DCCC377/2024 HKSAR v. YEUNG ON YEE
DCCC 377 & 1580/2024
Consolidated
[2026] HKDC 566
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 377 & 1580 OF 2024
________________________
HKSAR
v
YEUNG On-yee
________________________
Before:
H.H. Judge G. Lam
Date:
25 March 2026
Present:
Mr. Geoffrey Wong, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR.
Ms. Vivian Wong instructed by M/s Robertsons, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant.
Offences:
(1) to (3) 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 3 charges of "Money laundering". In short, she "sold" her bank accounts to someone.
Summary of Facts
2. Respectively on 25 and 28 February 2023 and 2 April 2022, the defendant opened the 3 bank accounts as particularized in Charges 1 to 3 (Accounts 1 to 3). She was the sole signatory of all 3 accounts.
Deception
3. Between March and April 2023, a total of 31 victims (collectively "the Victims") were deceived by 2 types of scams, namely "Boost-sale jobs" and cryptocurrency investment. They were asked to make payments to various bank accounts, which aggregated to a sum of $13.5 million, of which a total sum of $1,691,275.60 were paid to Accounts 1 to 3.
Money laundering
Charge 1
4. Between 25 February and 9 June 2023, Account 1 received 24 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $628,912.43 (of which a total sum of $81,356.50 came from the Victims). The exact aggregated sum of $628,912.43 was withdrawn by 30 transactions.
Charge 2
5. Between 28 February and 12 April 2023, Account 2 received 1,454 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $3,726,201.20 (of which a total sum of $840,815.80 came from the Victims). A total sum of $3,720,003.82 was withdrawn by 145 transactions.
Charge 3
6. Between 2 April 2022 and 10 April 2023, Account 3 received 26 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $1,109,828.68 (of which a total sum of $769,103.30 came from the Victims). A total sum of $1,109,828.06 was withdrawn by 18 transactions.
7. Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals, as well as the daily balances of Accounts 1 to 3, the police found typical features of money laundering.
Arrest
8. The defendant was arrested on 1 August 2023 in relation to Accounts 1 and 2. Under caution, she admitted having opened both accounts and that she had sold them without using them. In her cautioned statement, the defendant claimed that she was unemployed during the offence period. Soon after opening Accounts 1 and 2, she sold both to a man (no contact available) for $2,000 each since she needed money.
9. The defendant was arrested again on 6 June 2024 in relation to Account 3. Under caution, she admitted having opened a MOX Bank account and that she had sold it to others to support her children.
10. The defendant now admits that during the respective offence periods, she, together with an unknown person, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the funds received by Accounts 1 to 3, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt with those funds.
Mitigation & Sentence
11. The defendant is 32 and has 2 conviction records, which involved 2 offences not related to "money laundering". She is currently serving a 6 years prison term for "drug trafficking" (HCCC 61/2025). Defence counsel Ms. Wong informed me that the "trafficking" offence took place on 20 June 2023. In other words, at the time of the present 3 offences, the defendant had only 1 conviction of a relatively minor offence, for which she was fined $500 (FLCC 792/2013).
12. In mitigation, Ms. Wong submitted that the defendant is a single mother with 2 sons (aged 5 and 4). Her elder son resides at Po Leung Kuk, whereas the younger one lives with her parents. When she opened Account 3, her younger son was only 5 months old. After selling all 3 bank accounts, which she did in one go, the defendant committed the drug trafficking offence. Ms. Wong further submitted that the defendant has been acquiring job skills whilst in prison. She has taken courses in Chinese Medicine and has obtained her security guard licence. She is also learning how to paint.
13. 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. Ms. Wong did not object.
14. 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]."
15. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 12 February 2026. I am satisfied that in 2023, 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.
16. 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.
17. This is a typical case of money laundering by way of stooge bank accounts. Even if the defendant did not know about the deception against the Victims, such scams would have been meaningless without her bank accounts. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given her role, the total sums which went through her 3 accounts and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.
18. 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]
19. 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 amounts of money involved, the duration of the offences, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well
as her personal circumstances.
20. 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]
Charge 1
21. I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i) except the total sum of $81,356.50 which came from the Victims, the funds received by Account 1 were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) the defendant was involved in any predicate offence. As the sole owner of Account 1, she should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.
22. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregated sum of $628,912.43 went through Account 1 within a period of 3.5 months. By lending her bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through Account 1, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.
23. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 16 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 20 months' imprisonment for this charge.
Charge 2
24. An aggregated sum of $3,726,201.20 went through Account 2 within a period of 1.5 months, of which $840,815.80 came from the Victims. I adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 40 months' imprisonment for this charge.
Charge 3
25. An aggregated sum of $1,109,828.68 went through Account 3 within a period of 1 year, of which $769,103.30 came from the Victims. I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 24 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 30 months' imprisonment for this charge.
Overall sentence
26. The grand total received by Accounts 1 to 3 was $5.46 million odd. I consider a global starting point of 4 years' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 32 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 40 months. Hence, I order the sentences for Charges 1 to 3 to run concurrently.
27. I sympathize with the defendant's 2 young boys, who will lose their mother for most of their primary school years. Regrettably, there is very little I can do in terms of sentencing. The present case is separate and distinct from "drug trafficking" (HCCC 61/2025) in every aspect. Bearing in mind the totality principle, I order 12 months in the present case to be served concurrently with the defendant's sentence in HCCC 61/2025. This is the best I can do within my powers.
(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; and 4 years or so, if between $3 million and $6 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)
DCCC377/2024 HKSAR v. YEUNG ON YEE
DCCC 377 & 1580/2024
Consolidated
[2026] HKDC 566
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 377 & 1580 OF 2024
________________________
HKSAR
v
YEUNG On-yee
________________________
Before:
H.H. Judge G. Lam
Date:
25 March 2026
Present:
Mr. Geoffrey Wong, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR.
Ms. Vivian Wong instructed by M/s Robertsons, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant.
Offences:
(1) to (3) 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 3 charges of "Money laundering". In short, she "sold" her bank accounts to someone.
Summary of Facts
2. Respectively on 25 and 28 February 2023 and 2 April 2022, the defendant opened the 3 bank accounts as particularized in Charges 1 to 3 (Accounts 1 to 3). She was the sole signatory of all 3 accounts.
Deception
3. Between March and April 2023, a total of 31 victims (collectively "the Victims") were deceived by 2 types of scams, namely "Boost-sale jobs" and cryptocurrency investment. They were asked to make payments to various bank accounts, which aggregated to a sum of $13.5 million, of which a total sum of $1,691,275.60 were paid to Accounts 1 to 3.
Money laundering
Charge 1
4. Between 25 February and 9 June 2023, Account 1 received 24 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $628,912.43 (of which a total sum of $81,356.50 came from the Victims). The exact aggregated sum of $628,912.43 was withdrawn by 30 transactions.
Charge 2
5. Between 28 February and 12 April 2023, Account 2 received 1,454 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $3,726,201.20 (of which a total sum of $840,815.80 came from the Victims). A total sum of $3,720,003.82 was withdrawn by 145 transactions.
Charge 3
6. Between 2 April 2022 and 10 April 2023, Account 3 received 26 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $1,109,828.68 (of which a total sum of $769,103.30 came from the Victims). A total sum of $1,109,828.06 was withdrawn by 18 transactions.
7. Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals, as well as the daily balances of Accounts 1 to 3, the police found typical features of money laundering.
Arrest
8. The defendant was arrested on 1 August 2023 in relation to Accounts 1 and 2. Under caution, she admitted having opened both accounts and that she had sold them without using them. In her cautioned statement, the defendant claimed that she was unemployed during the offence period. Soon after opening Accounts 1 and 2, she sold both to a man (no contact available) for $2,000 each since she needed money.
9. The defendant was arrested again on 6 June 2024 in relation to Account 3. Under caution, she admitted having opened a MOX Bank account and that she had sold it to others to support her children.
10. The defendant now admits that during the respective offence periods, she, together with an unknown person, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the funds received by Accounts 1 to 3, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt with those funds.
Mitigation & Sentence
11. The defendant is 32 and has 2 conviction records, which involved 2 offences not related to "money laundering". She is currently serving a 6 years prison term for "drug trafficking" (HCCC 61/2025). Defence counsel Ms. Wong informed me that the "trafficking" offence took place on 20 June 2023. In other words, at the time of the present 3 offences, the defendant had only 1 conviction of a relatively minor offence, for which she was fined $500 (FLCC 792/2013).
12. In mitigation, Ms. Wong submitted that the defendant is a single mother with 2 sons (aged 5 and 4). Her elder son resides at Po Leung Kuk, whereas the younger one lives with her parents. When she opened Account 3, her younger son was only 5 months old. After selling all 3 bank accounts, which she did in one go, the defendant committed the drug trafficking offence. Ms. Wong further submitted that the defendant has been acquiring job skills whilst in prison. She has taken courses in Chinese Medicine and has obtained her security guard licence. She is also learning how to paint.
13. 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. Ms. Wong did not object.
14. 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]."
15. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 12 February 2026. I am satisfied that in 2023, 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.
16. 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.
17. This is a typical case of money laundering by way of stooge bank accounts. Even if the defendant did not know about the deception against the Victims, such scams would have been meaningless without her bank accounts. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given her role, the total sums which went through her 3 accounts and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.
18. 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]
19. 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 amounts of money involved, the duration of the offences, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well
as her personal circumstances.
20. 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]
Charge 1
21. I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i) except the total sum of $81,356.50 which came from the Victims, the funds received by Account 1 were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) the defendant was involved in any predicate offence. As the sole owner of Account 1, she should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.
22. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregated sum of $628,912.43 went through Account 1 within a period of 3.5 months. By lending her bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through Account 1, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.
23. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 16 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 20 months' imprisonment for this charge.
Charge 2
24. An aggregated sum of $3,726,201.20 went through Account 2 within a period of 1.5 months, of which $840,815.80 came from the Victims. I adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 40 months' imprisonment for this charge.
Charge 3
25. An aggregated sum of $1,109,828.68 went through Account 3 within a period of 1 year, of which $769,103.30 came from the Victims. I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 24 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 30 months' imprisonment for this charge.
Overall sentence
26. The grand total received by Accounts 1 to 3 was $5.46 million odd. I consider a global starting point of 4 years' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 32 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 40 months. Hence, I order the sentences for Charges 1 to 3 to run concurrently.
27. I sympathize with the defendant's 2 young boys, who will lose their mother for most of their primary school years. Regrettably, there is very little I can do in terms of sentencing. The present case is separate and distinct from "drug trafficking" (HCCC 61/2025) in every aspect. Bearing in mind the totality principle, I order 12 months in the present case to be served concurrently with the defendant's sentence in HCCC 61/2025. This is the best I can do within my powers.
(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; and 4 years or so, if between $3 million and $6 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)