DCCC1551/2025 HKSAR v. LEE CHUN KIT
DCCC 1551/2025
[2026] HKDC 495
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1551 OF 2025
____________
HKSAR
v
LEE Chun-kit
____________
Before :
H.H. Judge G. Lam
Date :
18 March 2026
Present :
Mr. Derrick Lee, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR.
Mr. Liu Yuen Ming instructed by M/s Choy Yung & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, 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
The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Money laundering". In short, he lent his bank account to other people.
Summary of Facts
2. On 16 November 2022, the defendant opened a bank account as particularized in the charge ("the ZA Bank Account"). He was the sole signatory of that account.
Deception
3. Between November and December 2022, a victim surnamed Chau (PW1) was deceived by a "Fake mainland official" scam. PW1 disclosed his online banking login ID and password of his bank accounts to the fraudster(s). An aggregated sum of $16,178,300 was transferred from PW1's HSBC account without his authorization to an HSBC account held in the name of Wu Meng Chi.
Money laundering
4. On 24 November 2022, a sum of $299,500 was transferred from Wu's HSBC account to the ZA Bank Account.
Arrest
5. The defendant was arrested on 9 June 2025. In his video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that in mid-October 2022, a friend named "Ka Ho" asked him to open a bank account and lend it to Ka Ho for receiving some money. On a later day in a restaurant, in the presence of Ka Ho, the defendant opened the ZA Bank Account. Ka Ho then gave the defendant $1,000 in return.
6. The defendant now admits that during the offence period, he, together with persons unknown (including Ka Ho), knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the sum of $299,500 received by the ZA Bank Account, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt with the said sum.
Mitigation & Sentence
7. The defendant is 31 and has one conviction record, which was a "Robbery" offence. Defence counsel Mr. Liu informed me that the defendant is single and resides with his parents. In December 2023, he was a lorry driver, earning about $20,000 per month. At the age of about 26, the defendant injured his waist in an industrial accident. He now receives a disability allowance of about $3,000 per month.
8. In mitigation, which was conducted in conjunction with DCCC 756 &1593/2024 (Consolidated), Mr. Liu explained that the defendant met his friend "Ka Ho" in a youth home during his probation order in 2011. They did not keep in touch after the defendant's probation order had ended. When he bumped into Ka Ho around October 2022, the defendant foolishly agreed to open bank accounts for Ka Ho and his friend because he wanted to regain Ka Ho's friendship. The defendant is remorseful for what he did. He had failed to consider the serious consequences of giving away his bank accounts to others.
9. The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant to section 27(2)(c) and (d) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap.455) on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm caused to the community. Mr. Liu did not object.
10. I bear in mind the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Xu Mai Qing CACC 464/2005, whereas Yeung JA (as he then was) held "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[1]."
11. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 6 January 2026. I am satisfied that in 2022, deception-related money laundering cases were prevalent in Hong Kong in terms of the number of cases as well as the total value of monetary loss.
12. There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money laundering through bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" remains widespread in Hong Kong today. What true criminals need are gullible scapegoats, like the defendant in the present case, who would take the blame for them when law enforcement takes action. The court must send a clear message to the general public that people who play the role of "ML Stooge" will receive severe punishment, so that there is a deterrent effect. When there are few or no willing "ML Stooges", criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts will fail.
13. This is a typical case of money laundering by way of a stooge bank account. Even if the defendant did not know about the deception against PW1, such a scam would have been meaningless without his bank account. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given his role, the amount which went through the ZA Bank Account and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.
14. The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 held :-
Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may not be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are in fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes, etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted upward.[2]
15. In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have also borne in mind the amount of money involved, the duration of the offence, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as his personal circumstances.
16. In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P held :-
Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money"was actually not derived from an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…[3]
17. I accept that the ZA Bank Account had only received the sum of $299,500, which came indirectlyfrom PW1. Also, the defendant was probably not involved in any predicate offence. As the sole owner of the ZA Bank Account, the defendant should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.
18. By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through the ZA Bank Account, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.
19. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 8 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 10 months' imprisonment for the charge in this case.
20. Moments ago, I have just sentenced the defendant to 50 months' imprisonment for 4 charges of "Money laundering" in DCCC 756 &1593/2024 (Consolidated). He committed the present offence around the same time as the other 4 offences. The grand total received by the defendant's 5 bank accounts in both cases was $14 million odd. For that amount, I consider a starting point of 5.5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just[5]. With the timely guilty pleas and the 25% enhancement, the final sentence should be 55 months. Hence, I order 5 months in this case to run consecutively to the sentences in DCCC 756 &1593/2024 (Consolidated). In other words, the total prison term for both cases is 55 months.
(G. Lam)
District Judge
[1] Paragraph 16 on p.4 of the judgment.
[2] Paragraphs 12 and 13, pp 204-205.
[3] Paragraph 44, p 114.
[4] According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point is 3 years or so where the "black money" involved is between $1 million and $2 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)
[5] According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point could be over 5 years where the "black money" is above $10 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)
DCCC1551/2025 HKSAR v. LEE CHUN KIT
DCCC 1551/2025
[2026] HKDC 495
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1551 OF 2025
____________
HKSAR
v
LEE Chun-kit
____________
Before :
H.H. Judge G. Lam
Date :
18 March 2026
Present :
Mr. Derrick Lee, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR.
Mr. Liu Yuen Ming instructed by M/s Choy Yung & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, 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
The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Money laundering". In short, he lent his bank account to other people.
Summary of Facts
2. On 16 November 2022, the defendant opened a bank account as particularized in the charge ("the ZA Bank Account"). He was the sole signatory of that account.
Deception
3. Between November and December 2022, a victim surnamed Chau (PW1) was deceived by a "Fake mainland official" scam. PW1 disclosed his online banking login ID and password of his bank accounts to the fraudster(s). An aggregated sum of $16,178,300 was transferred from PW1's HSBC account without his authorization to an HSBC account held in the name of Wu Meng Chi.
Money laundering
4. On 24 November 2022, a sum of $299,500 was transferred from Wu's HSBC account to the ZA Bank Account.
Arrest
5. The defendant was arrested on 9 June 2025. In his video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that in mid-October 2022, a friend named "Ka Ho" asked him to open a bank account and lend it to Ka Ho for receiving some money. On a later day in a restaurant, in the presence of Ka Ho, the defendant opened the ZA Bank Account. Ka Ho then gave the defendant $1,000 in return.
6. The defendant now admits that during the offence period, he, together with persons unknown (including Ka Ho), knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the sum of $299,500 received by the ZA Bank Account, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt with the said sum.
Mitigation & Sentence
7. The defendant is 31 and has one conviction record, which was a "Robbery" offence. Defence counsel Mr. Liu informed me that the defendant is single and resides with his parents. In December 2023, he was a lorry driver, earning about $20,000 per month. At the age of about 26, the defendant injured his waist in an industrial accident. He now receives a disability allowance of about $3,000 per month.
8. In mitigation, which was conducted in conjunction with DCCC 756 &1593/2024 (Consolidated), Mr. Liu explained that the defendant met his friend "Ka Ho" in a youth home during his probation order in 2011. They did not keep in touch after the defendant's probation order had ended. When he bumped into Ka Ho around October 2022, the defendant foolishly agreed to open bank accounts for Ka Ho and his friend because he wanted to regain Ka Ho's friendship. The defendant is remorseful for what he did. He had failed to consider the serious consequences of giving away his bank accounts to others.
9. The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant to section 27(2)(c) and (d) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap.455) on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm caused to the community. Mr. Liu did not object.
10. I bear in mind the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Xu Mai Qing CACC 464/2005, whereas Yeung JA (as he then was) held "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[1]."
11. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 6 January 2026. I am satisfied that in 2022, deception-related money laundering cases were prevalent in Hong Kong in terms of the number of cases as well as the total value of monetary loss.
12. There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money laundering through bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" remains widespread in Hong Kong today. What true criminals need are gullible scapegoats, like the defendant in the present case, who would take the blame for them when law enforcement takes action. The court must send a clear message to the general public that people who play the role of "ML Stooge" will receive severe punishment, so that there is a deterrent effect. When there are few or no willing "ML Stooges", criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts will fail.
13. This is a typical case of money laundering by way of a stooge bank account. Even if the defendant did not know about the deception against PW1, such a scam would have been meaningless without his bank account. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given his role, the amount which went through the ZA Bank Account and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.
14. The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 held :-
Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may not be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are in fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes, etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted upward.[2]
15. In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have also borne in mind the amount of money involved, the duration of the offence, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as his personal circumstances.
16. In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P held :-
Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money"was actually not derived from an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…[3]
17. I accept that the ZA Bank Account had only received the sum of $299,500, which came indirectlyfrom PW1. Also, the defendant was probably not involved in any predicate offence. As the sole owner of the ZA Bank Account, the defendant should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.
18. By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through the ZA Bank Account, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.
19. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 8 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 10 months' imprisonment for the charge in this case.
20. Moments ago, I have just sentenced the defendant to 50 months' imprisonment for 4 charges of "Money laundering" in DCCC 756 &1593/2024 (Consolidated). He committed the present offence around the same time as the other 4 offences. The grand total received by the defendant's 5 bank accounts in both cases was $14 million odd. For that amount, I consider a starting point of 5.5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just[5]. With the timely guilty pleas and the 25% enhancement, the final sentence should be 55 months. Hence, I order 5 months in this case to run consecutively to the sentences in DCCC 756 &1593/2024 (Consolidated). In other words, the total prison term for both cases is 55 months.
(G. Lam)
District Judge
[1] Paragraph 16 on p.4 of the judgment.
[2] Paragraphs 12 and 13, pp 204-205.
[3] Paragraph 44, p 114.
[4] According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point is 3 years or so where the "black money" involved is between $1 million and $2 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)
[5] According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point could be over 5 years where the "black money" is above $10 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)