DCCC1392/2024

DCCC1392/2024

A A B B DCCC 1392/2024 C [2026] HKDC 273 C D D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E CRIMINAL CASE NO 1392 OF 2024 F F G ----------------------------------------- G HKSAR H H v I CHAN NOK HIM, FRANCO I ----------------------------------------- J J K Before: His Honour Judge J Lam K Date: 10 February 2026 L L Present: Ms Alva Patricia E, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR M Mr Ng Ken K M, instructed by K T Lo & Co, assigned by the M Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant N N 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 O P 表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. Charge C C 1. The defendant pleads not guilty to one count of “dealing with D D property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”. E E B. Introduction F F G 2. The defendant opened an account with the Mox Bank on 3 G June 2021 (“the account”). He was the sole account holder. There were H H many deposits and withdrawals since then. After 14 April 2022, the I account became inactive. I J J 3. Between 6 June 2021 (when the account was first active) and K 14 April 2022 (when the account was last active), there were 15,485 K deposits and 4,374 withdrawals. That is 19,859 transactions in total (T1- L L T19859). The total amounts of deposits and withdrawals were M HK$27,422,127.81 and HK$27,404,823.52 respectively. All the deposits M and withdrawals were made by Internet transfers. N N O 4. The bank closed the account on 3 June 2022. O P P 5. Between 3 June 2021 and 14 April 2022, the defendant was in Q Hong Kong. He was, however, in CSD custody between 8 December 2021 Q and 19 February 2022. R R S 6. The defendant was arrested at his residence for this case on 18 S August 2022. He told the police in a voluntary interview that he earned T T HK$26,000 per month in a dispensary. U U V V  -3- A A B B C 7. The defendant had no tax filing for the financial year of 2021- C 2022. D D E 8. Of the many deposits in the account, there were two deposits E made by a Mr. Lam on 14 February 2022. That Mr. Lam was an online- F F fraud victim. He had been scammed of HK$470,806.80. Such monies were G deposited by him into various accounts, including two deposits G (HK$10,000.19 and HK$1,000.16) into the defendant’s Mox account on H H 14 February 2022 while the defendant was still in CSD custody. I I 9. Prosecution say the account was a temporary repository of J J funds including crime proceeds and the defendant with another person used K the account to launder money. K L L C. Prosecution case M M C.1 Agreed facts N N O 10. There are two sets of facts (Exh P11 and P14) admitted under O s 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. P P Q C.1.1 Exh. P11 Q R R 11. According to Exh. P11: S S (a) The defendant opened an account with the Mox Bank T T on 3 June 2021; U U V V  -4- A A B B C (b) Between 3 June 2021 and 14 April 2022, there were C 15,485 deposits and 4,374 withdrawals; the total D D amounts of deposits and withdrawals were E HK$27,422,127.81 and HK$27,404,823.52 E respectively; F F G (c) All the deposits and withdrawals were made by Internet G transfers; H H I (d) The many deposits included two deposits by a scam I victim Mr. Lam, who on 14 February 2022 transferred J J HK$10,000.19 and HK$1,000.16 to the defendant’s K account; K L L (e) After 14 April 2022, the account became inactive; M M (f) The bank closed the account on 3 June 2022; N N O (g) Between 3 June 2021 and 14 April 2022, the defendant O was in Hong Kong; he was however in CSD custody P P between 8 December 2021 and 19 February 2022; Q Q (h) The defendant was arrested for this case on 18 August R R 2022 at Room 1104 Yiu Fung House, Tin Yiu Estate, S Tin Shui Wai; his verbal reply under caution was S recorded in the arresting officer’s notebook (Exh P6 / T T English translation P6A); U U V V  -5- A A B B C (i) The defendant had a voluntary interview with the police C on 18 August 2022 (Exh P9 / Chinese transcript P8 / D D English translation P8A); E E (j) The defendant had no tax filing for the financial year of F F 2021-2022. G G C.1.2 Exh. P14 H H I 12. According to Exh P14: I J J (a) Between the opening of the account (on 3 June 2021) K and 01:01:07 hours on 17 November 2021, there were K 266 deposits totaling HK$228,926 and 527 L L withdrawals totaling HK$229,061.04; M M (b) Between 8 December 2021 and 19 February 2022, N N when the defendant was in CSD custody, there were O 7,807 deposits totaling HK$ 13,823,893.27 and 2,038 O withdrawals totaling HK$13,742,422. P P Q C.2 Prosecution witnesses Q R R C.2.1 PW5 S S T T U U V V  -6- A A B B 13. PW5 is Miss Choi. She gave a witness statement to the police C when she was a Due Diligence and Fraud Investigation Assistant Manager C of the Mox Bank in April 2024; she was later promoted. D D E 14. PW5’s witness statement is admitted under s 65B of the E Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Exh P12 / English translation P12A). She F F also gives evidence in court. G G 15. In court, PW5 produces Exh P13 to explain how the bank H H notified the account holder in the instant case by SMS and email of any I transaction and application for change of contacts. Such notifications I would be sent to the account holder’s bind-device registered with the bank. J J K 16. About the bind-device, PW5 says one account can only have K one bind-device registered at any time. If the account holder wants to L L change his bind-device, he need to apply to dismiss the original bind- M device by logging in with his ID and password. The account holder would M then receive a one-time password in his bind-device and he would be N N alerted that another device had just been logging onto his account. O O 17. Referring to Exh P13, PW5 says the record shows the original P P bind-device for the defendant’s account on 3 June 2021 was an Apple Q iPhone X. It was changed to an Apple iPhone 6 on 14 November 2021 and Q changed back to the said Apple iPhone X on 15 November 2021; on 16 R R November 2021, the registration was changed back to the said Apple S iPhone 6; it was later further changed to a Xiaomi M2010 on 17 November S 2021 and then to another Xiaomi M2010 (with a different device T T correlation ID) on 29 November 2021. Hence, a total of four bind-devices U U V V  -7- A A B B had been registered at different times for the defendant’s account since its C opening on 3 June 2021. C D D 18. In her witness statement (Exh P12), PW5 says the email / E phone number / address registered with the bank when the defendant E opened his account on 3 June 2021 were respectively: F F “[email protected] / 5330 9874 / Flat 1104, Floor 11, Yiu Fung G House, Tin Yiu Est, Tin Shui Wai”. Those particulars were amended on 17 G November 2021 to “[email protected] / 6017 2240 / Flat H H 1103, Floor 11, Ching Hoi House, Tin Ching Est, Tin Shui Wai”. PW5 I says the amendments could be made on the Mox application. The applicant I had to log onto the account by submitting the account-holder’s ID number J J and the email / phone number / address that had been registered with the K bank when the defendant opened the account on 3 June 2021. K L L 19. About the many transactions, PW5 says the bank would notify M the account holder instantly by SMS and email of each deposit and M withdrawal. Since the account holder had engaged the ‘PUSH N N DISABLED’ function, the messages from the bank would not pop up in O his current bind-device. However, those SMS and email notifications O would still reach the account holder’s bind-device for him to check. Also, P P the account holder could see such information in the Mox application. Q Q 20. PW5 only joined the Mox Bank in January 2023. Defence R R Counsel suggests to her that the notification procedures around 2021 might S not be the same as she now testifies. PW5 disagrees. She says she has S checked the internal procedures with reference to the guidelines set by the T T management and understands that there have been no such changes as U U V V  -8- A A B B counsel suggests. She also says she had been a customer of the bank before C she joined the bank. C D D C.2.2 PW6 E E 21. PW6 is Mr. Fung. He made the two bank affirmations F F (Exh. P2 and P3; P2 relates to the first 9,859 transactions [T1-T9859] of G the defendant’s account; P3 covers the remaining 10,000 transactions G [T9860-T19859] ). H H I 22. PW6 tells the court how the fact-sheets in the affirmations I should be read. J J K D. The defendant’s voluntary statement K L L 23. The defendant was arrested for deception in relation to Mr. M Lam’s being scammed of some money and two of the deposits M (HK$10,000.19 and HK$1,000.16) went to the defendant’s account on 14 N N February 2022. Under caution, the defendant said “I was just released from O prison on 19th February this year. I did not use the account at that time” O That statement was recorded in the arresting officer’s notebook (Exh P6 / P P English translation P6A) and repeated by the investigator to the defendant Q in the voluntary video-recorded interview (Exh P9; #11-18). Q R R 24. In the interview, the defendant told the investigator that he S worked in a pharmacy as sales earning $26,000 (#35-40). S T T U U V V  -9- A A B B 25. The defendant said his current mobile number was 5298 1125 C and he had used that number for about 6 months. It was a pre-paid phone C card (#41-50). D D E 26. The defendant said he was imprisoned from December 2021 E up to 19 February 2022 for possession of offensive weapon (#51-62). F F G 27. The defendant said he knew nothing of the mobile numbers G 5273 0237 and 9159 3442 (#63-68). H H I 28. The defendant said he only had BOC, HSBC, Hang Seng, I Mox and ZA accounts (#71-72). J J K 29. The defendant said he opened the Mox account in early 2020. K It was an online account. He could not remember its number. He opened L L the account to get a credit card and to build up savings (#93-106). He used M the account right after it was opened, for buying movie tickets and there M was no other use (#113-122). N N O 30. The defendant said there was probably no money in the O account now (#123-126). It was a savings account. He last put money into P P it a long time ago and stopped using the account in the beginning of Q 2021(#128-136). Q R R 31. The defendant said he knew nothing of the FPS (“Faster S Payment System”) account number 6017 2240 (#141-146). S T T U U V V  - 10 - A A B B 32. The defendant said he had lost his Hang Seng card and just C reported its loss last week, in mid-August. He was waiting for the C replacement card to be sent to him (#149-166). He confirmed with the D D investigator that he had not made any earlier report of loss (#167-172). E E 33. The defendant said that after his coming out of prison in F F February 2022, he could not log onto his Mox account when he intended G to buy movie tickets. After failing to log in, he just left the account idle G because he did not have time to deal with it (#189-192). H H I 34. The defendant said he had made enquiry with the Mox Bank. I The staff told him to wait for a few days and to call again. The defendant J J did not call the bank again until he was out (of prison). By then, it was K mid-March (#193-198). K L L 35. In #215-218, the investigator asked about the defendant’s M Alipay. The defendant replied he started using Alipay in 2017 and said M “Because (it) has my identity card as well.” [He did not take the chance to N N tell the investigator that he had lost his ID card around 17 November 2021 O as he now asserts in court.] O P P 36. In #231-234, the investigator asked what device the defendant Q would use for Alipay, the defendant said “iPhone.” [Again, the defendant Q did not take the chance to tell the investigator that he had lost his two R R iPhones around 17 November 2021, allegedly together with his ID card.] S S 37. The investigator enquired about some suspicious transactions. T T The defendant said he did not use his Mox account anymore and he knew U U V V  - 11 - A A B B nothing of the funds in it after he had stopped using the account (#241- C 246). C D D 38. The defendant said he knew nothing of the names, telephone E numbers and bank accounts raised by the investigator (#247-310). E F F 39. The investigator asked the defendant if he had ever lent his G Mox account to anyone. The defendant hesitantly replied “Er… (I) G suppose not.” (#323-324). H H I 40. The account had to be logged in with the defendant’s phone I number and password. The investigator asked if he had given his phone J J number and password to others. The defendant again hesitantly answered K “Er … no.” (#325-328). K L L 41. When the defendant opened the account in June 2021, the M mobile number used for registration was 5460 3071. The investigator M asked the defendant why he did not use that number afterwards. The N N defendant did not say he had lost his phone. Instead, he told the O investigator “Because at that time, er… why didn’t (I) use (it)? (I) mean O at that time, ah, it seems that (I) didn’t pay, didn’t pay the phone bill, and P P then (I) didn’t, didn’t use (it) any longer.” (#329-338) Q Q 42. The investigator asked again if the defendant had lent the R R password of his account to anyone. The defendant again hesitantly said S “Er…(I) suppose (I) haven‘t either.” (#339-340). S T T U U V V  - 12 - A A B B 43. The defendant said the Mox bank would probably send e- C statement to his email address “[email protected]” but he seldom C checked it (#345-370). D D E 44. The defendant said he had not received calls from the Mox E Bank about any suspicious transactions. He said his phone service had F F been cut as he had been in prison for some months and the phone bills had G not been settled during that period. After that, he tried to ask the mobile G service provider to reactivate the number but it was not successful (#371- H H 378). I I 45. The defendant said he did not ask the Mox Bank of any J J transaction record (#381-382). He failed to reactivate the account because K he could not get back his old mobile number to receive any verification K code from the bank (#383-388). L L M 46. The defendant said he had not touched his Mox account since M his going to prison and after coming out of it. He was not aware of its N N further activities and the bank had not sent him monthly statements (#390- O 394). O P P E. Mid-stage Q Q 47. Defence Counsel makes no submission at this stage. I rule the R R defendant has a case to answer on the charge. S S F. Defence case T T U U V V  - 13 - A A B B 48. The defendant elects to give evidence. He calls no other C witnesses. C D D 49. There were Defence Exhibits D1 to D6. E E F.1 Agreed facts F F G 50. Exh D3 is a set of s 65C agreed facts. It says: G H H (a) When the defendant was admitted to LCK Reception I Centre on 8 December 2021, he did not have his ID card I in his possession; J J K (b) On 24 February 2022, the defendant reported the loss K of his identity card to the police and alleged he lost it L L on 7 December 2021 (Police report number TSW Div M 22007068). M N N F.2 The defendant’s evidence O O 51. The defendant says he had studied up to Form 5 and had P P started working in the pharmacy business from the age of 14 (summer job). Q Since then, he had been working in the pharmacy trade and thus knew a lot Q of the business. R R S 52. The defendant tries to explain for the many transactions in his S Mox account. He says many customers bought pharmacy merchandize T T through him. Some customers were in Hong Kong; some were in China. U U V V  - 14 - A A B B They would send him money online. He then arranged for the goods to be C delivered and he had to pay the delivery men. C D D 53. The defendant says he did business both for his pharmacy E boss and for himself. In the latter case, he would make a profit for himself. E F F 54. The defendant says he never used his Mox account to pay his G boss for the goods. He would do that through his other accounts. G H H 55. As to why many sums were in round figures, the defendant I says they included his own earnings. I J J 56. The defendant says sometimes he borrowed money from his K relatives like his mother and aunt. Those transactions were also made K through his Mox account. L L M 57. The defendant says his Mox account was bound to his iPhone M x. He only need to key in his password when he used the Mox application N N on the phone (and also his user ID on the first occasion when he used that O bind-device). Sometimes, he would use his other phone – an iPhone 6. O Then he would receive a one-time verification code on his iPhone x for P P changing to use iPhone 6. Q Q 58. The defendant says he last used his Mox account at 01:01:07 R R hours on 17 November 2021 (T793). He had drinks with friends that night. S When he woke up in a hotel, he was alone and found that he had lost his S two iPhones and a wallet containing some money, ID card and several bank T T cards including the Mox card. U U V V  - 15 - A A B B C 59. The defendant says he was not the one who on 17 November C 2021 applied to the Mox Bank to change the registered email address, D D mobile number and residential address (see para. 18 above). As to the new E email address and mobile number, he had no idea whose they were. The E new address was his previous residence but he had moved out of that place F F with his family to live now at the Yiu Fung House address originally G registered with the Mox Bank and he had been living there continuously. G The defendant says the Ching Hoi House premises had been surrendered H H to the Housing Department. He and his family had no relationship with I that old address since then. I J J 60. The defendant says the first 793 transactions in the Mox K account (T1-T793) were all related to him. K L L 61. In any transaction, there would be an “originator” (the paying M party) and a “beneficiary” (the receiving party). Sometimes, the defendant M was the originator when he paid others out of the account; sometimes he N N was the beneficiary when others paid into his account. O O 62. The defendant says he knew the other originators and P P beneficiaries in T1-T793 (see Exh D5 – the “originator list” and Exh D6 – Q the “beneficiary list”). But for T794-T19859, he was not responsible at all Q and he knew none of those originators and beneficiaries there. R R S G. Final submission S T T G.1 Prosecution U U V V  - 16 - A A B B C 63. The Prosecutor says the defendant is not credible. She points C out the defendant’s claims in court contradict his previous statement to the D D police in many places. She comments that the defendant’s explanations E over T1-T793 do not make sense. E F F 64. The Prosecutor says the Mox account was all along used as a G temporary repository of funds to launder money. The defendant was G always in control of it and another person just acted for him when he was H H in custody between 8 December 2021 and 19 February 2022. I I G.2 Defence J J K 65. Defence Counsel says the defendant’s claims might be true. K He points out the defendant did not have his ID card with him when he was L L taken into CSD custody on 8 December 2021. M M H. Discussion N N O 66. The defendant opened his Mox account on 3 June 2021. It O was first active on 6 June 2021 and last active on 14 April 2022. The bank P P closed the account on 3 June 2022. During a period of ten odd months (6 Q June 2021 - 14 April 2022), there were 19,859 transactions (T1-T19859) Q including 15,485 deposits totaling HK$27,422,127.81 and 4,374 R R withdrawals totaling HK$27,404,823.52. S S 67. The defendant was in CSD custody between 8 December 2021 T T and 19 February 2022. During that period of two odd months, there were U U V V  - 17 - A A B B 9,845 transactions consisting of 7,807 deposits totaling HK$13,823,893.27 C (including the scam-victim Mr. Lam’s two payments of HK$10,000.19 and C HK$1,000.16 on 14 February 2022) and 2,038 withdrawals totaling D D HK$13,742,422. E E 68. Despite his incarceration between 8 December 2021 and 19 F F February 2022, Prosecution say the defendant was in control of his Mox G account throughout and another person collaborated with him in using the G account to launder money. H H I 69. The defendant elects to give evidence in court. His defence is I he was only responsible for T1-T793, which were all legitimate deals and J J he had nothing to do with T794-T19859. Someone took control of his K account without his knowledge and authority after he had lost his iPhones K and a wallet containing his ID card with several bankcards (including the L L Mox card) around 17 November 2021. M M H.1 T1-T793 N N O 70. The defendant says he was only responsible for T1-T793. He O had been using his Mox account from its opening in June 2021 until he lost P P control of it around 17 November 2021. Q Q 71. Between 6 June 2021 and 01:01:07 hours on 17 November R R 2021, there were 266 deposits totaling HK$228,926 and 527 withdrawals S totaling HK$229,061.04. The defendant claims those 793 transactions S were all for lawful business. T T U U V V  - 18 - A A B B H.1.1 Originators and beneficiaries in T1-T793 C C 72. In T1-T793, apart from the defendant sometimes as D D “originator” and sometimes as “beneficiary”, there were 69 other E originators (see MFI-1) and 41 other beneficiaries (see MFI-2). E F F 73. Of the 69 originators and 41 beneficiaries, 23 names in each G list are the same. That is, 23 of those originators were beneficiaries at other G times1. H H I 74. The defendant says he knew all the originators and I beneficiaries; he classifies them into different categories. J J K 75. Of those 69 originators, the defendant says 47 were his friends K (marked in blue; see Exh D5), 14 were his clients (marked in green), 5 were L L workers delivering goods for him to the clients (marked in yellow) and 3 M were his relatives (Chan Shuk Yu - his mother, Chan Kit Yu - his aunt and M To Hoi Shan - his wife). N N O 76. Of the 41 beneficiaries, the defendant says 28 were his friends O (marked in blue; see Exh D6), 6 were his clients (marked in green), 6 were P P workers delivering goods for him to the clients (marked in yellow) and one Q was his wife (To Hoi Shan). Q R R 77. The defendant says he used his Mox account for lawful S transactions: loans and payments between himself and friends/relatives; S T T 1 The repeaters are marked with asterisks on the “beneficiary” list [Exh D6] but #29 “Rana Bijay” has been left out inadvertently during counting, who is also # 47 in the “originator” list [Exh D5]. U U V V  - 19 - A A B B payments from clients and refunds to clients; payments to delivery workers C and refunds from delivery workers. C D D 78. Analysis of the funds, however, does not support the E defendant’s claim (see the data sheet prepared by Prosecution [MFI-5]). E F F 79. For example, a so-called “client” Leung Sum Wah paid five G times into the account (see MFI-3; 5 incomings totaling $2,600 2) but he G received more frequently and more money from the defendant’s account H H (28 outgoings totaling $12,0923). I I 80. Also, a so-called “delivery man” Cheung Wing Ho received J J totally $20,000 from the defendant’s account for alleged deliveries (see K MFI-4; 48 outgoings 4 ) but he paid back $3,000 into the account (3 K incomings5). L L M 81. The defendant tries to explain for the above phenomena. He M says there were refunds due to undelivered goods or excess payments. He N N also says he had received money from Leung Sum Wah through another O source. O P P 82. However, what the defendant says about refunds, excess Q payments or Leung Sum Wah paying him through another source are all Q mere assertions. R R S S 2 All 5 pay-in amounts were in round figures. 3 Except for one pay-out of $492, the other 27 pay-out’s were all in round figures. T 4 T All 48 pay-out amounts were in round figures. 5 All 3 pay-in amounts were in round figures. U U V V  - 20 - A A B B 83. It is also worthwhile to note that the so-called “client” Leung C Sum Wah made his five payments within a short period of 24 hours and C indeed the first four were made within just three and a half hours (see MFI- D D 3). E E F F H.1.2 Temporary repository of funds (T1-T793) G G 84. For T1-T793 (between 6 June 2021 and 01:01:07 hours on 17 H H November 2021), there were 266 deposits totaling HK$228,926 and 527 I withdrawals totaling HK$229,061.04. Sometimes, there were many I transactions in a day. The funds accumulated and then went out of the J J account soon in different amounts. That suggests the account was being K used as a temporary repository of funds. The phenomenon does not K correspond to any known legitimate business but is a typical feature of L L “money laundering”. M M 85. There is another typical feature of “money laundering”. That N N is, quite a number of “originators” were also “beneficiaries” (see para. 73 O above). O P P 86. Some of the transactions in T1-T793 were related to the Q defendant’s mother, aunt and wife but they accounted for a very small Q portion of the funds. Even so, some of their transactions look suspicious. R R For example, the wife To Hoi Shan received money twice within 7 minutes S on 20 July 2021 (T398 & T399); paid out twice within 3 minutes on 28 S September 2021 (T743 & T744); paid out once and received money once T T within 6 minutes on 13 October 2021 (T755 & T756); the aunt Chan Kit U U V V  - 21 - A A B B Yu paid out twice within about 35 minutes on 14 November 2021 (T780 & C T782); the mother Chan Shuk Yu and the aunt Chan Kit Yu each paid out C once within about 40 minutes on 17 November 2021 (T790 & T792). D D E 87. All in all, I do not accept the defendant’s claim of legitimate E dealings in relation to T1-T793. F F G H.2 T794-T19859 G H H 88. The defendant says he went for drinks and dinner with friends I on the night of 16 November 2021 to celebrate a female friend Liu Pik Ki’s I birthday. That night, he transferred money to Liu a few times during dinner J J and drinking after Liu had paid the costs first; he immediately paid her back K his due share. K L L 89. Exh P2A shows the defendant first paid Liu on 15 June 2021. M Since then, there were a number of payments to Liu; sometimes several M times a day (e.g., twice on 1 November 2021 / T762 & T764; twice on 2 N N November 2021 / T766 & T767; twice on 13 November 2021 / T773 & O T775; twice on 14 November 2021 / T781 & T783; three times on 16 O November 2021 / T785, T786 & T788); and again three times on 17 P P November 2021 in a mere 45-minute period between 00:16:13 hours and Q 01:01:17 hours / T789, T791 & T793). Q R R 90. The defendant says he last paid back $500 to Liu (T793). S Later, he got too drunk. A friend surnamed Chu took him to a hotel, paid S the bill and left him there. When the defendant woke up, he found his T T wallet missing which contained some money, several bankcards and his ID U U V V  - 22 - A A B B card. He also lost his iPhone x (with two prepaid phone cards in it) and C iPhone 6. He later made enquires with Chu and other friends who drank C with him that night but to no avail. D D E 91. The defendant claims he had lost control of his Mox account E after T793. F F G H.2.1 Alleged loss of many properties around 17 November 2021 G H H 92. The defendant says he did not make any enquiry or file I complaint with the hotel after the loss. He subsequently contacted the I Immigration Department for a replacement ID card. During that pandemic J J period, it would take him some months to get a new card. K K 93. The defendant says he had a total of 9 bank accounts at that L L time. Several were on-line bank accounts including the Mox one. There M was virtually no money in those on-line bank accounts so he only reported M loss of bankcards to Hang Seng, BOC and HSBC. He had not yet got the N N replacement ID card by then. Nevertheless, he managed to apply for new O cards from Hang Seng, BOC and HSBC with his passport. O P P 94. In his VRI, when being asked of his Hang Seng Card, the Q defendant told the officer that he had reported the loss to Hang Seng Bank Q shortly before his arrest, i.e., in mid-August 2022. R R S 95. I find such delayed report to the Hang Seng Bank odd; there S was an inexplicable lapse of 9 months after the alleged mid-November T T 2021 loss. U U V V  - 23 - A A B B C 96. The defendant’s purported reports of loss to the Immigration C Department and the Hang Seng Bank as well as to BOC and HSBC are all D D mere assertions; there is no proof. But even if he at some stage did tell the E Immigration Department and those banks that he had lost his cards and E applied for new ones, it still cannot prove he had really lost the properties F F as he now asserts. G G 97. The defendant apparently had not alerted the Mox Bank H H immediately after the alleged loss. He tries to explain that the account was I not important to him. I J J 98. The account was obviously not unimportant to the defendant. K For the five odd months which the defendant acknowledges using the K account (between 6 June 2021 and 01:01:07 hours on 17 November 2021), L L there were 793 transactions consisting of 266 deposits totaling M HK$228,926 and 527 withdrawals totaling HK$229,061.04. M N N 99. The defendant says when he contacted the Mox Bank, an O unidentified staff on the phone said he would go back to the defendant but O he never did. P P Q 100. It sounds unusual for a bank (albeit an online bank) to ignore Q a reported loss of card in that way, particularly when the account had a R R large numbers of in’s and out’s. S S 101. Furthermore, what the defendant tells the court now is not the T T same as he told the investigator in his VRI. There, he told the investigator U U V V  - 24 - A A B B that the Mox staff told him to wait for a few days and to call again. The C defendant said he himself did not call the bank again until he was out of C prison (see para. 34 above). D D E 102. The defendant says he was unable to get back the lost E registered mobile number as it was merely a pre-paid phone card. He thus F F could not receive any verification code from the bank to further deal with G the Mox Bank and his account. G H H 103. People sometimes do lose their phones or they would change I their mobile number. It is unimaginable that the staff of the Mox Bank I would not advise the defendant on how he could apply to change his J J registered mobile number to a new one or to use other means to receive K any verification code for the further handling of his account. K L L 104. Another strange feature of the defendant’s saying is his failure M to inform or complain to the hotel about the alleged loss of his many M properties once he found it out or at any later time. N N O 105. When the defendant was taken into CSD custody for O possession of offensive weapon on 8 December 2021, he indeed did not P P have any ID card with him. However, he only made a report of loss to the Q police on 24 February 2022, i.e. five days after his release on 19 February Q 2022. And that was over three months after his alleged loss in mid- R R November the previous year. S S 106. That loss report on 24 February 2022 shows the date of the T T defendant’s losing his ID card was 7 December 2021. In court, the U U V V  - 25 - A A B B defendant claims the date of 7 December 2021 was suggested to him by C the interviewing officer as he himself could not remember the exact date. C D D 107. Losing many properties including ID card after celebrating E with friends for Liu’s birthday would not be a blurry experience. The E defendant could have found out the exact date from Liu and those friends F F going out with him that night. Or he could have found out the date from G the Immigration Department papers if he had really reported loss of his ID G card to the department by then. H H I 108. In any event, it is unusual for a police officer to make that kind I of suggestion to a person reporting the loss of his ID card. J J K 109. It is further to be noted that the defendant failed to raise in his K report that he had lost other properties. He also did not tell the police of L L the circumstances surrounding the alleged loss. M M 110. In court, the defendant says he did not report the loss of his N N wallet as it contained only a few hundred dollars. He alleges he applied O for replacement cards from some banks only (see para. 93 above). He O explains for the deferred reporting of the loss of his ID card by saying he P P was troubled by a pending court case. Q Q 111. On the whole, the defendant cannot explain for his failure to R R enquire with the hotel, his deferred reporting of the loss of ID card and his S failure to tell the police of the other alleged lost properties plus the S circumstances of the purported loss. T T U U V V  - 26 - A A B B 112. I do not believe the defendant had really lost his ID card, C bankcards, iPhones etc. on or around 17 November 2021. I am sure if he C had ever made any report of loss to the Immigration Department, the police D D or any bank, they were merely to serve the defendant’s own purpose rather E than as reports of genuine loss. E F F H.2.2 Losing control of his Mox account G G 113. The defendant says he had no knowledge of those transactions H H after T793 and he had nothing to do with T794 - T19859. He claims he I had written down the passwords on his bankcards. Thus a hacker could I apply to the Mox Bank to change the registration particulars on 17 J J November 2021. The defendant says the hacker might know of his old K address, which could be found in his social media information. K L L 114. The defendant says he at some stage had told the Mox Bank M of the loss of his bankcard but received no response. He then left the M account idle as there was no money in it and the account was not important N N to him. O O 115. The account was obviously not unimportant to the defendant P P (see para. 98 above). It is hard to believe the defendant would simply Q ignore the account after the alleged irresponsible handling by the bank staff Q of his reported loss of the Mox card. R R S 116. After T793 at 01:01:07 hours on 17 November 2021, T794 S came about 16 hours later at 17:40:18 hours that day. It was a deposit of T T HK$350.09 from one Chu Man Fung. U U V V  - 27 - A A B B C 117. Up to 23:59:22 hours on the same day, there were 43 other C transactions (T795 - T837). Some deposited hundreds or even thousands D D into the account (as much as HK$30,000 in T803). And after 17 November E 2021, there were many more sums deposited into the account (the last one E being $20,000.87 in T19851; on 14 April 2022). In total, there were 15,219 F F deposits after T793 up to 14 April 2022 when the account was last active, G totaling HK$27,193,201.81. G H H 118. It is unimaginable that a hacker would use another person’s I bank account to receive so much money over an extended period of months I without the account holder’s consent just because he got hold of the J J account holder’s personal particulars; then daringly on the same day K applied to the bank to change the registered details to gain control of the K account, and then ran the account as his own with many incomings and L L outgoings. Did the hacker not worry the account holder might find out the M situation and take up the matter with the bank or the police to freeze all the M funds in the account? N N O 119. I do not believe there was such hacker of the defendant’s O account at any time. P P Q H.2.3 CSD custody Q R R 120. It is true the defendant was in CSD custody between 8 S December 2021 and 19 February 2022. During that period, there were S 7,807 deposits totaling HK$13,823,893.27 and 2,038 withdrawals totaling T T HK$13,742,422. The defendant of course could not operate his account U U V V  - 28 - A A B B during CSD custody. But he well knew he had to go to court to meet this C fate. He could have prepared for someone to manage the account for him C in case he would lose his liberty in that court matter. D D E 121. I reject the defendant’s claim that he had lost grip of his E account after T793 and that someone operated the account beyond his F F knowledge and control. I am sure the defendant had arranged for someone G to manage the account on his behalf while he was in CSD custody. G H H H.3 Temporary repository of funds (T794 - T19859) I I 122. Between 6 June 2021 (account first active) and 14 April 2022 J J (last active), there were 15,485 deposits and 4,374 withdrawals. The total K amounts of deposits and withdrawals were HK$27,422,127.81 and K HK$27,404,823.53 respectively. L L M 123. In those ten odd months, there were many transactions in a M day. The other (meaning other than “NOK HIM FRANCO CHAN”) N N originators and beneficiaries in T794 - T19859 appeared to be different O from those in T1 - T793 and the amounts transacted now were mostly with O decimal places rather than mainly round figures. However, the account was P P still used as a temporary repository of funds. The funds accumulated and Q went out of the account soon in different amounts. It is a typical feature of Q “money laundering”. R R S 124. There is another typical feature of “money laundering”. We S have already seen in T1 - T793 that a number of other originators were also T T beneficiaries (see para. 73 above). An analysis of the last 10,000 U U V V  - 29 - A A B B transactions (T9860 - T19859) reveals a similar phenomenon: five of the C top ten other originators were among the top ten other beneficiaries (see C Fund Flow Analysis -- Exh. P5 Annex B / Bundle #1572-1573). D D E 125. I am sure the defendant’s Mox account was used for money E laundering in T794 - T19859, just like T1 - T793. F F G H.4 Verdict G H H 126. There is evidence a Mr. Lam had been scammed and thus paid I $10,000.19 and $1,000.16 into the defendant’s account on 14 February I 2022. At that time, the defendant was in CSD custody. J J K 127. There is indeed no evidence to prove the defendant was K involved in or knew of the scam. L L M 128. The offence of “money laundering” has two limbs: M “ knowing” and “having reasonable ground to believe”. Prosecutor makes N N it clear that she is pursuing on the second limb only. Thus, there is no need O to prove the defendant knew any funds in his account were crime proceeds. O P P 129. Having considered all the evidence and counsel’s Q submissions, I find as I am sure the defendant together with another person Q were responsible for the management of the account between its opening R R and the end. S S 130. Either the defendant himself applied to the bank for the T T change of registration particulars on 17 November 2021 or he authorized U U V V  - 30 - A A B B another to do it on his behalf. And the defendant had authorized his deputy C to operate the account for him while he was in CSD custody between 8 C December 2021 and 19 February 2022. D D E 131. The total deposits and withdrawals involved were E HK$27,422,127.81 and HK$27,404,823.52 respectively. The amounts F F were huge. The defendant only had provable income of insignificant sums. G G 132. Any reasonable people grasping the defendant’s true situation H H (including his knowledge of all the activities in his Mox account) would be I sure the funds in the account between 6 June 2021 and 14 April 2022, in I whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented proceeds of an J J indictable crime. The defendant and another person collaborating with him K dealt with the funds therein. K L L 133. Prosecution have proved the charge against the defendant M beyond all reasonable doubts. I thus find him guilty as charged. M N N O O ( J Lam ) P P District Judge Q Q R R S S T T U U V V