區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Casewell1/12/2025[2025] HKDC 2053
DCCC977/2024
DCCC 977/2024
[2025] HKDC 2053
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 977 OF 2024
------------------
HKSAR
v
WONG SIU LAN
------------------
Before: Deputy District Judge Casewell
Date: 2 December 2025
Present: Mr Tommy Ho, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Ken Ng, instructed by Jesse H.Y. Kwok, assigned by DLA, for
the defendant
Offence: Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of
an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪
行的得益的財產）
-------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
-------------------------------------
1. In respect of this indictment, the defendant has entered a plea of guilty
to a single charge of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds
of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and
Serious Crimes Ordinance Cap 455.
- 2 -
2. Particulars of the offence set out the details of that offence. The
offence occurred between July 2020 and September 2020 in Hong Kong and the
property particularised as $4,997,144 of Hong Kong currency. It was placed into
the bank account of the defendant and that money in whole or in part directly or
indirectly represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.
3. The defendant has agreed the facts which show that the defendant
herself opened the bank account in question on 28 February 2014. At the time, she
was a full-time sales person. She was the sole signatory of the account and had an
ATM card provided with it.
4. In the relevant financial fiscal year of 2019/2020, she was a salesperson
with an annual income in the region of HK$288,000. The money laundering
activities on the account were discovered as a result of the payment of certain monies
into that account between 28 July 2020 and 5 September 2020.
5. In total, there were a number of prosecution witnesses, 9 in total, who
had been defrauded of money in respect of their applications for low interest loans
to be approved. They had paid monies, these 9 prosecution witnesses, into the
defendant’s account between those dates in a total of $3,704,000 by way of cheques
and transfers.
6. There were other activities on the account showing payments between
18 August 2020 and 12 September 2020 of $1,293,144 in total in respect of 6
different transfers. The transaction records of the account between the relevant
dates, that is July and September 2020, are said to show money laundering mirror
patterns. There were a total of 20 deposits totalling $4,997,144 making a transfer
of some PWs 1 to 9 and the transfers from unknown sources into the account, a total
of just over $5,000,000 were immediately withdrawn from the account.
- 3 -
7. The defendant herself was arrested on 1 June 2024 for obtaining
property by deception. The prosecution base the application of conviction on an
inference to be drawn that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe
the property, namely the total sums particularised in the indictment, represented any
person’s proceeds of an indictable offence. That inference can be drawn and I have
drawn it to convict the defendant.
8. As far as the defendant’s background is concerned, she is a lady of, I
think it is 53 years old now and of clear record. This is, I think can be described as
an unfortunate case, certainly a person of clear record involved here at not a young
age, she is now 53 years old. I am told she had opened the bank account a long
time ago back in 2014 for the payment and receiving of salary. Sometime, she says
in March to April 2020, she became acquainted with a person called “Lam” who
became her boyfriend at the time. She understood him to be a subcontractor in the
construction industry, knew he was in possession of large amounts of cash. She
gave him permission in July 2020 to deposit monies into her account and withdraw
money from her account. She also deposited and withdrew money for him.
9. She says that the deposits and withdrawals of money stopped in
September 2020 when the bank account was frozen. She had a falling out with this
man, Lam, and I am told that in mitigation that he has died from a heart attack in
Hong Kong.
10. The defendant was arrested in June 2023 and has been on bail since
then up until December 2023 and she has been remanded, I understand, since mid-
June 2024.
11. Now to deal with the approach to sentencing. I note before I deal with
the approach to sentencing there is an application for enhancement of sentence in
this case which is supported by a statement from Chief Inspector Li which is dated
27 November 2025. The statement itself sets out the grounds upon which the
- 4 -
enhancement of sentence can be made by the court. I understand the application
for enhancement is not opposed but my attention is drawn to the relative numbers of
cases that have at least plateaued and slightly withdrawn over the course between
January and October 2025 and it is submitted that gives the court grounds to have
some discretion in the extent of enhancement that is to be imposed in respect of this
sentence.
12. Now turning to the approach to sentence, this can be found from a
number of cases. I have been referred to them by the defence. There is of course
the case of Secretary for Justice. I will deal with it in this way. In determining
the appropriate sentence for money laundering in courts, consider guidelines
established in previous cases. In this case, there is no operative guideline but
reference to be made to the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536, which
in itself have no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing with the proceeds
for an indictable offence but a number of factors can be taken into account when
determining sentence. For example, the amount of money involved, that is a major
consideration, not necessarily about a benefit received by the defendant in the
transaction.
13. The degree of culpability of the offence lies in the assistance, support
and encouragement offered to the commission of an indictable offence, so the
defendant’s level of participation and the number of occasions which they are
involved in the money laundering activities are relevant factors to be considered.
The offence of dealing with the proceeds from the indictable offence does not
necessarily have any direct correlation with the indictable offence in question. If
the indictable offence can be identified, the court may take that into account in
imposing the sentence for that indictable offence or at least taking it into
consideration.
- 5 -
14. If the case has an international element, that is in itself an aggravating
factor. There appears to be no suggestion that is the case in these circumstances.
Also to be considered at the length of time that the offence lasts for.
15. In the case of HKSAR v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the
Court of Appeal considered that the sentence for money laundering should mainly
reflect the amount of black money laundered and not the benefit obtained by the
defendant or others.
16. If there is information to prove the black money originated from a
serious crime then that again would also be an aggravating factor.
17. They also make reference to the case of HKSAR v Boma Amaso at
CACC 335/2010 which set out a total of eight separate factors and summarises the
factors that have been set out in other cases and these are all matters that the court
would have regard to when determining the operative sentence for the case.
18. In Boma Amaso, the court said that the sentencing court should have
regard to the role of the offender and the acts performed by them. In this regard,
the director of a laundering operational scheme should attract a greater sentence than
the person engaged by him. Sentence should be sufficient to deter those who might
be prevailed upon by directing minds. In the case of a person down the chain, the
court will wish to have regard to whether the benefit has been received and if so the
nature and size of the benefit but within the category of persons down the chain there
will be gradations of culpability. So, for example, a drug addict or petty crook is
paid a small sum to open an account or hand over its operation to another with no
more participation, no more knowledge to that it is going to be used as some sort of
crime is much less culpable than an offender of a different sort not used in that way.
19. Having regard to the defendant’s role in this case, it appears to be allied
with the fact that this man who was given use of her account that she was in an
- 6 -
intimate relationship with him at the time and that is and would be a mitigating factor
in consideration of sentence.
20. Also in respect of the sentence of this defendant, I take into account
letters of commendation that have been written about her, show her to be a lady of
modest means with a charitable heart and good and true friends and it is unfortunate
to see a lady of that nature involved in an offence of this nature and I consider it to
be for her completely out of character.
21. In respect of the appropriate starting point for sentence in this case, I
have been referred by the defence to the case of Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok
Keung, CAAR 13/2010, where a range of starting points can be called into a certain
range of amounts of money laundered. Based on that case where the range is
between $3 million to $6 million, a starting point would be in the range of 4 years
or so. In this case, there is a total of some, almost some $5 million that have been
laundered.
22. I also bear in mind in respect of the defendant, in a letter to me she has
taken full responsibility for this offence and has approached it in a mature and
sensible frame of mind.
23. Having regard to the actual sentence that will be imposed, I have
determined that a starting point for sentence in this case should be 36 months’
imprisonment. The defendant has pleaded guilty, she is entitled to a full one-third
discount for that which will reduce her sentence to 24 months’ imprisonment.
24. I have already said that the prosecution has applied under section 27(2)
of OSCO for an enhancement of sentence. It is not opposed and there are grounds
for such an enhancement set out in the statement of Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam.
- 7 -
25. I consider an enhancement of sentence in the region of 20 per cent
would be appropriate. In this case that would mean an addition of 5 months’
imprisonment to the sentence I have already calculated.
26. That leaves a final sentence of 29 months’ imprisonment for this
offence and that is the sentence of the court.
(Casewell)
Deputy District Judge
DCCC 977/2024
[2025] HKDC 2053
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 977 OF 2024
------------------
HKSAR
v
WONG SIU LAN
------------------
Before: Deputy District Judge Casewell
Date: 2 December 2025
Present: Mr Tommy Ho, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Ken Ng, instructed by Jesse H.Y. Kwok, assigned by DLA, for
the defendant
Offence: Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of
an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪
行的得益的財產）
-------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
-------------------------------------
1. In respect of this indictment, the defendant has entered a plea of guilty
to a single charge of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds
of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and
Serious Crimes Ordinance Cap 455.
- 2 -
2. Particulars of the offence set out the details of that offence. The
offence occurred between July 2020 and September 2020 in Hong Kong and the
property particularised as $4,997,144 of Hong Kong currency. It was placed into
the bank account of the defendant and that money in whole or in part directly or
indirectly represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.
3. The defendant has agreed the facts which show that the defendant
herself opened the bank account in question on 28 February 2014. At the time, she
was a full-time sales person. She was the sole signatory of the account and had an
ATM card provided with it.
4. In the relevant financial fiscal year of 2019/2020, she was a salesperson
with an annual income in the region of HK$288,000. The money laundering
activities on the account were discovered as a result of the payment of certain monies
into that account between 28 July 2020 and 5 September 2020.
5. In total, there were a number of prosecution witnesses, 9 in total, who
had been defrauded of money in respect of their applications for low interest loans
to be approved. They had paid monies, these 9 prosecution witnesses, into the
defendant’s account between those dates in a total of $3,704,000 by way of cheques
and transfers.
6. There were other activities on the account showing payments between
18 August 2020 and 12 September 2020 of $1,293,144 in total in respect of 6
different transfers. The transaction records of the account between the relevant
dates, that is July and September 2020, are said to show money laundering mirror
patterns. There were a total of 20 deposits totalling $4,997,144 making a transfer
of some PWs 1 to 9 and the transfers from unknown sources into the account, a total
of just over $5,000,000 were immediately withdrawn from the account.
- 3 -
7. The defendant herself was arrested on 1 June 2024 for obtaining
property by deception. The prosecution base the application of conviction on an
inference to be drawn that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe
the property, namely the total sums particularised in the indictment, represented any
person’s proceeds of an indictable offence. That inference can be drawn and I have
drawn it to convict the defendant.
8. As far as the defendant’s background is concerned, she is a lady of, I
think it is 53 years old now and of clear record. This is, I think can be described as
an unfortunate case, certainly a person of clear record involved here at not a young
age, she is now 53 years old. I am told she had opened the bank account a long
time ago back in 2014 for the payment and receiving of salary. Sometime, she says
in March to April 2020, she became acquainted with a person called “Lam” who
became her boyfriend at the time. She understood him to be a subcontractor in the
construction industry, knew he was in possession of large amounts of cash. She
gave him permission in July 2020 to deposit monies into her account and withdraw
money from her account. She also deposited and withdrew money for him.
9. She says that the deposits and withdrawals of money stopped in
September 2020 when the bank account was frozen. She had a falling out with this
man, Lam, and I am told that in mitigation that he has died from a heart attack in
Hong Kong.
10. The defendant was arrested in June 2023 and has been on bail since
then up until December 2023 and she has been remanded, I understand, since mid-
June 2024.
11. Now to deal with the approach to sentencing. I note before I deal with
the approach to sentencing there is an application for enhancement of sentence in
this case which is supported by a statement from Chief Inspector Li which is dated
27 November 2025. The statement itself sets out the grounds upon which the
- 4 -
enhancement of sentence can be made by the court. I understand the application
for enhancement is not opposed but my attention is drawn to the relative numbers of
cases that have at least plateaued and slightly withdrawn over the course between
January and October 2025 and it is submitted that gives the court grounds to have
some discretion in the extent of enhancement that is to be imposed in respect of this
sentence.
12. Now turning to the approach to sentence, this can be found from a
number of cases. I have been referred to them by the defence. There is of course
the case of Secretary for Justice. I will deal with it in this way. In determining
the appropriate sentence for money laundering in courts, consider guidelines
established in previous cases. In this case, there is no operative guideline but
reference to be made to the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536, which
in itself have no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing with the proceeds
for an indictable offence but a number of factors can be taken into account when
determining sentence. For example, the amount of money involved, that is a major
consideration, not necessarily about a benefit received by the defendant in the
transaction.
13. The degree of culpability of the offence lies in the assistance, support
and encouragement offered to the commission of an indictable offence, so the
defendant’s level of participation and the number of occasions which they are
involved in the money laundering activities are relevant factors to be considered.
The offence of dealing with the proceeds from the indictable offence does not
necessarily have any direct correlation with the indictable offence in question. If
the indictable offence can be identified, the court may take that into account in
imposing the sentence for that indictable offence or at least taking it into
consideration.
- 5 -
14. If the case has an international element, that is in itself an aggravating
factor. There appears to be no suggestion that is the case in these circumstances.
Also to be considered at the length of time that the offence lasts for.
15. In the case of HKSAR v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the
Court of Appeal considered that the sentence for money laundering should mainly
reflect the amount of black money laundered and not the benefit obtained by the
defendant or others.
16. If there is information to prove the black money originated from a
serious crime then that again would also be an aggravating factor.
17. They also make reference to the case of HKSAR v Boma Amaso at
CACC 335/2010 which set out a total of eight separate factors and summarises the
factors that have been set out in other cases and these are all matters that the court
would have regard to when determining the operative sentence for the case.
18. In Boma Amaso, the court said that the sentencing court should have
regard to the role of the offender and the acts performed by them. In this regard,
the director of a laundering operational scheme should attract a greater sentence than
the person engaged by him. Sentence should be sufficient to deter those who might
be prevailed upon by directing minds. In the case of a person down the chain, the
court will wish to have regard to whether the benefit has been received and if so the
nature and size of the benefit but within the category of persons down the chain there
will be gradations of culpability. So, for example, a drug addict or petty crook is
paid a small sum to open an account or hand over its operation to another with no
more participation, no more knowledge to that it is going to be used as some sort of
crime is much less culpable than an offender of a different sort not used in that way.
19. Having regard to the defendant’s role in this case, it appears to be allied
with the fact that this man who was given use of her account that she was in an
- 6 -
intimate relationship with him at the time and that is and would be a mitigating factor
in consideration of sentence.
20. Also in respect of the sentence of this defendant, I take into account
letters of commendation that have been written about her, show her to be a lady of
modest means with a charitable heart and good and true friends and it is unfortunate
to see a lady of that nature involved in an offence of this nature and I consider it to
be for her completely out of character.
21. In respect of the appropriate starting point for sentence in this case, I
have been referred by the defence to the case of Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok
Keung, CAAR 13/2010, where a range of starting points can be called into a certain
range of amounts of money laundered. Based on that case where the range is
between $3 million to $6 million, a starting point would be in the range of 4 years
or so. In this case, there is a total of some, almost some $5 million that have been
laundered.
22. I also bear in mind in respect of the defendant, in a letter to me she has
taken full responsibility for this offence and has approached it in a mature and
sensible frame of mind.
23. Having regard to the actual sentence that will be imposed, I have
determined that a starting point for sentence in this case should be 36 months’
imprisonment. The defendant has pleaded guilty, she is entitled to a full one-third
discount for that which will reduce her sentence to 24 months’ imprisonment.
24. I have already said that the prosecution has applied under section 27(2)
of OSCO for an enhancement of sentence. It is not opposed and there are grounds
for such an enhancement set out in the statement of Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam.
- 7 -
25. I consider an enhancement of sentence in the region of 20 per cent
would be appropriate. In this case that would mean an addition of 5 months’
imprisonment to the sentence I have already calculated.
26. That leaves a final sentence of 29 months’ imprisonment for this
offence and that is the sentence of the court.
(Casewell)
Deputy District Judge