區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Colin Wong22/10/2025[2025] HKDC 1808
DCCC1548/2024
A A
DCCC 1548/2024
B B
[2025] HKDC 1808
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 1548 OF 2024 E
F F
----------------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
SUSILOWATI
I I
----------------------------
J J
Before: Deputy District Judge Colin Wong
K K
Date: 23 October 2025
L
Present: Ms Chit Noelle Aileen, Senior Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR/Director L
of Public Prosecutions
M M
Mr Delaney Antony Michael, instructed by H. Y. Leung & Co. LLP,
N assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant N
Offence: [1] to [3] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
O O
proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代表從
P 可公訴罪行的得益的財產） P
Q Q
-----------------------------------------
R REASONS FOR SENTENCE R
-----------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B 1. Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of “Dealing with property B
known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”1. That between
C C
November and December 2022, a number of victims including PW1-5, were
D defrauded in scams, and were induced to deposit monies into three accounts held by D
the Defendant with Mox Bank (“the Mox Bank Account”), China CITIC Bank (“the
E E
China CITIC Bank Account”) and Welab Bank (“the Welab Bank Account”).
F F
Defendant admitted the facts and was found guilty.
G G
2. It is the prosecution case that Defendant, together with Wulan,
H H
committed the three offences.
I I
Admitted Facts
J J
K 3. Between November and December 2022, a number of victims, K
including PW1-5, were defrauded in scams, and were induced to deposit monies
L L
into three accounts held by the Defendant with Mox Bank, China CITIC Bank and
M Welab Bank. M
N N
The Mox Bank Account
O O
4. Fund flow analysis showed that between 16 December 2022 and 26
P P
April 2023, a total of HK$2,720,009.70 was deposited in the Mox Bank Account,
Q and a corresponding total of HK$2,717,021.03 was withdrawn from it. Mirror Q
pattern was observed.
R R
S S
T T
1
Contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B 5. The Defendant was the sole signatory of the Mox Bank Account. She B
was a domestic helper by occupation in Hong Kong. Under caution, the Defendant
C C
stated that she had sold the Mox Bank Account to a fellow domestic helper called
D “Wulan” for HK$500. D
E E
The China CITIC Bank Account
F F
G
6. Fund flow analysis showed that between 1 December 2022 and 15 G
February 2023, a total of HK$1,070,635.65 was deposited in and withdrawn from
H H
the China CITIC Bank Account. Mirror pattern was observed.
I I
7. The Defendant was the sole signatory of the China CITIC Bank
J J
Account. Under caution, she remained silent.
K K
The Welab Bank Account
L L
M 8. Fund flow analysis showed that between 19 December 2022 and 1 M
January 2023, a total of HK$5,336,922.18 was deposited in and withdrawn from the
N N
Welab Bank Account. Mirror pattern was observed.
O O
9. The Defendant was the sole signatory of the Welab Bank Account.
P P
Under caution, she remained silent.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B Supplementary Information B
C C
2
10. After the recent judgment of HKSAR v Xie Zhijian , prosecution
D provided more information on the predicate offence. In December 2022, PW1, PW3, D
PW4 and PW5 fell into employment scams. They received cold recruitment
E E
messages via “WhatsApp” or “Telegram” offering part-time job to earn quick
F F
money. They were instructed to complete tasks or missions on online platform to
G
earn commission. They were provided with designated accounts (Defendant’s Mox G
and Welab Bank Account) for deposit. They were asked to remit money into these
H H
designated accounts to top up their relevant online platform account to complete
I their tasks or missions. PW1 remitted HK$70,500 into the Mox Bank Account, and I
PW3-5 remitted between HK$10,700 to HK$150,000 into the Welab Account.
J J
11. In December 2022, PW2 fell into online investment fraud. PW2 was
K K
lured to invest in Bitcoin by a person unknown via “Telegram”. PW2 was provided
L with designated accounts (including Defendant’s China CITIC Bank Account) to L
top up his investment account. PW2 remitted a total of HK$120,000 into the China
M M
CITIC Bank Account.
N N
Enhancement
O O
P 12. Prosecution made an application for enhancement of sentence under P
3
section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance on the grounds of the
Q Q
prevalence of this specified offence and the nature and extent of any harm, whether
R direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of this specified R
offence. Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam made a witness statement (“the said witness
S S
statement”) in support the application.
T T
2
[2025] HKCA 911
3
Cap 455
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B 13. This case will be classified as “ML stooge”. According to the said B
witness statement, total number of deception cases and ML cases rose from 16,643
C C
in 2020 to 47,063 in 2024 and 31,185 in Jan – Aug 2025. Total number of arrested
D person rose from 2,422 in 2020 to 10,496 in 2024 and 5,142 in Jan – Aug 2025. D
Total number of arrested stooges percentage rose from 31.38% in 2020 to 75.10%
E E
in 2024 and 72.01% in Jan – Aug 2025. Amount of reported losses from Deception
F F
and ML cases involving stooges account rose from HK$1,879.83M in 2020 to
G
HK$4,466.39M in 2024 and HK$723.38M in Jan – Aug 2025. G
H H
Mitigation
I I
14. Defendant is 32 years old, an Indonesian National, who was employed
J J
as a domestic helper from 2015 until her arrest in May 2023. Defendant has had two
K employment contracts in Hong Kong, one lasting eight years terminated when her K
employers no longer required a helper, and the second lasting one year up until her
L L
arrest. Defendant has never been in any conflict with either of her employers.
M M
15. Defendant’s family are all in Indonesia, her father and mother, aged 72
N N
and 63 respectively, her 39-year-old sister and her 12-year-old son. Defendant had
O been sending home HK$3,000 per month and was the main provider for her son’s O
education. Defendant is currently unclear how her family are managing as
P P
communication have become sporadic since she has been in detention.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B The Sentencing Guidelines B
C C
16. Defence submitted the following authorities on sentence of this offence:
D D
(i) HKSAR v Javid Kamran 4 sets out a starting point of 3 years’
E E
imprisonment for laundering HK$1,190,264 after trial;
F F
G
(ii) HKSAR v Yam Kong-lai 5 , almost HK$4 million laundered G
resulting in 4 years’ imprisonment after trial;
H H
I (iii) HKSAR v Ho Shun-hsiung6, HK$4.15 million, laundered through I
five offences with an international element and detailed planning
J J
resulting in 3 years’ imprisonment after a guilty plea.
K K
L 17. Further guidelines for sentencing are set out by Justice Stock in HKSAR L
v BOMA Amaso7. The Court of Appeal emphasised that “the question of the amount
M M
of money laundered is not the be-all and end-all of a case but is a significant
N feature” 8 . The Court went on to elaborate on the other relevant factors to be N
considered (at paragraph 40 of the judgment).
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
4
[2005] HKEC 1084
5
[2008] 5 HKLRD 384
T 6 T
CACC 472/2009
7
CACC 335/2010
8
Paragraph 38
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B Mitigation B
C C
18. While Defendant admits to the offence and that she acted upon the
D request of her trusted and long term friend “Wulan”, Defendant comes from a small D
town in East Java and has never had a bank account before and no exposure to the
E E
banking system. Defendant had been sending all her savings home via remittance
F F
companies.
G G
19. Defendant was not a willing participant in any deceptions. Defendant
H H
herself admits to assisting her then friend “Wulan” in the opening of the Mox Bank
I Account. This was done as a “favour to a long term friend” who claimed could not I
open an account and Defendant was told this was to assist in the garment trading
J J
business. Defendant did not know at the time that Wulan was also using her
K information to open the two additional accounts (“the China CITIC Bank Account K
and the Welab Bank Account”). This is supported by the banking documentation
L L
showing all accounts being approved at approximately the same time. When
M Defendant tried to contact Wulan after being arrested, Wulan’s number was no- M
longer operational. Defence, in the hearing, accepted that Defendant knew Wulan
N N
opened the two additional accounts with her information at the material time and
O Defendant allowed Wulan to use her accounts. O
P P
20. Defendant took no part in the operation of the “scam” which involved
Q the “scammers” contacting numerous people with the promise of commission Q
paying jobs in return for transferring small sums. The offence itself is not a
R R
sophisticated one, and simply appeared to involve a lot of “cold calling” on the part
S of the scammers. There also does not appear to be an international element to the S
scam as all transfer made by the victims appear to be through channels such as FPS
T T
and Alipay to local bank accounts.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B 21. Defendant, up this point, has a clear criminal record. B
C C
22. Defendant has taken the opportunity to plead guilty at the earliest
D opportunity to obtain a possible 1/3 discount on any sentence. D
E E
23. While Defendant acknowledges that a custodial sentence is going to be
F appropriate for the court, Defendant wishes to beg for the court’s mercy and for the F
court to impose concurrent sentences and consider overall ‘Totality’ in deciding on
G G
the sentence.
H H
24. Regarding the enhancement application, defence said that despite this
I I
is a lawful application, it is an overly harsh application for this type of defendant.
J Enhancement should rarely be invoked, as sentencing guidelines should have J
already considered the prevalence of such offences.
K K
L 25. Further, there are recent advertisements for public to guard against such L
offence. However, Defendant was arrested in 2023, without benefits of such
M M
advertisement.
N N
26. Defendant, with remorse, has no objection to the enhancement
O O
application. However, defence urged the court to consider a lower percentage as the
P enhancement in sentence and advertisement now has effect, as shown in figures in P
2025.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B Background report B
C C
27. As Defendant has a clear record, a background report is obtained. The
D report is consistent with the mitigation, in that Defendant has a son, now aged 14, D
from her marriage. Her husband deserted the family in 2017 and her son is currently
E E
taken care of by her parents with the help of her elder sister. Defendant came to
F Hong Kong in August 2014 and worked as a domestic helper for nearly 10 years F
until she was remanded in April 2024. Pertaining to the present convictions,
G G
Defendant stated that she just tried to do a favor for her best friend without thinking
H much of it, never imagining she would commit such a serious crime. She expressed H
great remorse.
I I
Considerations
J J
K 28. Money laundering is a very serious offence, for which a deterrent K
sentence is required. There is no sentencing guideline for the money laundering
L L
offence. A number of significant factors have been identified as relevant in
M M
considering the proper sentence, as stated in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi 9 and HKSAR v
N
Boma 10. In HKSAR v Boma, the Court of Appeal stated that in considering the N
sentence, the amount of money laundered is a significant factor.
O O
P 29. I have also considered the recent authority of HKSAR v Xie Zhijian 11, P
where the Court of Appeal stated that while the amount of money involved is a
Q Q
signification factor, the sentencing judge should also consider the maximum
R sentence of predicate offence and the deterrence effect. The court also needs to R
consider the individual case and his overall view of the case.
S S
T 9 T
[2010] 2 HKLRD 545
10
[2012] 2 HKLRD 33
11
[2025] HKCA 911
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B 30. In assessing the sentence, I have the following considerations: B
C C
(i) The predicated offence relating to Charges 1 and 3 were
D employment scams. The predicated offence relating to Charge D
2 was investment fraud. All offences were committed via the
E E
use of “WhatsApp” or “Telegram”. The sentencing principals
F F
in internet fraud is considered: See HKSAR v Wong Ming
G
Chun12 ; HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai13; G
H H
(ii) I accept Defendant has no knowledge of the predicated offence;
I I
(iii) There is no evidence of international elements;
J J
K (iv) There is no evidence of a sophisticated offence, and committed K
by criminal syndicate;
L L
M (v) There were about less than 20 transactions in each account, M
between November and December 2022;
N N
O (vi) Defendant did not launder funds after she discovered the nature O
of funds; and
P P
Q (vii) She sold the accounts to her friend. Q
R R
S S
T T
12
[2025] HKCA 275
13
CACC 100/2014
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B 31. Considering the above, I consider the following are the appropriate B
starting point for each offence:
C C
D (i) Charge 1 : 3 years; D
E E
(ii) Charge 2 : 2 years and 6 months; and
F F
G
(iii) Charge 3 : 3 years and 6 months. G
H H
32. Defendant pleaded guilty in the first instance, entitled to 1/3 discount.
I I found no other mitigating factors that warrant any further discount. Therefore, the I
sentences before enhancement should be as follows:
J J
K (i) Charge 1 : 2 years; K
L L
(ii) Charge 2 : 1 years and 8 months; and
M M
N
(iii) Charge 3 : 2 years and 4 months. N
O O
Enhancement
P P
33. I accept the figures as stated in said witness statements. Therefore, I
Q Q
accept the offence is prevalent and the loss incurred is as stated in the said witness
R statement. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B 34. I have considered the defence submission. However, even in 2024 and B
the first 8 months of 2025, the figures of arrested stooges are still high. Considering
C C
the figures, I am of the view a 25% enhancement is appropriate. Therefore, the
D sentence for each charge is: D
E E
(i) Charge 1 : 2 years and 6 months;
F F
G
(ii) Charge 2 : 2 years and 1 month; and G
H H
(iii) Charge 3 : 2 years and 11 months.
I I
35. Considering the totality, the total amount involved is about HK$9
J J
million, and all from the same transaction where Defendant lend the accounts to her
K friend Wulan, I consider the total sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment appropriate. K
Therefore, I ordered that Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently. 5 months of Charges
L L
1 and 2 to run consecutively to Charge 3.
M M
N N
O ( Colin Wong ) O
Deputy District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
DCCC 1548/2024
B B
[2025] HKDC 1808
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 1548 OF 2024 E
F F
----------------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
SUSILOWATI
I I
----------------------------
J J
Before: Deputy District Judge Colin Wong
K K
Date: 23 October 2025
L
Present: Ms Chit Noelle Aileen, Senior Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR/Director L
of Public Prosecutions
M M
Mr Delaney Antony Michael, instructed by H. Y. Leung & Co. LLP,
N assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant N
Offence: [1] to [3] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
O O
proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代表從
P 可公訴罪行的得益的財產） P
Q Q
-----------------------------------------
R REASONS FOR SENTENCE R
-----------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B 1. Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of “Dealing with property B
known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”1. That between
C C
November and December 2022, a number of victims including PW1-5, were
D defrauded in scams, and were induced to deposit monies into three accounts held by D
the Defendant with Mox Bank (“the Mox Bank Account”), China CITIC Bank (“the
E E
China CITIC Bank Account”) and Welab Bank (“the Welab Bank Account”).
F F
Defendant admitted the facts and was found guilty.
G G
2. It is the prosecution case that Defendant, together with Wulan,
H H
committed the three offences.
I I
Admitted Facts
J J
K 3. Between November and December 2022, a number of victims, K
including PW1-5, were defrauded in scams, and were induced to deposit monies
L L
into three accounts held by the Defendant with Mox Bank, China CITIC Bank and
M Welab Bank. M
N N
The Mox Bank Account
O O
4. Fund flow analysis showed that between 16 December 2022 and 26
P P
April 2023, a total of HK$2,720,009.70 was deposited in the Mox Bank Account,
Q and a corresponding total of HK$2,717,021.03 was withdrawn from it. Mirror Q
pattern was observed.
R R
S S
T T
1
Contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B 5. The Defendant was the sole signatory of the Mox Bank Account. She B
was a domestic helper by occupation in Hong Kong. Under caution, the Defendant
C C
stated that she had sold the Mox Bank Account to a fellow domestic helper called
D “Wulan” for HK$500. D
E E
The China CITIC Bank Account
F F
G
6. Fund flow analysis showed that between 1 December 2022 and 15 G
February 2023, a total of HK$1,070,635.65 was deposited in and withdrawn from
H H
the China CITIC Bank Account. Mirror pattern was observed.
I I
7. The Defendant was the sole signatory of the China CITIC Bank
J J
Account. Under caution, she remained silent.
K K
The Welab Bank Account
L L
M 8. Fund flow analysis showed that between 19 December 2022 and 1 M
January 2023, a total of HK$5,336,922.18 was deposited in and withdrawn from the
N N
Welab Bank Account. Mirror pattern was observed.
O O
9. The Defendant was the sole signatory of the Welab Bank Account.
P P
Under caution, she remained silent.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B Supplementary Information B
C C
2
10. After the recent judgment of HKSAR v Xie Zhijian , prosecution
D provided more information on the predicate offence. In December 2022, PW1, PW3, D
PW4 and PW5 fell into employment scams. They received cold recruitment
E E
messages via “WhatsApp” or “Telegram” offering part-time job to earn quick
F F
money. They were instructed to complete tasks or missions on online platform to
G
earn commission. They were provided with designated accounts (Defendant’s Mox G
and Welab Bank Account) for deposit. They were asked to remit money into these
H H
designated accounts to top up their relevant online platform account to complete
I their tasks or missions. PW1 remitted HK$70,500 into the Mox Bank Account, and I
PW3-5 remitted between HK$10,700 to HK$150,000 into the Welab Account.
J J
11. In December 2022, PW2 fell into online investment fraud. PW2 was
K K
lured to invest in Bitcoin by a person unknown via “Telegram”. PW2 was provided
L with designated accounts (including Defendant’s China CITIC Bank Account) to L
top up his investment account. PW2 remitted a total of HK$120,000 into the China
M M
CITIC Bank Account.
N N
Enhancement
O O
P 12. Prosecution made an application for enhancement of sentence under P
3
section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance on the grounds of the
Q Q
prevalence of this specified offence and the nature and extent of any harm, whether
R direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of this specified R
offence. Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam made a witness statement (“the said witness
S S
statement”) in support the application.
T T
2
[2025] HKCA 911
3
Cap 455
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B 13. This case will be classified as “ML stooge”. According to the said B
witness statement, total number of deception cases and ML cases rose from 16,643
C C
in 2020 to 47,063 in 2024 and 31,185 in Jan – Aug 2025. Total number of arrested
D person rose from 2,422 in 2020 to 10,496 in 2024 and 5,142 in Jan – Aug 2025. D
Total number of arrested stooges percentage rose from 31.38% in 2020 to 75.10%
E E
in 2024 and 72.01% in Jan – Aug 2025. Amount of reported losses from Deception
F F
and ML cases involving stooges account rose from HK$1,879.83M in 2020 to
G
HK$4,466.39M in 2024 and HK$723.38M in Jan – Aug 2025. G
H H
Mitigation
I I
14. Defendant is 32 years old, an Indonesian National, who was employed
J J
as a domestic helper from 2015 until her arrest in May 2023. Defendant has had two
K employment contracts in Hong Kong, one lasting eight years terminated when her K
employers no longer required a helper, and the second lasting one year up until her
L L
arrest. Defendant has never been in any conflict with either of her employers.
M M
15. Defendant’s family are all in Indonesia, her father and mother, aged 72
N N
and 63 respectively, her 39-year-old sister and her 12-year-old son. Defendant had
O been sending home HK$3,000 per month and was the main provider for her son’s O
education. Defendant is currently unclear how her family are managing as
P P
communication have become sporadic since she has been in detention.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B The Sentencing Guidelines B
C C
16. Defence submitted the following authorities on sentence of this offence:
D D
(i) HKSAR v Javid Kamran 4 sets out a starting point of 3 years’
E E
imprisonment for laundering HK$1,190,264 after trial;
F F
G
(ii) HKSAR v Yam Kong-lai 5 , almost HK$4 million laundered G
resulting in 4 years’ imprisonment after trial;
H H
I (iii) HKSAR v Ho Shun-hsiung6, HK$4.15 million, laundered through I
five offences with an international element and detailed planning
J J
resulting in 3 years’ imprisonment after a guilty plea.
K K
L 17. Further guidelines for sentencing are set out by Justice Stock in HKSAR L
v BOMA Amaso7. The Court of Appeal emphasised that “the question of the amount
M M
of money laundered is not the be-all and end-all of a case but is a significant
N feature” 8 . The Court went on to elaborate on the other relevant factors to be N
considered (at paragraph 40 of the judgment).
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
4
[2005] HKEC 1084
5
[2008] 5 HKLRD 384
T 6 T
CACC 472/2009
7
CACC 335/2010
8
Paragraph 38
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B Mitigation B
C C
18. While Defendant admits to the offence and that she acted upon the
D request of her trusted and long term friend “Wulan”, Defendant comes from a small D
town in East Java and has never had a bank account before and no exposure to the
E E
banking system. Defendant had been sending all her savings home via remittance
F F
companies.
G G
19. Defendant was not a willing participant in any deceptions. Defendant
H H
herself admits to assisting her then friend “Wulan” in the opening of the Mox Bank
I Account. This was done as a “favour to a long term friend” who claimed could not I
open an account and Defendant was told this was to assist in the garment trading
J J
business. Defendant did not know at the time that Wulan was also using her
K information to open the two additional accounts (“the China CITIC Bank Account K
and the Welab Bank Account”). This is supported by the banking documentation
L L
showing all accounts being approved at approximately the same time. When
M Defendant tried to contact Wulan after being arrested, Wulan’s number was no- M
longer operational. Defence, in the hearing, accepted that Defendant knew Wulan
N N
opened the two additional accounts with her information at the material time and
O Defendant allowed Wulan to use her accounts. O
P P
20. Defendant took no part in the operation of the “scam” which involved
Q the “scammers” contacting numerous people with the promise of commission Q
paying jobs in return for transferring small sums. The offence itself is not a
R R
sophisticated one, and simply appeared to involve a lot of “cold calling” on the part
S of the scammers. There also does not appear to be an international element to the S
scam as all transfer made by the victims appear to be through channels such as FPS
T T
and Alipay to local bank accounts.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B 21. Defendant, up this point, has a clear criminal record. B
C C
22. Defendant has taken the opportunity to plead guilty at the earliest
D opportunity to obtain a possible 1/3 discount on any sentence. D
E E
23. While Defendant acknowledges that a custodial sentence is going to be
F appropriate for the court, Defendant wishes to beg for the court’s mercy and for the F
court to impose concurrent sentences and consider overall ‘Totality’ in deciding on
G G
the sentence.
H H
24. Regarding the enhancement application, defence said that despite this
I I
is a lawful application, it is an overly harsh application for this type of defendant.
J Enhancement should rarely be invoked, as sentencing guidelines should have J
already considered the prevalence of such offences.
K K
L 25. Further, there are recent advertisements for public to guard against such L
offence. However, Defendant was arrested in 2023, without benefits of such
M M
advertisement.
N N
26. Defendant, with remorse, has no objection to the enhancement
O O
application. However, defence urged the court to consider a lower percentage as the
P enhancement in sentence and advertisement now has effect, as shown in figures in P
2025.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B Background report B
C C
27. As Defendant has a clear record, a background report is obtained. The
D report is consistent with the mitigation, in that Defendant has a son, now aged 14, D
from her marriage. Her husband deserted the family in 2017 and her son is currently
E E
taken care of by her parents with the help of her elder sister. Defendant came to
F Hong Kong in August 2014 and worked as a domestic helper for nearly 10 years F
until she was remanded in April 2024. Pertaining to the present convictions,
G G
Defendant stated that she just tried to do a favor for her best friend without thinking
H much of it, never imagining she would commit such a serious crime. She expressed H
great remorse.
I I
Considerations
J J
K 28. Money laundering is a very serious offence, for which a deterrent K
sentence is required. There is no sentencing guideline for the money laundering
L L
offence. A number of significant factors have been identified as relevant in
M M
considering the proper sentence, as stated in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi 9 and HKSAR v
N
Boma 10. In HKSAR v Boma, the Court of Appeal stated that in considering the N
sentence, the amount of money laundered is a significant factor.
O O
P 29. I have also considered the recent authority of HKSAR v Xie Zhijian 11, P
where the Court of Appeal stated that while the amount of money involved is a
Q Q
signification factor, the sentencing judge should also consider the maximum
R sentence of predicate offence and the deterrence effect. The court also needs to R
consider the individual case and his overall view of the case.
S S
T 9 T
[2010] 2 HKLRD 545
10
[2012] 2 HKLRD 33
11
[2025] HKCA 911
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B 30. In assessing the sentence, I have the following considerations: B
C C
(i) The predicated offence relating to Charges 1 and 3 were
D employment scams. The predicated offence relating to Charge D
2 was investment fraud. All offences were committed via the
E E
use of “WhatsApp” or “Telegram”. The sentencing principals
F F
in internet fraud is considered: See HKSAR v Wong Ming
G
Chun12 ; HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai13; G
H H
(ii) I accept Defendant has no knowledge of the predicated offence;
I I
(iii) There is no evidence of international elements;
J J
K (iv) There is no evidence of a sophisticated offence, and committed K
by criminal syndicate;
L L
M (v) There were about less than 20 transactions in each account, M
between November and December 2022;
N N
O (vi) Defendant did not launder funds after she discovered the nature O
of funds; and
P P
Q (vii) She sold the accounts to her friend. Q
R R
S S
T T
12
[2025] HKCA 275
13
CACC 100/2014
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B 31. Considering the above, I consider the following are the appropriate B
starting point for each offence:
C C
D (i) Charge 1 : 3 years; D
E E
(ii) Charge 2 : 2 years and 6 months; and
F F
G
(iii) Charge 3 : 3 years and 6 months. G
H H
32. Defendant pleaded guilty in the first instance, entitled to 1/3 discount.
I I found no other mitigating factors that warrant any further discount. Therefore, the I
sentences before enhancement should be as follows:
J J
K (i) Charge 1 : 2 years; K
L L
(ii) Charge 2 : 1 years and 8 months; and
M M
N
(iii) Charge 3 : 2 years and 4 months. N
O O
Enhancement
P P
33. I accept the figures as stated in said witness statements. Therefore, I
Q Q
accept the offence is prevalent and the loss incurred is as stated in the said witness
R statement. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B 34. I have considered the defence submission. However, even in 2024 and B
the first 8 months of 2025, the figures of arrested stooges are still high. Considering
C C
the figures, I am of the view a 25% enhancement is appropriate. Therefore, the
D sentence for each charge is: D
E E
(i) Charge 1 : 2 years and 6 months;
F F
G
(ii) Charge 2 : 2 years and 1 month; and G
H H
(iii) Charge 3 : 2 years and 11 months.
I I
35. Considering the totality, the total amount involved is about HK$9
J J
million, and all from the same transaction where Defendant lend the accounts to her
K friend Wulan, I consider the total sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment appropriate. K
Therefore, I ordered that Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently. 5 months of Charges
L L
1 and 2 to run consecutively to Charge 3.
M M
N N
O ( Colin Wong ) O
Deputy District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V