role in helping the
B B
mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without
C C
revealing their identities.
D D
E E
44. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 4 years'
F F
imprisonment 10 . With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32
G months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any G
H further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence D3 to 40 months' H
I imprisonment for Charge 3. I
J J
K K
(G. Lam)
L District Judge L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T 10
According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point is 4 years or so where the "black T
money" involved is between $3 million and $6 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)
U U
V V