District CourtHH Judge E Yip11/11/2025[2025] HKDC 1865
合併案件：DCCC355/2024DCCC1489/2024
DCCC597/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 355, 597, 637 & 1489/2024 (Consolidated)
C [2025] HKDC 1865 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 355, 597, 637 AND 1489 OF 2024
F F
G ----------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I QUAN MENGFAN (D1) I
-----------------------------------------
J J
K Before: HH Judge E Yip K
Date: 12 November 2025
L L
Present: Mr Wayne Lee, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Mr Lee Pak Chau, instructed by Mike So, Joseph Lau & Co, M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant
N N
Offence: [1] & [6] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
O proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代表 O
P
從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) P
Q Q
-----------------------------------------
R REASONS FOR VERDICT R
-----------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
A. Introduction
C C
1. The Defendant, QUAN Mengfan (“D1”), is charged with two
D D
counts of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds
E of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized E
and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455).
F F
G 2. Both parties filed written closing submissions, which I have G
carefully considered. References in parentheses below (e.g. “P §§33” or
H H
“D §§22(7)”) denote paragraph references to the respective written
I submissions. I
J J
3. Charge 1 concerns a Bank of China (Hong Kong) account
K (“BoC Account”) maintained by D1 between 3 January and 28 February K
2023, through which a total of HK$ 6,544,402.49 was transacted. The
L L
charge is laid jointly with Tse Chi-wing. Charge 6 concerns a Standard
M Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) account (“SCB Account”) maintained by D1 M
between 1 and 3 February 2023, through which a total
N N
of HK$ 529,500 was transacted (P §§2–3).
O O
4. D1 pleaded not guilty to both charges. The Prosecution
P P
proceeded wholly on admitted facts under section 65C of the Criminal
Q Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221). No witness was called. D1 gave evidence Q
in her own defence.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
B. Issues
C C
5. The issues for determination are: —
D D
E (1) Whether D1 “dealt” with the property within the E
meaning of section 25(1); and
F F
G (2) Whether, at the material time, she “knew or had G
reasonable grounds to believe” the property
H H
represented another person’s proceeds of an indictable
I offence. I
J J
6. The applicable principles are not in dispute. The test under
K section 25(1) is objective: whether a reasonable person, possessed of D1’s K
knowledge and circumstances, would have believed the property was
L L
tainted (P §§4–6; D §§4).
M M
7. “Dealing” includes opening, maintaining, and allowing the
N N
use of an account to receive or transfer tainted funds; actual physical
O possession of the money is unnecessary (P §§7). O
P P
C. Undisputed Facts
Q Q
8. D1 was the sole holder and authorised signatory of both
R R
accounts (P §§14–15, 19, 22).
S S
9. The BoC account received 148 deposits totalling HK$6.54
T T
million and 545 withdrawals during an eight-week period; the SCB
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
account received 23 deposits totalling HK$0.53 million and 33
C withdrawals in three days (P §§20–21, 23). C
D D
10. Numerous depositors were fraud victims who did not know
E D1. Her declared annual income was HK$175,000 (P §§13, 18). E
F F
11. D1 was in Hong Kong when both accounts were opened (P
G §§17). G
H H
D. Good Character Direction
I I
12. D1 had no previous convictions. I remind myself that her
J J
good character is relevant both to her credibility and to her propensity to
K commit the offence. K
L L
13. However, good character is not a defence in itself. It is merely
M one factor in the overall evaluation. M
N N
14. I have reminded myself of both limbs of this direction in
O assessing her evidence and the inferences properly to be drawn. O
P P
E. The Defence Case
Q Q
15. D1 gave evidence in her own defence and relied on her
R R
written submissions.
S S
16. She says she was in an intimate relationship with “Kong” who
T T
told her he was engaged in bitcoin trading and needed more accounts for
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
client funds. She says she opened the BoC and SCB accounts for him out
C of love and trust (D §§16–20, 22(3)–(9)). C
D D
17. She believed Kong’s explanation that he was unable to open
E new accounts immediately and that each client needed a separate account. E
She opened both accounts and passed to him the cards, PINs, and online
F F
credentials (D §§16–19, 22(7)–(9)).
G G
18. D1 says she never used the accounts herself and did not
H H
monitor them; she received e-statements by email but seldom checked
I them (D §§17, 31). I
J J
19. She maintains she received no benefit from the arrangement
K (D §§22(9)). K
L L
20. As to the “ONC letter” of 14 March 2023 and the police VRI
M of 18 May 2023 naming Tse Chi-wing (“Tse”), she says she only repeated M
what Kong told her and omitted Kong’s name to protect him (D §§19–20,
N N
35).
O O
21. She emphasises that Kong manipulated her emotionally, as
P P
reflected in the WhatsApp records (D §§24–25).
Q Q
22. D1’s case, therefore, is that she was naïve, acted under
R R
emotional influence, lent the accounts out of misplaced affection, and
S lacked both knowledge and reasonable belief that the funds were criminal S
(D §§21–23, 27).
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
F. Prosecution Reply and Court’s Analysis
C C
(1) “Mere account lender”
D D
E 23. The Defence relies on 律政司司長 對 谢志建 (XIE ZHIJIAN) E
CAAR 4/2024 for the proposition that lending an account is not itself
F F
“dealing” if the Court accepts that the account was surrendered and the
G G
defendant knew nothing of the transactions (D §§7–8, 28(3)).
H H
24. The Prosecution argues that this case is factually
I I
distinguishable because D1 remained the sole holder and signatory, and
J the accounts were opened, maintained, and actively used under her name J
(P §§7–10, 66–70).
K K
L 25. I accept the Prosecution’s submission: once D1’s version is L
rejected, her control and the transaction pattern entitle the Court to infer
M M
“dealing” (P §§7–10, 69–70).
N N
(2) “Love and trust”
O O
P P
26. D1 says she acted out of love and trust in Kong (D §§22(3)–
Q (9), 25, 27). Q
R R
27. The Prosecution criticises this as implausible: Kong’s alleged
S profit of HK$100,000 in 1–2 weeks and his supposed inability to open new S
accounts were obviously false; the “birthday opening” story was fabricated
T T
(P §§33–41). I agree with these criticisms.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 28. In particular, the claim that D1 opened the BoC account on C
19 December 2022 because she was happy after her “birthday” is
D D
contradicted by the opening records showing 3 January 2023 and by her
E true birthday of 18 January (P §§38–41). This inconsistency seriously E
undermines her credibility.
F F
G (3) Lack of profit G
H H
29. D1 says she received no reward (D §§22(9)). That does not
I affect criminal liability under section 25(1); motive is irrelevant (P §§4, I
68(a)–(c)).
J J
K (4) Inconsistent versions (ONC letter, VRI, trial) K
L L
30. The Prosecution sets out that D1 first named Tse in the ONC
M letter (14 March 2023) (P §§53–56), repeated that version in the VRI (18 M
May 2023) (P §§58–62), and only at trial substituted “Kong”.
N N
O 31. The Defence accepts that earlier statements were untrue but O
says they were intended to protect Kong (D §§19–20, 35).
P P
Q 32. The explanations are not credible. The inconsistencies were Q
not confusion but deliberate revisions. I accept the Prosecution’s analysis
R R
(P §§53–57, 58–62, 63–65).
S S
(5) Failure to monitor and “blind eyes”
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
33. The Prosecution notes that D1 elected to receive e-statements
C and admitted that transaction notifications would have been sent to her (P C
§§42). D1’s claim that she “never checked” her email is unreasonable. This
D D
is not negligence but wilful blindness amounting to belief.
E E
(6) Role of Tse
F F
G 34. The Defence argues that no joint enterprise with Tse is proved, G
as there is “not a shred of evidence” of his background or role (D §§10–
H H
13, 28(1)–(2)).
I I
35. The Prosecution submits, correctly, that it is unnecessary to
J J
prove the identity of the principal launderer or predicate offender (P §§5,
K 67, 69). D1’s own conduct suffices. K
L L
G. Evaluation and Findings
M M
36. The transaction patterns—rapid inflows and withdrawals,
N N
unrelated depositors, near-zero balances—are consistent with a classic
O laundering operation (P §§20–21, 23, 66–71). O
P P
37. D1 personally opened both accounts (P §§19, 22) and
Q maintained them as active throughout the relevant periods. This required Q
verifying her identity, replacing cards, and maintaining access. Such
R R
continuity is incompatible with her claim of complete detachment.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
38. Her “I did not check my email” explanation cannot withstand
C scrutiny in light of the admitted arrangement for e-statements (P §42). Her C
sustained inaction despite repeated alerts was deliberate indifference.
D D
E 39. D1’s explanation of “trust in Kong” (D §§22(3)–(9), 25) is E
inconsistent with the evidence and contradicted by her own changing
F F
versions. Her background in finance (P §31; D §22(2)) means she must
G have understood the suspicious nature of the transactions. G
H H
40. Applying the test in HKSAR v Harjani Haresh
I Murlidhar (2019) 22 HKCFAR 446, a reasonable person in D1’s position I
would have believed the property was tainted. Wilful blindness satisfies
J J
the statutory requirement of belief.
K K
41. In Charge 1 (BoC), HK$6.54 million passed through within
L L
less than two months. In Charge 6 (SCB), HK$529,500 moved within three
M days—after the earlier pattern had already emerged. Her continuing M
indifference shows belief under section 25(1) (P §§23, 66–71).
N N
O O
42. The Prosecution has therefore proved both actus reus (dealing)
P
and mens rea (belief). D1’s version is rejected as wholly unreliable (P P
§§33–41, 45–52, 53–65).
Q Q
R
H. Conclusion R
S S
43. All arguments in the Defence submissions (D §§7–8, 10–13,
T 16–28, 33–35) are rejected for the reasons given. T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
44. The Prosecution’s submissions (P §§7–10, 33–41, 42, 53–65,
C 66–71) are accepted insofar as they accord with the above findings. C
D D
45. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that D1 dealt with
E property representing another person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, E
contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of Cap. 455, in respect of both charges.
F F
D1 is convicted as charged.
G G
H H
I ( E Yip ) I
District Judge
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
A A
B B
DCCC 355, 597, 637 & 1489/2024 (Consolidated)
C [2025] HKDC 1865 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 355, 597, 637 AND 1489 OF 2024
F F
G ----------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I QUAN MENGFAN (D1) I
-----------------------------------------
J J
K Before: HH Judge E Yip K
Date: 12 November 2025
L L
Present: Mr Wayne Lee, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Mr Lee Pak Chau, instructed by Mike So, Joseph Lau & Co, M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant
N N
Offence: [1] & [6] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
O proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代表 O
P
從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) P
Q Q
-----------------------------------------
R REASONS FOR VERDICT R
-----------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
A. Introduction
C C
1. The Defendant, QUAN Mengfan (“D1”), is charged with two
D D
counts of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds
E of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized E
and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455).
F F
G 2. Both parties filed written closing submissions, which I have G
carefully considered. References in parentheses below (e.g. “P §§33” or
H H
“D §§22(7)”) denote paragraph references to the respective written
I submissions. I
J J
3. Charge 1 concerns a Bank of China (Hong Kong) account
K (“BoC Account”) maintained by D1 between 3 January and 28 February K
2023, through which a total of HK$ 6,544,402.49 was transacted. The
L L
charge is laid jointly with Tse Chi-wing. Charge 6 concerns a Standard
M Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) account (“SCB Account”) maintained by D1 M
between 1 and 3 February 2023, through which a total
N N
of HK$ 529,500 was transacted (P §§2–3).
O O
4. D1 pleaded not guilty to both charges. The Prosecution
P P
proceeded wholly on admitted facts under section 65C of the Criminal
Q Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221). No witness was called. D1 gave evidence Q
in her own defence.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
B. Issues
C C
5. The issues for determination are: —
D D
E (1) Whether D1 “dealt” with the property within the E
meaning of section 25(1); and
F F
G (2) Whether, at the material time, she “knew or had G
reasonable grounds to believe” the property
H H
represented another person’s proceeds of an indictable
I offence. I
J J
6. The applicable principles are not in dispute. The test under
K section 25(1) is objective: whether a reasonable person, possessed of D1’s K
knowledge and circumstances, would have believed the property was
L L
tainted (P §§4–6; D §§4).
M M
7. “Dealing” includes opening, maintaining, and allowing the
N N
use of an account to receive or transfer tainted funds; actual physical
O possession of the money is unnecessary (P §§7). O
P P
C. Undisputed Facts
Q Q
8. D1 was the sole holder and authorised signatory of both
R R
accounts (P §§14–15, 19, 22).
S S
9. The BoC account received 148 deposits totalling HK$6.54
T T
million and 545 withdrawals during an eight-week period; the SCB
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
account received 23 deposits totalling HK$0.53 million and 33
C withdrawals in three days (P §§20–21, 23). C
D D
10. Numerous depositors were fraud victims who did not know
E D1. Her declared annual income was HK$175,000 (P §§13, 18). E
F F
11. D1 was in Hong Kong when both accounts were opened (P
G §§17). G
H H
D. Good Character Direction
I I
12. D1 had no previous convictions. I remind myself that her
J J
good character is relevant both to her credibility and to her propensity to
K commit the offence. K
L L
13. However, good character is not a defence in itself. It is merely
M one factor in the overall evaluation. M
N N
14. I have reminded myself of both limbs of this direction in
O assessing her evidence and the inferences properly to be drawn. O
P P
E. The Defence Case
Q Q
15. D1 gave evidence in her own defence and relied on her
R R
written submissions.
S S
16. She says she was in an intimate relationship with “Kong” who
T T
told her he was engaged in bitcoin trading and needed more accounts for
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
client funds. She says she opened the BoC and SCB accounts for him out
C of love and trust (D §§16–20, 22(3)–(9)). C
D D
17. She believed Kong’s explanation that he was unable to open
E new accounts immediately and that each client needed a separate account. E
She opened both accounts and passed to him the cards, PINs, and online
F F
credentials (D §§16–19, 22(7)–(9)).
G G
18. D1 says she never used the accounts herself and did not
H H
monitor them; she received e-statements by email but seldom checked
I them (D §§17, 31). I
J J
19. She maintains she received no benefit from the arrangement
K (D §§22(9)). K
L L
20. As to the “ONC letter” of 14 March 2023 and the police VRI
M of 18 May 2023 naming Tse Chi-wing (“Tse”), she says she only repeated M
what Kong told her and omitted Kong’s name to protect him (D §§19–20,
N N
35).
O O
21. She emphasises that Kong manipulated her emotionally, as
P P
reflected in the WhatsApp records (D §§24–25).
Q Q
22. D1’s case, therefore, is that she was naïve, acted under
R R
emotional influence, lent the accounts out of misplaced affection, and
S lacked both knowledge and reasonable belief that the funds were criminal S
(D §§21–23, 27).
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
F. Prosecution Reply and Court’s Analysis
C C
(1) “Mere account lender”
D D
E 23. The Defence relies on 律政司司長 對 谢志建 (XIE ZHIJIAN) E
CAAR 4/2024 for the proposition that lending an account is not itself
F F
“dealing” if the Court accepts that the account was surrendered and the
G G
defendant knew nothing of the transactions (D §§7–8, 28(3)).
H H
24. The Prosecution argues that this case is factually
I I
distinguishable because D1 remained the sole holder and signatory, and
J the accounts were opened, maintained, and actively used under her name J
(P §§7–10, 66–70).
K K
L 25. I accept the Prosecution’s submission: once D1’s version is L
rejected, her control and the transaction pattern entitle the Court to infer
M M
“dealing” (P §§7–10, 69–70).
N N
(2) “Love and trust”
O O
P P
26. D1 says she acted out of love and trust in Kong (D §§22(3)–
Q (9), 25, 27). Q
R R
27. The Prosecution criticises this as implausible: Kong’s alleged
S profit of HK$100,000 in 1–2 weeks and his supposed inability to open new S
accounts were obviously false; the “birthday opening” story was fabricated
T T
(P §§33–41). I agree with these criticisms.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 28. In particular, the claim that D1 opened the BoC account on C
19 December 2022 because she was happy after her “birthday” is
D D
contradicted by the opening records showing 3 January 2023 and by her
E true birthday of 18 January (P §§38–41). This inconsistency seriously E
undermines her credibility.
F F
G (3) Lack of profit G
H H
29. D1 says she received no reward (D §§22(9)). That does not
I affect criminal liability under section 25(1); motive is irrelevant (P §§4, I
68(a)–(c)).
J J
K (4) Inconsistent versions (ONC letter, VRI, trial) K
L L
30. The Prosecution sets out that D1 first named Tse in the ONC
M letter (14 March 2023) (P §§53–56), repeated that version in the VRI (18 M
May 2023) (P §§58–62), and only at trial substituted “Kong”.
N N
O 31. The Defence accepts that earlier statements were untrue but O
says they were intended to protect Kong (D §§19–20, 35).
P P
Q 32. The explanations are not credible. The inconsistencies were Q
not confusion but deliberate revisions. I accept the Prosecution’s analysis
R R
(P §§53–57, 58–62, 63–65).
S S
(5) Failure to monitor and “blind eyes”
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
33. The Prosecution notes that D1 elected to receive e-statements
C and admitted that transaction notifications would have been sent to her (P C
§§42). D1’s claim that she “never checked” her email is unreasonable. This
D D
is not negligence but wilful blindness amounting to belief.
E E
(6) Role of Tse
F F
G 34. The Defence argues that no joint enterprise with Tse is proved, G
as there is “not a shred of evidence” of his background or role (D §§10–
H H
13, 28(1)–(2)).
I I
35. The Prosecution submits, correctly, that it is unnecessary to
J J
prove the identity of the principal launderer or predicate offender (P §§5,
K 67, 69). D1’s own conduct suffices. K
L L
G. Evaluation and Findings
M M
36. The transaction patterns—rapid inflows and withdrawals,
N N
unrelated depositors, near-zero balances—are consistent with a classic
O laundering operation (P §§20–21, 23, 66–71). O
P P
37. D1 personally opened both accounts (P §§19, 22) and
Q maintained them as active throughout the relevant periods. This required Q
verifying her identity, replacing cards, and maintaining access. Such
R R
continuity is incompatible with her claim of complete detachment.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
38. Her “I did not check my email” explanation cannot withstand
C scrutiny in light of the admitted arrangement for e-statements (P §42). Her C
sustained inaction despite repeated alerts was deliberate indifference.
D D
E 39. D1’s explanation of “trust in Kong” (D §§22(3)–(9), 25) is E
inconsistent with the evidence and contradicted by her own changing
F F
versions. Her background in finance (P §31; D §22(2)) means she must
G have understood the suspicious nature of the transactions. G
H H
40. Applying the test in HKSAR v Harjani Haresh
I Murlidhar (2019) 22 HKCFAR 446, a reasonable person in D1’s position I
would have believed the property was tainted. Wilful blindness satisfies
J J
the statutory requirement of belief.
K K
41. In Charge 1 (BoC), HK$6.54 million passed through within
L L
less than two months. In Charge 6 (SCB), HK$529,500 moved within three
M days—after the earlier pattern had already emerged. Her continuing M
indifference shows belief under section 25(1) (P §§23, 66–71).
N N
O O
42. The Prosecution has therefore proved both actus reus (dealing)
P
and mens rea (belief). D1’s version is rejected as wholly unreliable (P P
§§33–41, 45–52, 53–65).
Q Q
R
H. Conclusion R
S S
43. All arguments in the Defence submissions (D §§7–8, 10–13,
T 16–28, 33–35) are rejected for the reasons given. T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
44. The Prosecution’s submissions (P §§7–10, 33–41, 42, 53–65,
C 66–71) are accepted insofar as they accord with the above findings. C
D D
45. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that D1 dealt with
E property representing another person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, E
contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of Cap. 455, in respect of both charges.
F F
D1 is convicted as charged.
G G
H H
I ( E Yip ) I
District Judge
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