DCCC884/2024

DCCC884/2024

A A B B DCCC 884/2024 C [2025] HKDC 1068 C D D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E CRIMINAL CASE NO 884 OF 2024 F F G ---------------------------- G HKSAR H H v I TONG PUI YING (ALSO KNOWN AS CHAN MEI PO) I ---------------------------- J J K Before: Deputy District Judge W H Ko K Date: 24 June 2025 L L Present: Ms Cheung Mung Ting Amber, Public Prosecutor, for M HKSAR M Mr Richard Donald, instructed by Jal N Karbhari & Co, for N N the defendant O Offence: Dealing with property known or believed to represent O proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代 P P 表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) Q Q R -------------------------------------- R REASONS FOR SENTENCE S S -------------------------------------- T T U U V V  -2- A A B B 1. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of dealing with C property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, C contrary to s 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crime Ordinance, D D Cap 455 of the Laws of Hong Kong. E E Facts F F G 2. Defendant was the sole holder and sole signatory of a bank G account numbered 012-87320008585 with Bank of China (Hong Kong) H H Limited (“BOC account”). She declared to be a student when she opened I the said account and the source of funds as stated in the account opening I form is housekeeping expenses. J J K 3. Mr Li saw a post on Carousell purporting to sell a PlayStation K 5 console on 8th December 2020. He contacted the seller using the L L chatroom function in Carousell and was asked to remit HK$1,000 as surety M to the BOC account. Mr Li was also informed that the console will be M delivered by the seller in person on 12 December 2020. N N O 4. At 1235 hours on 12 December 2020, Mr Li accidentally O remitted HK$10,000 to the BOC account. He immediately requested for a P P refund of HK$9,000 but the seller became out and reach and also failed to Q deliver the console as agreed. Mr Li reported the case to the police. Q R R 5. Between 9 November 2020 to 8 December 2020, there were S 628 deposits totalling HK$3,581,098.01 and 238 withdrawals totalling S HK$3,354,069.05 in the BOC account. Mirror pattern has been observed T T from most of the transactions. The deposits were withdrawn from the BOC U U V V  -3- A A B B account and transferred to various parties on the same day or within a few C days after the deposits were made, with the BOC account being used as C temporary repository of funds. D D E 6. It is observed that Mr Li‘s remittance of HK$10,000 into the E BOC account was wholly transferred to FPS account in the name of a F F surname Poon on the same day. G G 7. The BOC account was closed by the bank on 1 April 2021. H H I 8. Defendant was arrested 30 December 2022. In a cautioned I video-recorded interview, she stated, inter alia, J J K (i) The BOC account was opened by her when she was 16 K years old; L L M (ii) The ATM card of the BOC account was disposed of; M N N (iii) She ceased to use the BOC account; and O O (iv) She had not previously acquainted with PW1. P P Q Defendant‘s Background and mitigation Q R R 9. Defendant is 23 years old. She was born in Hong Kong and S raised in a single parent family, mainly cared by her grandparents. She S studied up to Form 3 and then worked as a saleslady and waitress. She was T T U U V V  -4- A A B B unemployed at the time of her arrest. She is single and living with her C parents prior to the arrest. C D D 10. Defendant has one previous conviction, which is not similar E to the present offence. She was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment for a E charge of AOABH on 8 May 2025. She has served all her sentence. F F G 11. A background report and a psychologist’s report were called G for at the request by Mr Donald, counsel for the defendant. As revealed in H H the reports, Defendant was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity I Disorder (ADHD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Dyslexia I during her primary school years, but that does not affect her cognitive J J functioning. She had received psychiatric service in Queen Mary Hospital K and was on medications until secondary three, when she complained of K drowsiness that impaired her daily functioning. She had abused various L L kind of drugs since she was 15 and abstained from such 6 to 8 months prior M to incarceration. M N N 12. Having interviewed the Defendant, she was assessed by the O clinical psychologist to have traits of Antisocial Personality Disorder and O was recommended to receive psychological treatment focusing on her P P antisocial attitudes. However, the clinical psychologist is of the view that Q the Defendant showed limited motivation for change and her risk of Q recidivism was assessed to be high due to her lack of remorse and antisocial R R personality traits. S S T T U U V V  -5- A A B B 13, Regarding the circumstances leading to the commission of the C offence, Mr Donald stated that Defendant was approached by a friend to C lend her the BOC account. She insisted that she did not receive D D remuneration, although being promised that she would receive HK$2,000. E Being naive and young, and without realizing the serious consequences, E she acceded to the request. F F G 14. Mr Donald referred this court to the case of HKSAR v Wang G Yu Hsin CACC 173/2009 and HKSAR v Yam Kong Lai [2008] 5 HKLRD H H 384 to assist the court to determine sentence. I I Reasons for sentence J J K 15. The maximum penalty upon conviction on indictment for K money laundering offence is imprisonment for 14 years and a fine of HK$5 L L million. M M 16. In HKSAR v Karman CACC 400/2004, Yeung JA as he then N N was emphasised that money laundering is a very serious offence as it is an O attempt to legitimate proceeds from criminal activities. O P P 17. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, the Court of Q Appeal stated that there are no sentencing guidelines for money laundering Q offences, however factors needed to be considered in sentencing are : R R S (i) The amount of money involved, which is the major S consideration; T T U U V V  -6- A A B B (ii) Defendant’s level of participation; C C (iii) The sentence imposed on the predicate offence if it can D D be known; E E (iv) If the case has an international element; and F F G (v) The length of time the offence lasted. G H H 18. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 I emphasized the importance of deterrence for this kind of offences, pointed I out that the amount of money laundered was a significant feature, and set J J out a non-exhaustive list of other significant features, which includes the K nature of the predicate offence, the state of the offender’s knowledge, K whether an international element was involved, the sophistication of the L L offence, whether organised criminal syndicate was involved, the number M of transactions and length of the offence, whether the offender continued M to launder funds after knowing that they were proceeds of a serious crime, N N and the offenders’ role. O O 19. In Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD P P 201, the Court of Appeal referred to the authorities which was summed up Q in Hsu Yu Hyi that the starting point of the sentence for money laundering Q charges would be like: R R S (a) 3 years or so between HK$1 million to HK$2 million; S T T U U V V  -7- A A B B (b) 4 years or so between HK$3 million to HK$6 million; C and C D D (c) Over 5 years where it is above HK$10 million. E E 20. In Wang Yu Hsin, who is D7 in that case, was charged with F F one count of theft and one count of money laundering. The case involved G extra-territorial phone scams and the amount of the money laundering G involved in D7 case was more than HK$5 million. In respect of the money H H laundering charge, it was alleged that D7 opened 8 bank accounts and the I offence lasted within 6 months. D7 was convicted after trial. The trial I judge adopted a starting point of 5 years 6 months imprisonment for the J J money laundering charge. On appeal, it was reduced to 4 years’ K imprisonment. K L L 21. In Yam Kong Lai, the appellant was convicted of one count of M money laundering after trial. Forged documents were created to transfer M the deposit of a dormant account, totalling US$522,311.69, to other banks N N accounts, and ultimately drew down by the appellant. The appellant was O sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the court of appeal stated O that although the appellant played an active role in dealing with the funds P P by arranging the transfer to different accounts, she should be sentenced on Q the offence that she was charged and not the role she took part in the Q stealing of the funds. The Court of appeal, having considered the amount R R of proceeds involved equivalent slightly less than HK$4 million, opted that S a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment after trial was appropriate. S T T U U V V  -8- A A B B 22. The predicate offence in the present case appears to be fraud. C There is no evidence that D knew or participated in the predicate offence. C There is also no evidence that she knew that the proceeds of the fraud were D D deposited into the BOC account and subsequently withdrawn. However, E by “selling” her bank account, she must have reasonable grounds to believe E that the BOC account would be used to deal with proceeds of crime. F F G 23. The money laundered through the BOC account was G approximately HK$3.58 million. Having considered the relevant H H authorities, the amount of the money laundered, the predicate offence I involved and all other relevant matters, I am of the view that the starting I point is 36 months’ imprisonment. J J K 24. Mr Donald stressed that defendant was only 18 years old, K being young and naïve and easily to be persuaded, when she committed the L L present offence. I accepted that it is a mitigation factor. Taking into M account her young age, I consider that the appropriate starting point is 33 M months’ imprisonment. N N O 25. Defendant entered a time guilty plea and she is entitled to one- O third discount. The term of the sentence is reduced to 22 months’ P P imprisonment. Q Q 26. It is obvious from the reports that the present offence has R R neither any bearing nor attributed to her ADHD and OPD and I do not S consider that her mental condition as an mitigating factor which can attract S further reduction of sentence. T T U U V V  -9- A A B B 27. Defendant is sentenced to 22 months imprisonment C accordingly. C D D E E ( W H Ko ) F Deputy District Judge F G G H H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T U U V V