區域法院（刑事）Her Honour Judge Ada Yim4/3/2026[2026] HKDC 614
DCCC370/2024
DCCC370B/2024 HKSAR v. MARTI AND ANOTHER
DCCC 370/2024
[2026] HKDC 614
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 370 OF 2024
________________________
HKSAR
V
MARTI (D2)
NANEK (D3)
________________________
Before:
Her Honour Judge Ada Yim in Court
Date:
5 March 2026
Present:
Mr. Trevor Beel, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR
Ms. Nisha Mohamed, instructed by Messrs Tsang, Chan & Woo Solicitors & Notaries, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the 2nd Defendant
Mr. Mohammed Jawadullah Shah, instructed by Messrs Cheung & Choy, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 3rd defendant
Offence:
[1] , [2] , [4] and [5] 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. The defendants (D2 & D3) were each charged with 2 counts of money laundering, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455. They pleaded not guilty and were convicted after trial.
2. The prosecution applies for enhancement of sentence due to the prevalence and harm caused to the community by recent occurrences of money laundering. The defendants raise no objection to the application.
Facts
3. This is a case related to online romance/cloned email scam. Victims were being deceived to deposit money into various bank accounts, some of which was further transferred to other bank accounts. The defendants’ bank accounts were used as the first and second-layer accounts in the present layering scheme.
4. The second defendant D2 at the behest of Ah Ling, for a reward of HK$2,500 each, opened one HASE and one HSBC account and provided the particulars of the accounts together with the ATM cards and PIN passcodes to Ah Ling. D2 together with Ah Ling, believing that the chose in action in the accounts, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented crime proceeds, dealt with the said property.
5. The third defendant D3, at the behest of Kace Alvin, for a reward of HK$1,500 each, opened one HASE and one HSBC account and provided the particulars of the account together with the ATM cards and PIN passcodes to Kace Alvin. D3 together with Kace Alvin, believing that the chose in action in the accounts, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented crime proceeds, dealt with the said property.
6. For D2’s HASE account, between 23 December 2021 and 16 July 2022, there were a total of 86 deposits for the sum of HK$1,646,128.03 and 112 withdrawals for the same amount. (Charge 1)
7. For D2’s HSBC account, between 23 December 2021 and 21 January 2022, there were 9 deposits for the sum of HK$309,200 and 24 withdrawals for the same amount. (Charge 4)
8. For D3’s HASE account, between 17 February 2022 and 25 May 2022, there were a total of 52 deposits for the sum of HK$1,118,242.36 and 78 withdrawals for the same amount. (Charge 2)
9. For D3’s HSBC account, between 21 December 2021 and 12 January 2022, there were a total of 13 deposits for a sum of HK$169,510 and 16 withdrawals for the same amount. (Charge 5)
Background/Mitigation
D2
10. D2 aged 52, clear record. She is a single mother with two grown children working in Indonesia. D2 received 6 years primary and 3 years high school education, she left school around 13 years old and started working as a farmer, helping her family. She first came to Hong Kong in 2002 and continued to work as domestic helper for various Chinese family till 2023. Her last monthly salary was about HK$5,000.
11. With a criminal conviction, it is likely that she will not be able to continue her employment in Hong Kong upon release from jail. Thus, the chance of re-offending is slim. The court is urged to adopt a starting point no more than 3 years imprisonment.
12. And in considering the enhancement, the court is urged to consider that D2 played a very minor role and had no knowledge of the predicated offence. The duration of the offence was short. D2 agreed to most of the prosecution case and has been co-operated with the police. The information from D2 contributed to the arrest of AW.
D3
13. D3 aged 49, clear record. She got married in 2000 and brought up 3 children, the two younger ones are still in school, the children are living in Indonesia while the husband is working in Malaysia. D3 received primary school education and then spent 2 years in a Muslim boarding school. She left the Muslim School in the third year when she was 13 years old. She got married at 24. After getting married, D3 worked in Malaysia in a plywood wood factory until her first child was born. D3 first came to Hong Kong in 2016 continued to work as domestic helper for three Chinese family till 2023. Her last monthly salary was about HK$6,000. Without D3’s contribution, the family encounters financial problems.
14. D3’s role was limited to opening two bank accounts for a small amount of money. She did not know of any other persons involved. She has been co-operated with the police upon her arrest. The information D3 provided led to the arrest of AW.
15. D3’s mother passed away during trial, she is still mourning the loss and wants to return to Indonesia as soon as possible. Furthermore, D3 will not be allowed to continue to work as domestic helper anymore. While staying in Hong Kong, she participated in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign warning other domestic workers about the danger of scams involving ID cards and dangerous drugs.
Sentence
16. A person commits money laundering is liable on conviction upon indictment to a fine of 5 million and to imprisonment for 14 years.
17. Hon Yeung JA (as he then was) has said in HKSAR v Javid Kamran CACC 400/2004 that “money laundering is a very serious offence as it is an attempt to legitimize proceeds from criminal activities. Serious offences are very often motivated by financial gains and those who assist criminals in laundering money, indirectly encourage them in their criminal activities”, that “successful deterrents against money laundering could be effective measures against crime”, and that “it is not feasible to lay down guidelines for sentence of money laundering offence, as there is a wide range of culpability.”
18. The defence refers to HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545. Hon Cheung JA (as he then was) reiterated at para.9 that:
“There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence because the facts vary from case to case.”
And listed out the factors to be taken into account when determining sentence:
i. the amount of money involved is a major consideration;
ii. the defendant’s level of participation;
iii. the sentence imposed on the predicate offence if it can be known;
iv. if the case has an international element; and
v. the length of time the offence lasted
And from the money laundering cases referred in that case with the amounts involved and the sentences passed, Hon Cheung JA observed that:
“[T]he starting point is 3 years or so where the ‘black money’ involved is between $1 million and $2 million; 4 years or so where it is between $3 million and $6 million; and could be over 5 years where it is above $10 million.”
19. The defence also refers to HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, in that case the Court of Appeal emphasized again the importance of deterrence for this kind of offence, pointed out that the amount of money laundered was a significant feature, and set out a non-exhaustive list of other significant features, which includes:
(a) the nature of the predicate offence,
(b) the state of the offender’s knowledge,
(c) whether an international element was involved,
(d) the sophistication of the offence,
(e) whether organised criminal syndicate was involved,
(f) the number of transactions and length of the offence,
(g) whether the offender continued to launder funds after knowing that they were proceeds of a serious crime,
(h) the offender’s role, whether reward was involved and how much.
20. I accept there is no aggravating features in the present case. There is no evidence that the defendants had knowledge of the predicate offence. Both defendants have a clear record, they were typical stooge account holders. They were lured by the ‘quick money’ offered by AW and turned a blind eye to the transactions of their respective bank accounts. Their personal background and the consequences of their conviction do not amount to a mitigating factor.
Participation in a Father Wotherspoon’s campaign
21. It is submitted that D3 participated in a Father Wotherspoon’s campaign, shared her story as a warning to others about the danger of scams involving ID cards and dangerous drugs. This would amount to voluntary work in the community. The defence refers to HKSAR v Kilima Abubakar Abbas CACC 143/2016 and wishes a 3 months discount could be given to D3. It is noted that the starting point adopted in that case was one of 22 years imprisonment. Thus, when the Court of Appeal said a discount of 3 months was the maximum discount to be afforded to a defendant in similar circumstances, the court was talking about 1% of the starting point.
D2
Charge 1
22. For D2’s HASE account, between 23 December 2021 and 16 July 2022, in a period of about 7 months, there were a total of 86 deposits for the sum of 1.6 million HKD and 112 withdrawals for the same amount. D2 has agreed most of the prosecution case. I consider the appropriate starting point is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.
Charge 4
23. For D2’s HSBC account, between 23 December 2021 and 21 January 2022, within a month, there were 9 deposits for the sum of about HK$300,000 and 24 withdrawals for the same amount. I consider the appropriate starting point is one of 2 years’ imprisonment.
24. D2 was convicted after trial. However, due to the proximity of the two offences and D2’s co-operation with the police during the investigation, though she did not identify the WhatsApp number of Ah Ling (AW) to the officer, I order the sentence of both charges to be served concurrently.
D3
Charge 2
25. For D3’s HASE account, between 17 February 2022 and 25 May 2022, in a period of about 3 months, there were a total of 52 deposits for the sum of about 1.1 million HKD and 78 withdrawals for the same amount. D3 has agreed most of the prosecution case. I consider the appropriate starting point is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.
Charge 5
26. For D3’s HSBC account, between 21 December 2021 and 12 January 2022, within a month, there were a total of 13 deposits for a sum of about HK$170,000 and 16 withdrawals for the same amount. I consider the appropriate starting point is one of 2 years’ imprisonment.
27. D3 was convicted after trial, yet I would allow her 2 weeks discount for the voluntary work she undertook. Further, due to the proximity of the two offences, and her co-operation with the police during the investigation, I order the sentence of both charges to be served concurrently.
Enhancement of sentence
28. The prosecution applies for enhancement of the sentence pursuant to section 27(2) of the Ordinance and submits the witness statement of CIP Li Yiu-nam dated 6 March 2026 to support the application. The defendants do not challenge the evidence of CIP Li and raise no objection to the application. I consider and attach full weight to the evidence of CIP Li.
29. Hon. Yeung JA (as he then was) held in HKSAR v Xu Mai Qing CACC 464/2005 at para. 16 that:
“under section 27(11) of OSCO, what the prosecution has to prove is the prevalence of the offence, not the increase in the number of such offences.”
And Hon. Cheung JA (as he then was) held in HKSAR v Chung Chi King CACC 361/2002 at para. 24 that:
“as a matter of statutory construction, the prevalence of the offence must be considered at the time of the sentence since the purpose of an enhanced sentence is to impose a deterrence on potential wrong doers. Hence the time of the commission of the crime is irrelevant.”
30. Very often the predicate offence of money laundering is deception. From the evidence of CIP Li, I am satisfied that offences of deception and money laundering are prevalent and on the increase. In 2020, the total number of deception and money laundering cases were 16,643, but the number keeps on rising, up to 20,114 cases in 2021, 28,936 cases in 2022, 42,004 cases in 2023, 47,063 cases in 2024, 47,701 in 2025 and 4,333 cases up to January 2026.
31. In addition, from the evidence of CIP Li, I am satisfied that the use of stooges for money laundering is increasing in both figures and proportion (in the present case, 3 stooges were involved). The data provided by CIP Li shows that in 2020, among the 2,422 persons arrested, only 760 of them (i.e. 31.38%) were stooges, while the corresponding data shows that use of stooges increases significantly over the years:
In 2021: 3,807 arrested with 2,220 (58.31%) being stooges;
In 2022: 5,264 arrested with 3,708 (70.44%) being stooges;
In 2023: 9,239 arrested with 6,485 (70.19%) being stooges;
In 2024: 10,496 arrested with 7,883 (75.10%) being stooges;
In 2025: 7,542 arrested with 5,355 (71.00%) being stooges; and
Up to January of 2026: 908 arrested with 638 (70.26%) being stooges.
32. I am satisfied that the use of stooge accounts is prevalent in the commission of the offence of money laundering which is one of the specified offences as stipulated in the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, and that the prevalent use of stooges in money laundering offences has caused considerable harm to the community either directly or indirectly. I am satisfied that this is a case where enhancement of sentence should be made.
33. In addition, it is clear from the data provided by CIP Li that most of the arrest since 2021 were stooges, this not only demonstrates the prevalent use of stooges in money laundering offences, but also the number and the proportion of arrested persons who were the masterminds of the predicate offences remain low.
34. Deterring people from acting as stooges will have the effect of deterring people from committing the predicate offences and money laundering offences. The sentence of D4 is not binding on me, I am of the view that to achieve this sentencing purpose, the sentence should be enhanced by one-third. However, to avoid any unnecessary sense of grievance, I enhance the sentence in-line with that of D4, i.e. 25%.
35. For these reasons, the term of imprisonment to be imposed on the defendants are enhanced by 25% accordingly.
ORDER
D2
Charge 1 sentenced to 45 months’ imprisonment
Charge 4 sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with Charge 1.
D3
Charge 2 sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment
Charge 5 sentenced to 29 months’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with Charge 2.
( Ada Yim )
District Judge
DCCC370B/2024 HKSAR v. MARTI AND ANOTHER
DCCC 370/2024
[2026] HKDC 614
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 370 OF 2024
________________________
HKSAR
V
MARTI (D2)
NANEK (D3)
________________________
Before:
Her Honour Judge Ada Yim in Court
Date:
5 March 2026
Present:
Mr. Trevor Beel, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR
Ms. Nisha Mohamed, instructed by Messrs Tsang, Chan & Woo Solicitors & Notaries, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the 2nd Defendant
Mr. Mohammed Jawadullah Shah, instructed by Messrs Cheung & Choy, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 3rd defendant
Offence:
[1] , [2] , [4] and [5] 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. The defendants (D2 & D3) were each charged with 2 counts of money laundering, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455. They pleaded not guilty and were convicted after trial.
2. The prosecution applies for enhancement of sentence due to the prevalence and harm caused to the community by recent occurrences of money laundering. The defendants raise no objection to the application.
Facts
3. This is a case related to online romance/cloned email scam. Victims were being deceived to deposit money into various bank accounts, some of which was further transferred to other bank accounts. The defendants’ bank accounts were used as the first and second-layer accounts in the present layering scheme.
4. The second defendant D2 at the behest of Ah Ling, for a reward of HK$2,500 each, opened one HASE and one HSBC account and provided the particulars of the accounts together with the ATM cards and PIN passcodes to Ah Ling. D2 together with Ah Ling, believing that the chose in action in the accounts, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented crime proceeds, dealt with the said property.
5. The third defendant D3, at the behest of Kace Alvin, for a reward of HK$1,500 each, opened one HASE and one HSBC account and provided the particulars of the account together with the ATM cards and PIN passcodes to Kace Alvin. D3 together with Kace Alvin, believing that the chose in action in the accounts, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented crime proceeds, dealt with the said property.
6. For D2’s HASE account, between 23 December 2021 and 16 July 2022, there were a total of 86 deposits for the sum of HK$1,646,128.03 and 112 withdrawals for the same amount. (Charge 1)
7. For D2’s HSBC account, between 23 December 2021 and 21 January 2022, there were 9 deposits for the sum of HK$309,200 and 24 withdrawals for the same amount. (Charge 4)
8. For D3’s HASE account, between 17 February 2022 and 25 May 2022, there were a total of 52 deposits for the sum of HK$1,118,242.36 and 78 withdrawals for the same amount. (Charge 2)
9. For D3’s HSBC account, between 21 December 2021 and 12 January 2022, there were a total of 13 deposits for a sum of HK$169,510 and 16 withdrawals for the same amount. (Charge 5)
Background/Mitigation
D2
10. D2 aged 52, clear record. She is a single mother with two grown children working in Indonesia. D2 received 6 years primary and 3 years high school education, she left school around 13 years old and started working as a farmer, helping her family. She first came to Hong Kong in 2002 and continued to work as domestic helper for various Chinese family till 2023. Her last monthly salary was about HK$5,000.
11. With a criminal conviction, it is likely that she will not be able to continue her employment in Hong Kong upon release from jail. Thus, the chance of re-offending is slim. The court is urged to adopt a starting point no more than 3 years imprisonment.
12. And in considering the enhancement, the court is urged to consider that D2 played a very minor role and had no knowledge of the predicated offence. The duration of the offence was short. D2 agreed to most of the prosecution case and has been co-operated with the police. The information from D2 contributed to the arrest of AW.
D3
13. D3 aged 49, clear record. She got married in 2000 and brought up 3 children, the two younger ones are still in school, the children are living in Indonesia while the husband is working in Malaysia. D3 received primary school education and then spent 2 years in a Muslim boarding school. She left the Muslim School in the third year when she was 13 years old. She got married at 24. After getting married, D3 worked in Malaysia in a plywood wood factory until her first child was born. D3 first came to Hong Kong in 2016 continued to work as domestic helper for three Chinese family till 2023. Her last monthly salary was about HK$6,000. Without D3’s contribution, the family encounters financial problems.
14. D3’s role was limited to opening two bank accounts for a small amount of money. She did not know of any other persons involved. She has been co-operated with the police upon her arrest. The information D3 provided led to the arrest of AW.
15. D3’s mother passed away during trial, she is still mourning the loss and wants to return to Indonesia as soon as possible. Furthermore, D3 will not be allowed to continue to work as domestic helper anymore. While staying in Hong Kong, she participated in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign warning other domestic workers about the danger of scams involving ID cards and dangerous drugs.
Sentence
16. A person commits money laundering is liable on conviction upon indictment to a fine of 5 million and to imprisonment for 14 years.
17. Hon Yeung JA (as he then was) has said in HKSAR v Javid Kamran CACC 400/2004 that “money laundering is a very serious offence as it is an attempt to legitimize proceeds from criminal activities. Serious offences are very often motivated by financial gains and those who assist criminals in laundering money, indirectly encourage them in their criminal activities”, that “successful deterrents against money laundering could be effective measures against crime”, and that “it is not feasible to lay down guidelines for sentence of money laundering offence, as there is a wide range of culpability.”
18. The defence refers to HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545. Hon Cheung JA (as he then was) reiterated at para.9 that:
“There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence because the facts vary from case to case.”
And listed out the factors to be taken into account when determining sentence:
i. the amount of money involved is a major consideration;
ii. the defendant’s level of participation;
iii. the sentence imposed on the predicate offence if it can be known;
iv. if the case has an international element; and
v. the length of time the offence lasted
And from the money laundering cases referred in that case with the amounts involved and the sentences passed, Hon Cheung JA observed that:
“[T]he starting point is 3 years or so where the ‘black money’ involved is between $1 million and $2 million; 4 years or so where it is between $3 million and $6 million; and could be over 5 years where it is above $10 million.”
19. The defence also refers to HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, in that case the Court of Appeal emphasized again the importance of deterrence for this kind of offence, pointed out that the amount of money laundered was a significant feature, and set out a non-exhaustive list of other significant features, which includes:
(a) the nature of the predicate offence,
(b) the state of the offender’s knowledge,
(c) whether an international element was involved,
(d) the sophistication of the offence,
(e) whether organised criminal syndicate was involved,
(f) the number of transactions and length of the offence,
(g) whether the offender continued to launder funds after knowing that they were proceeds of a serious crime,
(h) the offender’s role, whether reward was involved and how much.
20. I accept there is no aggravating features in the present case. There is no evidence that the defendants had knowledge of the predicate offence. Both defendants have a clear record, they were typical stooge account holders. They were lured by the ‘quick money’ offered by AW and turned a blind eye to the transactions of their respective bank accounts. Their personal background and the consequences of their conviction do not amount to a mitigating factor.
Participation in a Father Wotherspoon’s campaign
21. It is submitted that D3 participated in a Father Wotherspoon’s campaign, shared her story as a warning to others about the danger of scams involving ID cards and dangerous drugs. This would amount to voluntary work in the community. The defence refers to HKSAR v Kilima Abubakar Abbas CACC 143/2016 and wishes a 3 months discount could be given to D3. It is noted that the starting point adopted in that case was one of 22 years imprisonment. Thus, when the Court of Appeal said a discount of 3 months was the maximum discount to be afforded to a defendant in similar circumstances, the court was talking about 1% of the starting point.
D2
Charge 1
22. For D2’s HASE account, between 23 December 2021 and 16 July 2022, in a period of about 7 months, there were a total of 86 deposits for the sum of 1.6 million HKD and 112 withdrawals for the same amount. D2 has agreed most of the prosecution case. I consider the appropriate starting point is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.
Charge 4
23. For D2’s HSBC account, between 23 December 2021 and 21 January 2022, within a month, there were 9 deposits for the sum of about HK$300,000 and 24 withdrawals for the same amount. I consider the appropriate starting point is one of 2 years’ imprisonment.
24. D2 was convicted after trial. However, due to the proximity of the two offences and D2’s co-operation with the police during the investigation, though she did not identify the WhatsApp number of Ah Ling (AW) to the officer, I order the sentence of both charges to be served concurrently.
D3
Charge 2
25. For D3’s HASE account, between 17 February 2022 and 25 May 2022, in a period of about 3 months, there were a total of 52 deposits for the sum of about 1.1 million HKD and 78 withdrawals for the same amount. D3 has agreed most of the prosecution case. I consider the appropriate starting point is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.
Charge 5
26. For D3’s HSBC account, between 21 December 2021 and 12 January 2022, within a month, there were a total of 13 deposits for a sum of about HK$170,000 and 16 withdrawals for the same amount. I consider the appropriate starting point is one of 2 years’ imprisonment.
27. D3 was convicted after trial, yet I would allow her 2 weeks discount for the voluntary work she undertook. Further, due to the proximity of the two offences, and her co-operation with the police during the investigation, I order the sentence of both charges to be served concurrently.
Enhancement of sentence
28. The prosecution applies for enhancement of the sentence pursuant to section 27(2) of the Ordinance and submits the witness statement of CIP Li Yiu-nam dated 6 March 2026 to support the application. The defendants do not challenge the evidence of CIP Li and raise no objection to the application. I consider and attach full weight to the evidence of CIP Li.
29. Hon. Yeung JA (as he then was) held in HKSAR v Xu Mai Qing CACC 464/2005 at para. 16 that:
“under section 27(11) of OSCO, what the prosecution has to prove is the prevalence of the offence, not the increase in the number of such offences.”
And Hon. Cheung JA (as he then was) held in HKSAR v Chung Chi King CACC 361/2002 at para. 24 that:
“as a matter of statutory construction, the prevalence of the offence must be considered at the time of the sentence since the purpose of an enhanced sentence is to impose a deterrence on potential wrong doers. Hence the time of the commission of the crime is irrelevant.”
30. Very often the predicate offence of money laundering is deception. From the evidence of CIP Li, I am satisfied that offences of deception and money laundering are prevalent and on the increase. In 2020, the total number of deception and money laundering cases were 16,643, but the number keeps on rising, up to 20,114 cases in 2021, 28,936 cases in 2022, 42,004 cases in 2023, 47,063 cases in 2024, 47,701 in 2025 and 4,333 cases up to January 2026.
31. In addition, from the evidence of CIP Li, I am satisfied that the use of stooges for money laundering is increasing in both figures and proportion (in the present case, 3 stooges were involved). The data provided by CIP Li shows that in 2020, among the 2,422 persons arrested, only 760 of them (i.e. 31.38%) were stooges, while the corresponding data shows that use of stooges increases significantly over the years:
In 2021: 3,807 arrested with 2,220 (58.31%) being stooges;
In 2022: 5,264 arrested with 3,708 (70.44%) being stooges;
In 2023: 9,239 arrested with 6,485 (70.19%) being stooges;
In 2024: 10,496 arrested with 7,883 (75.10%) being stooges;
In 2025: 7,542 arrested with 5,355 (71.00%) being stooges; and
Up to January of 2026: 908 arrested with 638 (70.26%) being stooges.
32. I am satisfied that the use of stooge accounts is prevalent in the commission of the offence of money laundering which is one of the specified offences as stipulated in the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, and that the prevalent use of stooges in money laundering offences has caused considerable harm to the community either directly or indirectly. I am satisfied that this is a case where enhancement of sentence should be made.
33. In addition, it is clear from the data provided by CIP Li that most of the arrest since 2021 were stooges, this not only demonstrates the prevalent use of stooges in money laundering offences, but also the number and the proportion of arrested persons who were the masterminds of the predicate offences remain low.
34. Deterring people from acting as stooges will have the effect of deterring people from committing the predicate offences and money laundering offences. The sentence of D4 is not binding on me, I am of the view that to achieve this sentencing purpose, the sentence should be enhanced by one-third. However, to avoid any unnecessary sense of grievance, I enhance the sentence in-line with that of D4, i.e. 25%.
35. For these reasons, the term of imprisonment to be imposed on the defendants are enhanced by 25% accordingly.
ORDER
D2
Charge 1 sentenced to 45 months’ imprisonment
Charge 4 sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with Charge 1.
D3
Charge 2 sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment
Charge 5 sentenced to 29 months’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with Charge 2.
( Ada Yim )
District Judge