DCCC923/2022 HKSAR v. WONG SAI KUI WILSON AND ANOTHER - LawHero
DCCC923/2022
區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Peony Wong3/7/2025[2025] HKDC 1148
DCCC923/2022
A A
B B
DCCC 923/2022
C [2025] HKDC 1148 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 923 OF 2022
F F
G --------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I WONG SAI KUI WILSON 2nd Defendant I
CHAN FAI MAN 3rd Defendant
J J
----------------------------
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge Peony Wong
L L
Date: 4 July 2025
M Present: Mr Maurice Peter Tracy, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR M
Mr Roy K Y Lau, instructed by C.M. Chow & Company, for
N N
the 2nd defendant
O Mr David Boyton, instructed by Francis Kong & Co., for the O
3rd defendant
P P
Offence: Conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to
Q represent proceeds of an indictable offence（串謀處理已知 Q
R
道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產） R
S S
---------------------------------------
T REASONS FOR VERDICT T
---------------------------------------
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C 1. D1 to D3 are jointly charged with a single count of Conspiracy C
to Deal with Property Known or Believed to Represent Proceeds of an
D D
Indictable Offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and
E Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. It is alleged that they had, between E
30 October 2017 and 30 April 2018, conspired together to deal with
F F
US$825,946 in the bank account under the name of Funson Trading
G Limited with Dah Sing Bank Limited, knowing or having reasonable G
grounds to believe that the said amount of money, in whole or in part,
H H
directly or indirectly represented proceeds of an indictable offence.
I I
2. D1 pleaded guilty before me, and had been called as PW1,
J J
pending sentence. The present verdict therefore only deals with D2 and
K D3 who had pleaded not guilty to the charge. K
L L
Admitted Facts and Areas Not in Dispute
M M
3. In the Admitted Facts (P35), the arrest of D2 and D3, as well
N N
as the voluntariness of the VRIs of D2 and D3 are admitted. The chain of
O exhibits is not disputed, which includes that of D2 and D3’s mobile phones O
and SIM cards.
P P
Q 4. Although the admissibility of the WhatsApp messages found Q
in D1 and D2’s mobile phones are not challenged, the Prosecution only
R R
relies on those in P28 (P28A certified translation). D2 in his evidence
S maintains that the messages shown to have been sent by his phone number S
were not all sent by him, and could possibly be sent when he was outside
T T
Hong Kong by his staff who had left service.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 5. D2 and D3’s ID are also not in dispute. It is also admitted that C
D1 positively identified D2 as Nam Gor, the responsible person at an ID
D D
Parade held on 15 May 2019.
E E
Prosecution Case
F F
G 6. The Prosecution called D1 as the only witness. In her G
evidence, she states that she is 28 years old, and had received associate
H H
degree education but had not been able to complete the course. She is at
I the time of the evidence an assistant puppy walker. I
J J
7. She states that in September 2017, she was in debt of about
K $100,000 from credit card and financial institutions debts and had ceased K
her studies. She took up part time jobs but the salary was low.
L L
M 8. In September or October 2017, she started looking for jobs on M
Facebook and IG, and through her elder sister Lam Man Sze who was also
N N
looking for work. Her elder sister arranged a meeting with a woman named
O Lala for a job as wedding witness. O
P P
9. At the meeting between D1, her elder sister and Lala, Lala
Q obtained personal information of the sisters, and came to know that the Q
sisters were in debt. Lala informed them that there were no more vacancies
R R
for wedding witnesses, but she could help them look for other job
S opportunities from colleagues. S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
10. There was also another occasion where Lala and 2 males came
C to visit D1 and her elder sister in Tuen Mun (hereinafter referred to as ‘the C
Second Meeting with Lala’). D1 did not know the purpose of the visit.
D D
The sisters boarded the vehicle driven by the other party. It was mentioned
E in the journey that the sisters were in debt. One of the males said that since E
the amount of D1’s debt was small, it could be easily settled. It was
F F
mentioned that a job of opening company accounts is available for the
G sisters, and that $1,000 would be the remuneration for each account G
successfully opened. The sisters’ contacts were asked for, they signed on
H H
a piece of paper, and their ID card copies were collected by the other side.
I Lala did not speak much. After having a meal, the other party drove the I
sisters home.
J J
K 11. Upon the introduction of the group of people including Lala K
and the 2 males, a meeting on 3 November 2017 was arranged between the
L L
sisters and a male called Nam Gor (D2), who D1 said was the responsible
M person. Before the meeting on 3 November 2017, D2 called D1 and M
confirmed D1’s name and that she wanted to take up the job of opening
N N
accounts.
O O
12. During the meeting, D2 gave a big bundle of documents
P P
(including a pile of company names) to D1, saying that they were company
Q information, and asked D1 to read and memorize the information such as Q
the business of the company, for the purposes of opening company
R R
accounts. D2 told D1 that the bank would ask her about the nature of the
S business and the amounts that would be moved into and out of the company S
accounts. Her initial understanding was to open USD company accounts,
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
but later on she came to know that it was in fact accounts that have online
C banking transfer functions. C
D D
13. D2 mentioned the names of the companies that needed
E accounts to be opened, one of which was Funson Trading Limited E
(hereinafter referred to as “Funson”), and said that D2 had to open these
F F
accounts, and later on the accounts would be transferred to the companies.
G D2 mentioned that D1 would be paid $1,000 for each company account G
successfully opened. He also mentioned that there might also be future
H H
work opportunities.
I I
14. After reading the company documents given to her, D1 went
J J
to Dah Sing Bank in Wan Chai, and then Dah Sing Bank in Causeway Bay,
K for the purposes of opening company accounts. One of the accounts was K
for Funson, and she could not remember the name of the other one.
L L
M 15. On 3 November 2017, at the Wan Chai branch of Dah Sing M
Bank, D1 gave the pile of company documents and her ID card to the bank
N N
staff, and was asked by the bank staff to fill in some information, including
O her email address and mobile telephone number. O
P P
16. On the same day at the Causeway Bay branch of Dah Sing
Q Bank, D1 opened a bank account for Funson. Documents were given to Q
her by the bank staff, and she passed them to D2, mistakenly leaving her
R R
ID card inside the pile of documents.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
17. On that day D1 and her elder sister were opening accounts at
C different counters of the same branch. When they had finished the relevant C
procedure, they would leave the bank and join D2 nearby. D2 and the
D D
sisters discussed about the possibility that the bank staff might call and
E followup. D1 understood that she would only receive $1,000 per account E
as remuneration if the account was successfully opened. After the
F F
discussion, they parted ways.
G G
18. D1 was involved in similar arrangements for opening of
H H
company accounts for a few months. Every time there would be prior
I arrangements with the bank before D1 attended the bank for the account I
opening. The communication between D1 and D2 after 3 November 2017
J J
took the form of whatsapp, phonecalls and face to face meetings. She had
K met D2 not more than 10 times after 3 November 2017. K
L L
19. She had received calls from bank staff concerning the bank
M accounts that she had opened on the instructions of D2, and passed on M
messages from banks concerning requests for bank transfer documents,
N N
depositing money into accounts and other matters concerning opening of
O bank accounts. The documents were all prepared by D2, and she did not O
have a clear understanding of what they were. She was merely responsible
P P
for submitting the documents to the bank.
Q Q
20. When D1 realized that she had left her ID card with the
R R
documents from the bank with D2, she whatsapped him trying to get the
S ID card back for work. They arranged to meet the following day. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
21. The meeting took place a few days after 3 November 2017, in
C either Wan Chai or Causeway Bay. She got back her ID card. C
D D
22. After that, when bank staff informed her that further
E documentation is required, she contacted D2. D2 asked D1 to send her E
signature and email address, so that documents can be sent to her. She had
F F
also met D2 during that period of time, but she could not recall the exact
G date. G
H H
23. In January 2018, D1 was asked to attend Causeway Bay Dah
I Sing Bank to complete the procedure for setting up online banking or USD I
account of Funson. After the USD account of Funson was opened, bank
J J
staff gave her some information and she in turn passed those to D2 at Hysan
K in Causeway Bay. K
L L
24. For the first company account opened by her, she wrote her
M home address as the correspondence address due to inexperience. She M
cannot recall the address that she provided for the later company accounts
N N
opened by her.
O O
25. The bank cards of the company accounts opened by her were
P P
not sent to her. Even though she had no idea whether the bank cards were
Q sent directly to D2, D2 called her concerning those accounts and said that Q
the bank cards had been received, so that she would not have to follow up
R R
with the bank.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
26. After the said visit in January 2018, D1 did not contact Dah
C Sing Bank anymore. She responded once to D2 after the said visit. In late C
January 2018, D1’s family members paid off her debts, and she did not
D D
want to be involved with D2 anymore, therefore she did not pick up D2’s
E phonecalls nor respond to his whatsapp message (Counter 942, p 17 of P28, E
15 February 2018). After 15 February 2018, there were no further
F F
messages between her and D2. She did not have any contact with Lala
G since she met D2. G
H H
27. A few months after the USD account was opened for Funson,
I D1 received an SMS stating that a large sum of money had been deposited I
into the Funson account, whereupon she realized that “there might be a
J J
problem”. She was afraid to contact D2, and therefore forwarded the SMS
K to her sister, asking her elder sister to forward it to D2. According to her K
understanding, her elder sister did as requested.
L L
M 28. She testified that her telephone number at that time was M
54509099, and she had not allowed anyone to use that number.
N N
O 29. She was arrested in 2019, and had positively identified Nam O
Gor at an ID parade in 2019.
P P
Q D2’s VRI Q
R R
30. D2 stated in his VRI that he had met D1 on 2 to 3 occasions
S in late 2017 in order to provide service to bring D1 to Dah Sing Bank to S
open 2 company accounts. She was referred to him by D3 (Petrick/Patrick
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Chan) from an accounting firm, who had clients wishing to open such bank
C accounts. He did not know if it was D3 who asked D1 to open the account. C
D D
31. He arranged a date to meet D1 outside the bank, and bring the
E company documents to her which would be used for the account opening E
procedure. He would wait somewhere and not enter the bank with D1.
F F
After D1 finished opening the bank accounts, he took the company
G documents from D1, and will bring them to her again if it is required to go G
to the bank again. In case supplementary company documents are required,
H H
D2 would also provide that to D1.
I I
32. After the account opening is completed, D2 would pass back
J J
the company documents to D1, and would not keep them any further.
K K
33. He stated that when the bank had vetted and approved the
L L
opening of the company account, he would then be paid HK$10,000 per
M account by D3 as reward. He denied having given money to D1. M
N N
34. In the VRI, he also admitted that he did not ask D1 how she
O intended to use the company accounts. O
P P
D3’s VRI
Q Q
35. D3 stated in his VRI that he was a corporate consultant who
R R
had set up his company Chong Fung (transliteration) Business Company
S Limited (hereinafter referred to as “IBBA”) in 2004. The Company S
provides secretarial services, and its main business includes assisting
T T
clients to open limited companies, receiving phonecalls and letters for
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
clients, providing registered address, some accounting work, tax returns
C filing, auditing services, trademark registration, applying for financial C
licences, and referring clients to open company accounts.
D D
E 36. Where it is confirmed that clients would like to open a E
company bank account, IBBA would refer the clients to intermediary
F F
companies who can help clients open these accounts successfully, as the
G intermediaries have direct contact with the bank staff. For different banks, G
intermediary companies charge different fees. On top of that, IBBA would
H H
add HK$3,000 as IBBA’s referral fee. IBBA would charge the clients the
I full price which includes the intermediary’s fees and IBBA’s referral fee. I
J J
37. The documents will be sent by email or WhatsApp to the
K intermediary. Then the intermediary will read the documents and decide K
which client is more suitable for a particular bank. The intermediary then
L L
make an appointment with the bank.
M M
38. After the company accounts had been successfully opened
N N
with the bank, D3 would pay the intermediary’s fee from the fee earlier
O paid by the clients. O
P P
39. For existing clients of IBBA, application form for opening
Q company accounts would be provided, and they would be forwarded to Q
intermediary companies. D3 would review the application, and depending
R R
on the nature of company business, different kinds of documents would be
S required by specific banks. S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
40. For the present case, a “Mr Tsoi” (referred to as “Mr Choi” in
C IBBA’s records) called IBBA and said some staff members wants to open C
company accounts, and he had with him the company information of a
D D
dozen companies. D3 did not know the definition of ‘staff members’. D3
E referred these companies to D2. He prepared a table with a list of 4 E
companies with D1’s name listed as director and shareholder, and the
F F
registered address of each company, as the information of clients that
G requested for company account opening services, and sent the table to D2. G
After the accounts had been opened, the name of the bank and the date of
H H
account opening would be recorded in the table. The banks were suggested
I by and appointments were made with the banks by D2. I
J J
41. As Mr Tsoi was not originally a client of the Company, D3
K merely referred him to D2, and did not keep any of the company documents, K
save as glancing through them briefly. The company documents would be
L L
handed over by those with the companies directly to the bank, or to the
M intermediary D2. M
N N
42. D3 communicated with Mr Tsoi through WeChat. He did not
O keep the information of Mr Tsoi, as he did not know if Mr Tsoi was the O
boss of those companies, and Mr Tsoi was only a contact person at the time.
P P
D3 thinks that there is no need to ask for Mr Tsoi’s ID card, residential
Q proof and other personal documents as Mr Tsoi was not the person who Q
would be opening the bank accounts. D3 does not know the real boss
R R
behind those companies. He is of the view that it was the owners of the 4
S or 5 companies mentioned by Mr Tsoi who wanted to open bank accounts. S
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
43. He thinks, however, that Mr Tsoi was an important client, as
C he brought along a large number of companies, and he paid all fees quoted C
in full and in cash.
D D
E 44. He states that due diligence should be performed by the E
intermediary, and then ultimately by the bank.
F F
G 45. D3 stated that for D1 and her sister, whom he referred to as G
the “Slutty Sisters” in his correspondence with D2, each had 4 company
H H
accounts to be opened, and therefore a total of 8 companies as stated in the
I pdf file sent by him to D2 named Sister8. He admitted he had sent the ID I
card copy of D1 to D2.
J J
K Defence Case K
L L
D2’s Evidence
M M
46. D2 elected to give evidence but did not call any Defence
N N
Witness. He testifies that in 2012, he opened a finance company named
O Power Cash Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Power Cash”). As O
the finance company business in 2016 to 2017 was poor, and opening of
P P
company bank accounts was difficult at that time, he contacted an agent
Q for opening company bank accounts named Tony in order to get into the Q
business. Tony had good relationship with many banks and therefore a
R R
higher success rate, and he introduced such business to D2.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
47. Tony indicated that most of his clients came from accounting
C firms. Since Power Cash’s accounts were handled by a person that D2 C
called “Accountant Chan” (D3), D2 contacted D3 and asked if D3 could
D D
refer any clients who wished to obtain services for opening of company
E accounts. D3 agreed and indicated that he had been conducting this line of E
business.
F F
G 48. Upon referral by D3, D2 started providing service for opening G
of 2 company bank accounts for 2 companies with a British client in
H H
October 2017. He called Tony for arranging meeting with the bank.
I Eventually Tony arranged D2’s client to open 1 account each at Citibank I
and DBS. As Tony charged D2 $27,000, D2 added $6,000 as his own fees,
J J
and quoted the total figure of $33,000 to D3. D3 agreed to the quote.
K K
49. Tony told D2 that bank staff would not allow agent’s presence
L L
at the opening of bank account with client, since sensitive information of
M the company would be asked at the meeting. M
N N
50. D2 therefore accompanied the British client to the vicinity of
O the bank, and waited for client to come out after finishing the account O
opening procedure. He then checked whether the documents taken out of
P P
the bank make a complete set, and kept them for the client, in case the bank
Q requests documents to be faxed again, when D2 can help the client as part Q
of his services.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
51. About 3 weeks later, D2 came to know that the client’s
C company accounts with Citibank and DBS were both successful. He C
therefore returned the set of documents to the client. Payment was made
D D
by D3 to D2 on 23 October 2017 (D2-1 Payment Record).
E E
52. D2 first heard of Mr Choi in about October 2017. D3 said that
F F
Mr Choi had lots of businesses, and needed to open lots of bank accounts.
G D2 asked D3 what kind of business Mr Choi was involved in, whereupon G
D3 said there were many different kinds of businesses, including import
H H
and export, luxury watches, bags, and home decoration items, and those
I require opening of company accounts in order to facilitate normal business I
operation. D2 asked to meet Mr Choi, however D3 said Mr Choi was the
J J
big boss and was too busy to meet D2. D3 also mentioned that Mr Choi
K would ask nominees to open company accounts and D2 could meet those K
nominees directly. Since D2 thought at the time that it was normal for
L L
nominees to hold companies for their boss, he agreed to take up the
M business related to Mr Choi. M
N N
53. In order to complete the work relating to Mr Tsoi, D2 called
O another agent named Chirsty for help in contacting bank staff to open bank O
accounts.
P P
54. The nominees involved in the business with Mr Choi were
Q Cheng Chun Ming (“Cheng”) in relation to 2 companies, and Choi Tai Q
Cheung (“Choi”) in relation to 1 company. He talked to the nominees
R R
about the nature of business, and after D3 agreed the quote he prepared
S based on his fees and Tony’s fees, he and Tony met the nominees at Tony’s S
office.
T T
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
55. Thereafter D2 went to the bank with the nominees on 2
C separate occasions, checked that the documents required were there, and C
gave them the company documents. He also reminded the nominees the
D D
questions that the bank staff would ask, e.g. the annual turnover, nature of
E business, whether there were insurance or MPF payments made for the E
employees. He then waited outside for the nominees to complete the
F F
account opening procedure. Afterwards he checked that all documents had
G been returned by the bank, and kept the documents as part of his service. G
H H
56. Later on, Tony informed D2 that the said 3 accounts were
I successfully opened. D3 paid D2 $47,500 (D2-2 Payment Record). The I
documents were returned to the clients.
J J
K 57. Between October 2017 to early 2018, D2 worked with Tony K
and D3 concerning 4 clients unrelated to Mr Choi. The manner of
L L
operation was similar to that mentioned above. D2 was paid $17,000,
M $16,000, $20,000 and $20,000 for these 4 clients. He was paid $17,000, M
$16,000, $20,000 and $20,000 by D3 for these clients (D2-3 to D2-6).
N N
O 58. Concerning Funson Trading Limited (hereinafter referred to O
as “Funson”), D3 whatsapped D2 on 30 October 2017, and mentioned 2
P P
sisters whom D3 nicknamed “the Slutty Sisters”, who would act as
Q nominees for 5 companies relating to Mr Tsoi. Company accounts were to Q
be opened concerning these companies.
R R
S 59. D2’s understanding was that the sisters were nominees of Mr S
Choi, and that they would receive payment. But he has no information
T T
concerning the amount of payment to the nominees.
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
C 60. On 2 November 2017, D3 whatsapped D2 with the ID card C
photos of D1 and her sister, their mobile telephone numbers and a pdf file
D D
named sister8company. The pdf file contained information of the 2 sisters
E and the 4 companies that each of them would be opening accounts for. The E
companies included Funson. D2 had not heard of the 2 sisters’ names and
F F
telephone numbers before.
G G
61. D2 therefore called D1 using the telephone number stated in
H H
D3’s WhatsApp message. He told D1 that he already had basic information
I about the companies, and asked if she wished to have company bank I
accounts opened for those companies. After D1 replied in the affirmative,
J J
D2 confirmed with D1 that Dah Sing Bank is preferred. A similar
K conversation between D1’s sister and D2 also took place. K
L L
62. D2 then informed Chirsty of the basic information on the
M companies, and requested her to arrange meetings with the bank on 3 M
November 2017, Chirsty called back and said that she had arranged
N N
meetings with 4 Dah Sing Bank branches: Funson at Causeway Bay branch
O (with D1), Samson at Causeway Bay branch (with D1), Gangjin at O
Wanchai branch (with D1), and Panfoo at Wanchai branch (with D1’s
P P
sister Lam Man Sze).
Q Q
63. Chirsty charged $3,500 for each company. D2 then called D3
R R
to make a quote of $16,000 for Causeway Bay branch, and $16,500 for
S Wanchai branch. D3 agreed to the quote. D3 also sent D2 a WhatsApp S
message on 2 November 2017 (D2-10) asking him to contact a person
T T
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
called “Yin Yer” at a telephone number for the company’s documents for
C D1 and Lam Man Sze. C
D D
64. D2 then arranged to meet D1 and Lam Man Sze on 3
E November 2017 at the MacDonald’s at Causeway Bay. He also called Yin E
Yer and arranged to meet at Causeway Bay MTR station the next morning.
F F
G 65. On 3 November 2017, D3 whatsapped D2 and asked D2 to G
take a photo of the signature of the sisters, so that the share transfer could
H H
be dealt with (Counter 1885 of P28).
I I
66. On 3 November 2017, D2 met Yin Yer and obtained company
J J
documents of the 8 companies. Then he met D1 and Lam Man Sze at
K MacDonald’s near Percival Street. After sitting down, he confirmed the K
identity of D1 and Lam Man Sze. Then he gave the documents that he had
L L
obtained from Yin Yer (ie the documents relating to Funson, Samson and
M Gangjin) to D1 and Lam Man Sze to read. M
N N
67. D2 then reminded D1 and Lam Man Sze the questions that the
O bank staff would ask, ie nature of business, number of employees, any O
turnover, whether the companies made MPF and insurance payments for
P P
staff.
Q Q
68. D2 then went with D1 and Lam Man Sze to the Causeway Bay
R R
branch of Dah Sing Bank. He gave the documents of Funson and Samson
S to D1, and D1 went inside the bank to deal with the account opening on S
her own.
T T
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
69. D2 then went to the Wanchai branch of Dah Sing with Lam
C Man Sze, and gave her the documents of Panfoo for the same purpose. C
D D
70. D2 then went back to the Causeway Bay branch to meet D1,
E and checked with her outside the branch to confirm that all documents had E
been returned, whereupon D2 kept them for her as part of the service. The
F F
2 of them then went to the Wanchai branch together. Outside the Wanchai
G branch D2 gave the documents of Gangjin to D1, and asked her to go inside G
the bank to open the company account.
H H
I 71. About 1 hour later, Lam Man Sze called D2 and said that she I
and D1 had finished the business at the bank. D2 then went to the doorway
J J
of the bank to meet them, and checked if all documents had been returned.
K He then kept the documents for the sisters, and told them that he would call K
them when there are further arrangements for other bank accounts. He then
L L
left.
M M
72. On 7 November 2017, D1 whatsapped D2 and said that she
N N
had left her ID card inside the documents and requested to get it back for
O work. They met and it was passed back to her. (D2-11 & D2-12) O
P P
73. On 8 November 2017, D1 called D2 and stated that the bank
Q called and said the share transfer agreement was not clearly printed. D2 Q
called D3 about it, and D3 sent clearly printed documents to D2, for which
R R
D2 emailed them to D1 for onward forwarding to the bank.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
74. On 8 November 2017, D3 and D2 dealt with the manner in
C which share transfer documents of 6 companies relating to the sisters were C
to be emailed by D3 to D2.
D D
E 75. On 15 January 2018, D3 called and said that the USD account E
and online banking was not opened for Funson, and that Mr Choi would
F F
not pay. D2 therefore called D1 and asked her to call Dah Sing Bank to
G open the USD account and activate the online banking function. D1 said G
she had already called the bank about that.
H H
I 76. On 30 January 2018, $48,500 was paid by D3 to D2 for the I
opening of the Funson account. (D2-18). From that amount, D2 paid
J J
Chirsty in February 2018.
K K
77. After 14 or 15 February 2018, D2 tried to contact D1, as only
L L
3 out of 4 company accounts had been opened. As the attempts were
M unsuccessful, D2 called Lam Man Sze to have D1 contact D2. M
N N
78. On 30 April 2018, Lam Man Sze sent through WhatsApp a
O screen capture of a bank SMS concerning an online transfer of O
USD245,740 from the Funson account to an unregistered bank account.
P P
D2 was happy as that meant the account was successfully opened and in
Q use. Lam Man Sze asked if salary was paid for the Funson account. D2 Q
replied not yet. This is so even though $48,500 had been received, yet it
R R
only relates to 3 accounts, so payment for the 4th account had not been
S received. S
T T
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
79. D2 has no idea why D3 whatsapped him on 7 May 2018 about
C the security device of D1 being blocked. D2 stated that he had not received C
any security device concerning the accounts that he had assisted in opening.
D D
E 80. On 8 May 2018, in counters 6159 of P28 onwards, in the E
WhatsApp conversation between D3 and D2, D3 started with “So scary”,
F F
and D2 didn’t know what D3 was talking about. In counter 6160, D2
G mentioned that the sisters had not been paid yet, as he was afraid that they G
would reveal to Mr Choi that they had not been paid, and that might mean
H H
D2 and D3 would lose business. He did not think that there was anything
I suspicious in the messages, and he did not hear anything else about Funson I
or Mr Choi after that day. He thought that was the end of the matter and
J J
there was nothing that aroused his suspicion.
K K
81. In counter 6161 of P28, the name Ah Hei was mentioned by
L L
D3. D2 testified that he did not know Ah Hei.
M M
D3’s Evidence
N N
O 82. D3 elected to give evidence but did not call any Defence O
Witness. He testified that he owns a secretarial company named
P P
International Business Brokerage Advisory Limited (IBBA) providing
Q services to companies. IBBA’s licence issued by the Companies Registry, Q
and copies of the audited accounts for the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019
R R
are exhibited as D3-1 to D3-2; D3-3 and D3-4 respectively. Other people
S refers to him as “Accountant Chan”, but he is not an accountant. S
T T
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
83. IBBA promotes business, inter alia account opening services,
C through its website, and advertisements on google and magazines (D3-21, C
D3-24 to D3-28). It also provides pricing tables on its website and flyers
D D
including the minimum referral fee for account opening services. (D3-20
E and D3-22) E
F F
84. IBBA has a list of clients for account opening services. Mr
G Choi’s employees asked IBBA to open company accounts number 1 to 30 G
on the list. No. 22 in the list is Funson. The company address of Funson
H H
was its registered address, and not the address of IBBA, as Funson was not
I a company set up by IBBA. I
J J
85. D1 became director of Funson on 1 November 2017, as can
K be seen in P20 Funson’s Companies Registry documents filed on 7 K
November 2017. D1 was also the director and shareholder of the
L L
companies listed as no. 21 to 24 of the said list.
M M
86. IBBA had employed a part time staff Ching Cheung Tung
N N
(hereinafter referred to as “Ching”) for account opening services. Ching
O was referred by Mr Choi’s, and started working for IBBA on 4 September O
2017. He was dismissed on 1 May 2018 with one month’s notice, and his
P P
last day of work was 31 May 2018. Ching was responsible for liaising with
Q agents and picking up calls to D3’s mobile phone number when D3 was Q
outside Hong Kong.
R R
S 87. When D3 was outside Hong Kong, Ching followed up on S
matters relating to account opening. D3 was not in Hong Kong when the
T T
messages the Prosecution alleges to have been sent by him were made,
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B B
except for 19 November 2017, when the messages were sent shortly before
C 7 pm, and he had left for mainland China at 9:30 pm. C
D D
88. IBBA was the company secretary for D2’s company Power
E Cash. D2 later became one of the agents engaged by IBBA for account E
opening services. From the very start, D3 instructed D2 to open multi
F F
currency accounts for clients without exception, therefore he assumed that
G when he gave instructions to D2 to open Funson’s company account, it G
would be a multi currency account.
H H
I 89. D3 testified that he never had the security device, password or I
any form of access over clients’ company accounts. The WhatsApp
J J
message that he had sent to D2 on 7 May 2018 (at counter 6139 of P28)
K refers to the security device of D1 being blocked, and that he had called K
customer service hotline. In fact it was Mr Choi who contacted him about
L L
the blocking of the security device, and in order to provide better service
M so that there might be future business opportunities, he took up the M
responsibility to sort out this matter with D2 and D1.
N N
O 90. Concerning the WhatsApp messages between himself and D2 O
at counter 6157 of P28, he sent “So scary” as there was a phone call from
P P
D2 earlier, where D2 said there was big trouble, the agent told D2 that
Q many police officers went to Dah Sing Bank to investigate a case related Q
to the accounts opened by D1 and her sister. D3 hung up the call to pick
R R
up another call from a client, after which he sent this message “So scary”
S to D2. S
T T
U U
V V
- 23 -
A A
B B
91. Concerning the WhatsApp message with D2 at counter 6158
C of P28, D2 forwarded a photo originally from Lam Man Sze to D2, C
showing money had been transferred out of the Funson account. As the
D D
message also showed that the 2 sisters had not been paid yet, D3 thought
E the 2 sisters had stolen money from their boss, and he suspected that was E
the reason that the police went to the bank for investigations. From his
F F
understanding, Ah Hei was someone under Mr Choi, and Ah Hei was
G responsible for paying the employees. G
H H
92. For the messages that followed, D3 was making guesswork
I about what might happen afterwards. He thought that if it was Mr Choi I
who had reported to the police, it might be troublesome to himself and D2
J J
when the nominee status of D1 and her sister had to be proved.
K K
93. D3 stated that he did not conspire with D1 and D2 to deal with
L L
the amount of money specified in the charge, and that he did not know that
M amount of money would be transferred into the Funson account. For the M
rest of the 30 bank accounts that he had helped Mr Choi to open, there were
N N
no complaints or problems.
O O
Case Analysis
P P
Q D1’s Credibility and Reliability (as PW1) Q
R R
94. I have carefully considered the evidence of D1 and her
S demeanour while giving evidence. I bear in mind that she was one of the S
persons jointly charged with D2 and D3, and that by giving evidence
T T
U U
V V
- 24 -
A A
B B
against the other Defendants, she stands a chance for a reduction of
C sentence. I have therefore considered her evidence with the utmost care. C
D D
95. I find that the material part of D1’s evidence is clear and
E logical, and there are no material inconsistencies or material inherent E
improbability. I find her an honest witness, and shall accept the material
F F
parts of her evidence as credible and reliable.
G G
96. Under cross examination by D2’s counsel, D1 stated that she
H H
forgot to mention in her 1st witness statement made on 28 April 2023 that
I there was a second male (“a fat guy”) at the Second Meeting with Lala, as I
the fat male was less involved in the conversation.
J J
K 97. She also agreed that Lala expressed sympathy towards her K
indebtedness, and that Lala also mentioned the more the work, the more
L L
the returns. Lala mentioned that the ID card copies received from D1 and
M her sister were for preparing documents. She could not recall some details M
due to lapse of time.
N N
O 98. When D2’s counsel showed her 1st witness statement during O
cross examination, D1 agreed that she made mistakes in recollecting
P P
certain aspects of the 2nd Meeting with Lala: in fact the job of opening
Q account was explained by the male in the car, that the accounts would be Q
transferred to others to do business, and that for every account opened by
R R
D1, she would be given $1,000 reward. Lala also asked D1 if she was
S interested in this job. S
T T
U U
V V
- 25 -
A A
B B
99. She also agreed that due to the lapse of time, she had mixed
C up the content of her conversation with Lala and the 2 males, and the C
conversation between herself and D2. Despite that, she insisted that at the
D D
first meeting with D2, D2 explained the job nature and also mentioned the
E remuneration to her being $1,000 for every account successfully opened. E
F F
100. D2 also challenges D1’s credibility on the basis that D1 did
G not mention in her witness statement that D2 had asked her to sign on a G
document. D2 replied that she cannot remember regarding the witness
H H
statement.
I I
101. D2’s counsel also put to D1 that on 3 November 2017, D1’s
J J
sister only opened bank account at the Wanchai and not the Causeway Bay
K branch of Dah Sing Bank. D1 replied that they went to the bank together, K
but cannot recall if her sister’s bank account was successfully opened.
L L
M 102. I find that the above challenges to her evidence by the Defence M
can be fully explained by lapse of time. The events unfolded from October
N N
2017 to 2018, and the 1st witness statement made sometime in 2023, and
O her evidence in Court in 2025. As the events spanned a number of months, O
with meetings, whatsapp and telephone calls with different people, it is
P P
easy to confuse the exact content of each and every conversation. The
Q Court does not expect a witness to remember each detail, and makes Q
suitable allowance for memory becoming less accurate with the lapse of
R R
time.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 26 -
A A
B B
103. Although she admitted in Court that she had mixed up some
C of the things said at the meeting with Lala and the males, and those said by C
D2 at their first meeting, what is material in the case is whether D2 was the
D D
person who instructed her to perform the steps required in the opening of
E the bank account, and who had provided the company documents for her E
to read, and briefed her on the kind of questions that would be asked by the
F F
bank staff.
G G
104. Although the pdf file containing the company information
H H
was not exhibited, it is common ground that it contains basic information
I about Funson and its business nature, and Companies Registry documents, I
and proof of business being conducted, in order to be viewed as sufficient
J J
supporting documentation to the bank for opening a company account.
K Although the Prosecution case is unclear about who had prepared the K
documents, it is also common ground that D2 was the person who brought
L L
the documents to D1. There seems to be little dispute as to the factual basis
M of the dealings between D1 and D2, save as the part about the discussion M
about remuneration to D1 and the introduction of the job nature by D2.
N N
O 105. I find that it is understandable that while giving evidence in O
2025, D1 had forgotten certain things that were discussed at the meeting
P P
with Lala and the 2 males in 2017 due to lapse of time, despite being able
Q to recall those events in her 2023 witness statement. Q
R R
106. But despite the cross examination along those lines, she was
S adamant that D2 did mention the job nature and the amount of S
remuneration at their first meeting. From this observation, it is clear from
T T
her evidence that the so called “mix up” between the meeting with Lala
U U
V V
- 27 -
A A
B B
and the males, and the first meeting with D2, was in fact a slip of memory
C mainly concerning the meeting with Lala and the males. I find that her C
evidence concerning the first meeting with D2 as unshaken, clear and
D D
logical.
E E
107. She denied under cross examination that D2 provided services
F F
to assist her in opening accounts for companies. She insisted that D2 was
G the person who asked her to open accounts, and that she had followed D2’s G
orders.
H H
I 108. She also denied knowing anyone named Ah Hei or Mr Choi. I
She also testified that she did not know the meaning of ‘nominee’, and she
J J
did not act as a nominee in the opening of the bank accounts. She stated
K that she only knew she became the director of Funson on 1 November 2017 K
and that she had signed in the Notice of Change of Company Secretary and
L L
Director when the police took the VRI with her.
M M
109. I find that it is credible that she would not understand the
N N
meaning of nominee. She is a young woman in her 20s without having
O completed her associate degree course. Her present occupation is puppy- O
walker and is not related to financial or corporate fields. The concept of
P P
nominee is not a concept so commonly known by the general public as to
Q raise eyebrows when a person displays ignorance of it. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 28 -
A A
B B
D2’s Credibility and Reliability (Evidence in Court and in VRI)
C C
110. I have carefully considered the evidence and demeanour of
D D
D2. D2 has voluntarily disclosed his record in his evidence. In Chief, and
E I shall not draw any adverse inference against him due to the said disclosure. E
I shall further note that his record is not of a similar nature as the present
F F
charge, and is neither of a dishonest nature.
G G
111. Concerning the VRI of D2, I have considered the inculpatory
H H
and exculpatory parts independently. I find that the inculpatory part, the
I parts consistent with the Prosecution case, and those supported by I
documentary proof, as logical and credible, and I therefore accept those
J J
parts as the truth. For the exculpatory part, I find that it is incredible and
K self serving, and I shall therefore not give any weight to this part. K
L L
112. As D2’s evidence is largely in line with the content of his VRI,
M I shall proceed with analyzing both at the same time, save the parts that are M
specifically dealt with separately below.
N N
O 113. During his evidence In Chief, D2 said that he did not know O
what D3 was talking about being “So scary” in the WhatsApp message.
P P
Yet he was able to respond by saying he had called the elder sister and
Q found out that the sisters had not been paid yet, and that he wanted them to Q
receive money first, then if something happens they would know what to
R R
say, otherwise they would disclose whatever she likes. As the conversation
S continued on WhatsApp, D2 mentioned in counter 6166 of P28 WhatsApp S
messages between himself and D3 about going to the police station. I am
T T
of the view that it would not be possible for the several messages to go
U U
V V
- 29 -
A A
B B
back and forth between them without D2 knowing or asking what D1 was
C talking about in the first place. C
D D
114. The suggested scenario put forward by D3’s counsel in cross
E examination of D2 is more convincing, that D3’s message of “So scary” E
was as a result of a telephone call between the 2 of them, where D2
F F
mentioned his friend Chirsty informed him that the police went to Dah Sing
G Bank being concerned about the sisters’ bank accounts. To this, D2 replied G
that he had no recollection of having said that to D3, and that there was no
H H
phone call with D3 as alleged. I am of the view that D2 was lying in the
I witness box, and nothing that he said could explain the absurdity of the I
relevant whatsapp messages on 8 May 2018.
J J
K 115. I am also of the view that the explanation given by D2 about K
‘wanting the sisters to be paid’ is unconvincing.’ Under cross examination
L L
by the Prosecution and also in his evidence In Chief, he explained that he
M was concerned that if the sisters had not been paid, they might reveal or M
report matters to Mr Choi and therefore affect his business. Yet all that
N N
was done by Lam Man Sze at that juncture was sending the SMS that D1
O had received concerning money being transferred out, indicating that the O
USD account was functioning. Nothing was mentioned about the account
P P
running for some time and yet payment was not made to D1, and Lam Man
Q Sze was not chasing for remuneration for herself or D1. It was a far cry Q
from the SMS and the conversation between Lam Man Sze and D2, to D2
R R
claiming that he was afraid the sisters would reveal the outstanding
S payment matter to Mr Choi and causing problems with future business. S
T T
U U
V V
- 30 -
A A
B B
116. D2 also explained under cross examination by the Prosecution
C that he referred to the police station in the whatsapp messages with D3, as C
Mr Choi was a businessman, so if anything happens, and the account is
D D
unclear, Mr Choi would report to the police.
E E
117. According to counter 6161 of P28, D3 mentioned that the
F F
money had already been given to Ah Hei, apparently as the person who
G was responsible for paying the sisters. Yet D2’s reference to the police G
station was later in the conversation. According to D2’s evidence, there
H H
was at that point not even the slightest suggestion that there were unclear
I accounts, or Ah Hei delaying payment to the sisters. To connect that state I
of affairs to Mr Choi making report to the police simply does not make any
J J
sense.
K K
118. D2‘s version of how D1 and Lam Man Sze came to become
L L
nominees of the companies is also unbelievable. He talked about the
M nominees’ contact being provided by Mr Choi to D3, and from D3 to him, M
yet in counter 1897 of P28, D3 asked D2 whether the sisters could open
N N
more than the existing 4 accounts. He agreed under cross examination that
O D3 was asking for his opinion. Yet according to his version, the nominee O
for each company was not his nor D3’s decision. I find that his evidence
P P
in this respect inconsistent with contemporaneous whatsapp evidence.
Q Q
D3’s Credibility and Reliability
R R
S 119. I have carefully considered the content of D3’s evidence and S
his demeanour when giving evidence. Except the parts not disputed or
T T
supported by IBBA company documents, Companies Registry documents
U U
V V
- 31 -
A A
B B
or bank documents, I find D3’s evidence incredible, and rife with inherent
C improbabilities and inconsistencies both within his evidence in Court and C
with his VRI which he stated as containing the truth.
D D
E 120. The Court however accepts the part of D3’s evidence E
concerning D2 making a call to D3 about the news that police officers had
F F
visited Dah Sing Bank about the accounts opened by D1, as the precursor
G for the WhatsApp messages in P28 starting with counter 6157. G
H H
121. Concerning D3’s VRI, I have considered the inculpatory and
I exculpatory parts independently. I find the inculpatory part, those parts I
consistent with the Prosecution case or supported by IBBA company
J J
documents, Companies Registry documents or bank documents, as logical
K and credible. I shall accept such parts as the truth and shall give them K
absolute weight. For the exculpatory part, I find them incredible and
L L
illogical, and I shall therefore refuse to accept them as the truth, nor to
M attach any weight to it. M
N N
122. For avoidance of doubt, the Court accepts that D3 owned a
O secretarial company IBBA, which deals with account opening services O
apart from other usual secretarial company services. It is also accepted that
P P
IBBA engaged D2 as its agent in account opening services. These would
Q apply equally to the Court’s assessment of D2’s evidence and his VRI. Q
R R
123. As D3’s VRI is largely in line with his evidence in Court, I
S shall deal with both in one go, save as the points specifically dealt with S
separately below.
T T
U U
V V
- 32 -
A A
B B
124. D3 testified that he guessed the 2 sisters had stolen the amount
C of money specified in the SMS forwarded to D2 by Lam Man Sze. In fact C
that SMS only indicates that sum of money being transferred out through
D D
online banking from the Funson account to an unregistered account.
E E
125. The photo of the SMS also shows the conversation between
F F
D2 and Lam Man Sze, where Lam Man Sze mentioned that the account
G opened by D1 is now in operation, and asked D2 whether he had been paid G
the fees. From all appearances, even taking into account the information
H H
and knowledge of the events of D3, the messages appear to be sharing of
I the account opening result and obtaining of information concerning the I
payment status to other related parties. It is absolutely illogical to guess
J J
that the sisters have embezzled the funds of Mr Choi, when they disclosed
K without compulsion or duty the fact that a very large amount of money had K
been transferred out of Funson’s account, which would inevitably draw
L L
suspicion on themselves.
M M
126. I am of the view that D3’s explanation above as to his
N N
‘guesswork’ was an attempt to make his discussion with D2 subsequent to
O receiving the forwarded photo containing the SMS less suspicious, bearing O
in mind that the said discussion between himself and D2 related to an
P P
assessment of whether blame would be placed on the 2 of them based on
Q whether money had changed hands, and whether they had to go to the Q
police station. I therefore do not accept D3’s explanation concerning the
R R
messages on 8 May 2018.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 33 -
A A
B B
127. Although D3 did not contest the admissibility of the
C WhatsApp messages between his phone number and D2, he explained in C
the witness box that for all the WhatsApp messages sent from his phone
D D
number and relied on by the Prosecution, all but one day’s messages were
E sent when he was outside Hong Kong and not by him. E
F F
128. Under cross examination by the Prosecution, he claims that he
G had lent the phone number to Ching when he was outside Hong Kong. G
When confronted by his answer in his VRI that he had not ever lent this
H H
phone number to anyone, he initially replied that the police did not ask.
I When fiat counsel pressed him by asking whether his answer in the VRI to I
the specific question by the police about whether he had lent his phone
J J
number to anyone was true, he replied with “I had not lent it to anyone at
K that time.” Fiat counsel then put to D3 that he had not been lending the K
phone to his employee, and then came the answer from D3 “Yes, because
L L
employees are employees, they are not other people.”
M M
129. During Re-examination, he referred to counter 1188 of his
N N
VRI, which mentions the specific phone number “is the phone Number of
O my company. (It) is my phone Number”, and explained that he chose that O
as his phone number, and that any employee of the company can use it.
P P
Q 130. The Court notes that during the questioning in the VRI, some Q
if not all of the whatsapp messages from his phone using the specified
R R
phone number and which are related to the present case were shown to D3
S for his comment. He had never mentioned that some of the WhatsApp S
messages might not have been sent by him as he might not be in HK, or
T T
that he would lend the phone number to his staff for follow up purposes.
U U
V V
- 34 -
A A
B B
Although he is not obliged to provide information to the police, it is too
C much of a coincidence for the lending of phone number and sending of C
WhatsApp by staff to come up for the first time during evidence in Court.
D D
E 131. The above account of the cross examination of D3 by fiat E
counsel and his Re-examination also demonstrates very clearly the
F F
evasiveness and sneakiness in which D3 approaches his evidence. When
G faced with the fact that his evidence is contrary to his earlier statements in G
the VRI, he tries to blame the police, and then to twist the meaning of
H H
everyday plain words.
I I
132. Although D3 does not have the burden to prove his innocence,
J J
his claim that the majority of the WhatsApp messages were sent not by
K himself, and that he had lent his phone number to Ching, a part time staff K
who had since been dismissed by IBBA for reasons of work ethics, for
L L
handling calls in his absence from Hong Kong is easy to make, and is one
M which the Court must take great care to assess. Based on the inconsistency M
with the content of the VRI on the use of the phone number, coupled with
N N
the uncanny coincidental first appearance of such a claim in Court, I find
O that the said claim is incredible and I shall reject it. O
P P
133. Concerning the identity and role of Mr Choi, D3 stated under
Q cross examination by Prosecution that Mr Choi was his company’s client, Q
and he understood him to be the boss. When fiat counsel confronted him
R R
that in his VRI counter 1023, he said Mr Choi might just be an errand boy,
S to which D3 answered he might be. Eventually he agreed that he did not S
care whether Mr Choi was the boss or the errand boy, as long as Mr Choi
T T
U U
V V
- 35 -
A A
B B
brings in the business. When this Court clarified this with him, he stated
C that Mr Choi said his employees wished to open company accounts. C
D D
134. The above shows his evasive attitude concerning a very
E simple question about his impression of someone that according to his VRI E
he considered as an important client who brought in lots of business and
F F
made advance full payment in cash for 8 companies.
G G
WhatsApp Messages
H H
I 135. As stated above in the analysis of D3’s evidence, I reject D3’s I
evidence that save as one of the days, the messages sent from his phone
J J
number on all other days relied upon by the Prosecution were not made by
K him. Despite accepting the Immigration records of D3 (which are agreed K
under s65C Criminal Procedure Ordinance), I reject his evidence that he
L L
had lent his telephone number to Ching.
M M
136. 136. I find that the messages in P28 are consistent with the
N N
roles of D2 and D3, and I therefore accept that all messages sent from D2
O and D3’s telephone number were in fact made by D2 and D3 respectively. O
P P
Legal Principles
Q Q
137. The Prosecution has indicated that the co-conspirator’s rule is
R R
relied on. From the PTR until Closing Submissions, defence counsels and
S the Court had repeatedly enquired with Prosecution as to the factual basis S
which must be proved by the Prosecution before the co-conspirator’s rule
T T
can be invoked. It is imperative upon the Prosecution to make a clear
U U
V V
- 36 -
A A
B B
indication so that the Defence will know how to meet the Prosecution case,
C and to make submissions as to whether the rule can be successfully invoked. C
I have been unable to ascertain from the representations of fiat counsel as
D D
to what those facts are. The Court must not be left in a position of having
E to guess at which facts are relied on as the prerequisite for the application E
of the rule. I am therefore of the view that the Prosecution has failed to
F F
demonstrate, let alone prove, the facts that have to be proved as the basis
G for the co-conspirator’s rule to apply. G
H H
138. Before I may convict D2 and D3, I must be sure that there was
I an agreement to deal with property known or believed to represent I
proceeds of an indictable offence, that they had joined in the agreement
J J
with D1, that they intended to make that agreement, and that, when D2 and
K D3 did so, they intended that they or some other party to the agreement K
would carry out the agreement.
L L
M 139. In HKSAR v Harjani Haresh Murlidhar [2019] HKCFA 47, M
CFA reformulated the relevant legal tests of money laundering in the
N N
following manner:
O O
“(i) What facts or circumstances, including those personal to
P the defendant, were known to the defendant that may P
have affected his belief as to whether the property was
Q
the proceeds of crime (“tainted”)? Q
(ii) Would any reasonable person who shared the
R defendant’s knowledge be bound to believe that the R
property was tainted?
S S
(iii) If the answer to question (ii) is “yes” the defendant is
guilty. If it is “no” the defendant is not guilty.
T T
27. Thus the first issue that the judge or jury (“the court”)
must address is what matters the defendant knew of that might
U U
V V
- 37 -
A A
B have affected his belief as to whether the property was clean or B
tainted. This question is subjective only in as much as it requires
C the tribunal to make findings as to the knowledge of the C
defendant at the time of the relevant transaction. Where the
defendant gives evidence of facts and matters that affected his
D belief about the nature of the property, the court has to decide D
whether he is, or may be, telling the truth about the existence of
E
these facts and matters. E
28. The second issue is whether any reasonable person who
F shared the defendant’s knowledge would have been bound to F
believe that the property was tainted. This question is objective.
Where the court finds that the defendant was, or may have been,
G G
telling the truth about the existence of facts and matters that he
claims affected his belief, the court must take those facts and
H matters into account when answering the question, would any H
reasonable person with knowledge of those facts and matters
have believed that the property was tainted? If the answer to the
I question is “yes” the defendant is guilty. If it is “no” the I
defendant is not guilty.”
J J
140. I will make my deliberations on the application of the legal
K K
principles on each defendant independently.
L L
Case Analysis Based on Evidence Accepted by the Court
M M
N 141. As stated in these Reasons, I have accepted the material part N
of the evidence of D1 as the truth. What has been proved is that in or about
O O
September to October 2017, D3 received instructions and payment from a
P Mr Choi, who requested that company accounts be opened for a number of P
companies already in existence, some of which had D1 becoming the
Q Q
shareholder and director shortly before the opening of company accounts.
R D3 received the company documents from Mr Choi, and forwarded them R
to D2 on 2 November 2017.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 38 -
A A
B B
142. D3 engaged D2 as the agent for the account opening
C procedure. D2’s involvement included contacting and arranging D1 for a C
meeting, where the job nature and remuneration were mentioned, and
D D
company documents required for account opening were passed to D1 for
E studying. D2 instructed another agent with bank contact to arrange the E
account opening meetings at the bank.
F F
G 143. On 3 November 2017, D2 accompanied D1 to the vicinity of G
the bank, handed over company documents for the account opening to D1,
H H
and waited outside while D1 dealt with the procedure. After completion,
I D1 checked and kept the company documents. Then D1 and D2 repeated I
the same procedure at another branch of the same bank. 1 out of the 3
J J
accounts opened by D1 that day was the Funson account.
K K
144. When the bank came back to D1 with request for company
L L
document with a clearer print, D1 passed on the request to D2, and D2
M contacted D3 for the better copy and forwarded to D1 for sending to the M
bank.
N N
O 145. In May 2018 D3 came to know that the security device for O
company accounts opened by D1 had been blocked, D3 called Customer
P P
Service, and thereupon approached D2 on 7 May 2018 to ask D1 to call the
Q bank to unblock. D2 did as requested. Q
R R
146. On 8 May 2018, D2 called D3 and informed D3 that his agent
S Chirsty said that police had visited Dah Sing Bank concerning the accounts S
opened by D1. Thereupon D2 and D3 engaged in a series of WhatsApp
T T
U U
V V
- 39 -
A A
B B
messages as recorded in counters 6157 to 6161, 6164 to 6166 of P28 and
C P28A (see Appendix 1) C
D D
147. There is unarguably an agreement between D1, D2 and D3 to
E open a company bank account for Funson. The question is whether there E
was an agreement to deal with property known or believed to be proceeds
F F
of an indictable offence.
G G
148. There is no direct evidence that D2 or D3 knew that the
H H
amount specified in the Charge and as transferred into and away from the
I Funson account was the proceeds of an indictable offence. In fact there is I
no evidence at the trial of D2 and D3 that the amount was in fact the
J J
proceeds of an indictable offence, or that an indictable offence had
K occurred. K
L L
149. According to HKSAR v Harjani Haresh Murlidhar, a two
M stage test had to be adopted. I have already conducted independent analysis M
on the credibility of the facts and matters within D2’s and D3’s knowledge
N N
separately that might affect their respective belief.
O O
150. The matters that the Court accepts as within D2’s knowledge
P P
within the period of the Charge (ie from 30 October 2017 to 30 April 2018)
Q which might have a bearing on his belief are: Q
R R
(i) he intended to start a company account opening agency
S business in 2017; S
T T
(ii) previously he was in the finance company business;
U U
V V
- 40 -
A A
B B
C (iii) He approached D3 who ran a secretarial company C
(IBBA) for referral of business for company account
D D
opening;
E E
(iv) His finance company accounts were handled by IBBA;
F F
G (v) D3 told him that IBBA provided company account G
opening service;
H H
I (vi) He was informed by D3 that a Mr Choi had a number I
of companies for which he wanted his staff to open
J J
company accounts as nominees;
K K
(vii) D3 sent the pdf file with information of 8 companies,
L L
including Funson, to D2. The file contained documents
M required for nominees of Mr Choi to present to the bank M
for opening company accounts;
N N
O (viii) D1 was the director and shareholder of Funson but as a O
nominee;
P P
Q (ix) That as part of the services to the client, D2 reminded Q
D1 of the questions the bank staff would ask at the
R R
account opening meeting. D2 also brought the original
S company documents to the nominee D1 near the bank, S
and kept the documents for the client after the
T T
U U
V V
- 41 -
A A
B B
procedure in case the bank wants to have document
C copies sent again; C
D D
(x) the bank was in contact with D1 for clarification of
E matters for the opening of the Funson account; E
F F
(xi) The original company documents were returned to
G Funson; and G
H H
(xii) On 30 April 2018, D2 came to know through Lam Man
I Sze that USD245,740 had been transferred out of the I
Funson account by online banking to an unregistered
J J
recipient account.
K K
151. The matters that the Court accepts as within D3’s knowledge
L L
within the period of the Charge (ie from 30 October 2017 to 30 April 2018)
M which might have a bearing on his belief are: M
N N
(i) D2 approached him and his secretarial company (IBBA)
O for referral of business for company account opening; O
P P
(ii) D2’s finance company’s accounts were handled by
Q IBBA; Q
R R
(iii) IBBA had all along advertised and provided company
S account opening service; S
T T
U U
V V
- 42 -
A A
B B
(iv) A man named Mr Choi approached IBBA and stated
C that he had a number of companies with different lines C
of businesses for which he wanted his staff members to
D D
open company accounts as nominees for business
E operations. D3 referred the business of Mr Choi to D2; E
F F
(v) D3 received from Mr Choi, and sent the pdf file with
G information of 8 companies, including Funson, to D2. G
The file contained documents required for nominees of
H H
Mr Choi to present to the bank for opening company
I accounts; I
J J
(vi) Mr Choi was an important client to IBBA, as he paid
K for the company account opening fee for the many K
companies involved in advance full payment and by
L L
cash.
M M
(vii) D1 became the director and shareholder of Funson
N N
shortly before the opening of company account but as a
O nominee; O
P P
(viii) It was D3’s understanding that as part of the services to
Q the client, D2 would remind D1 of the questions the Q
bank staff would ask at the account opening meeting,
R R
and bring the original company documents to the
S nominee D1 near the bank; S
T T
U U
V V
- 43 -
A A
B B
(ix) That the bank was in contact with D1 for clarification
C of matters for the opening of the Funson account, and C
D2 would handle the bank’s requests for D1;
D D
E (x) The original company documents were returned to E
Funson after all documentation and procedure had been
F F
completed; and
G G
(xi) On 30 April 2018, D2 came to know through Lam Man
H H
Sze that USD245,740 had been transferred out of the
I Funson account by online banking to an unregistered I
recipient account.
J J
K 152. For the second stage of the test, I have to consider whether a K
reasonable person with D2 and D3’s respective knowledge, is bound to
L L
believe that the amount of USD245,740 represented the proceeds of an
M indictable offence. M
N N
153. Apparently D2 performs the role of an agent in the Funson
O account opening, as evidenced by the payment slips from D3 to him dated O
30 January 2018 that bear remarks of ‘commission’, with payments
P P
relating to other companies bearing remarks of ‘agent fee’ and initials of
Q banks. Q
R R
154. There is no direct evidence that D2 or D3 knew the said
S amount would be or had been transferred into the Funson account, nor any S
evidence that they knew ahead of time that the said amount would be
T T
transferred out.
U U
V V
- 44 -
A A
B B
C 155. There is also no direct evidence that D2 or D3 had received C
the online banking password, the bank card, or the security device. It
D D
would appear that the bank card was mailed to the registered address of
E Funson, which is not the same address as IBBA’s address. Despite D1 E
mentioning an occasion where D2 informed her that the bank card had been
F F
received, there was no reference as to who had received it, and it was only
G made in the context of telling D1 there is no need to follow up. G
H H
156. There is, however, some suggestion from the WhatsApp
I messages in P28 that in May 2018, D3 contacted D2 and mentioned that I
D1’s security device was blocked, and that he had called the customer
J J
service hotline, with the reply from the hotline that the director of the
K company had to contact the bank to unblock the device. K
L L
157. Despite the court not accepting certain parts of D3’s evidence,
M a careful reading of the WhatsApp message only indicates the security M
device as being blocked, but did not mention the source of such information.
N N
Therefore it cannot support an irresistible inference that D1 was in
O possession of the security device at any point of time. O
P P
158. From the above, I am of the view that there is nothing that
Q would cause a reasonable person with D2’s knowledge of the facts to Q
believe that the agreement to open a company account for Funson involves
R R
dealing with the proceeds of crime. Having nominees as director and
S shareholder of a company is not uncommon in Hong Kong. When a S
company is held by a nominee, the company bank account can only be
T T
U U
V V
- 45 -
A A
B B
opened by a nominee. Late changes of nominees right before opening of
C bank accounts are also not uncommon, C
D D
159. It is also not unusual for companies to engage agents with
E bank contacts to deal with the initial arrangements for company account E
opening, and to advise on the documents required to be presented to the
F F
bank. There were also an abundance of so called ‘accounting services
G companies” advertising services for opening company bank accounts in G
Hong Kong. That is not to say that such companies have a ‘licence’ to
H H
engage in money laundering activities. Much depends on the facts of each
I case. The same analysis applies to D3, save as to certain facts unique to D3 I
which will be discussed below.
J J
K 160. It is not disputed that D2 had received the basic set of K
company documents for account opening purposes from D3, with
L L
information on the line of business of Funson, and business proof. D2
M hasn’t taken up many company account opening instructions before M
Funson; whereas in his understanding D3 had been providing such services
N N
as a secretarial services company.
O O
161. It is also normal for an agent not to have direct contact with
P P
the ‘boss’ who is Mr Choi in the present case. There is also on the face of
Q it, nothing unusual for the agent not to enquire or know about who pays for Q
the fee charged by a secretarial services company of a nominee director
R R
opening a company bank account.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 46 -
A A
B B
162. The facts unique to D3’s knowledge that are not shared by D2,
C and which affects the objective stage of the test, include the fact that he C
charged Mr Choi full payment in advance, which was the same payment
D D
requirement for all clients requiring company account opening service.
E The main feature is that the initial instructions concern 5 companies, and E
from the table produced by D3 (D3-34), the fee paid by the client for
F F
Funson and the other companies where the director and shareholder was
G either D1 or Lam Man Sze, was $16,000 for each account. Although that G
is not a huge sum in business terms, paying for 5 companies in cash all at
H H
once would catch people’s attention. But even though people practising
I illegal means are more likely to use cash to avoid tracing and detection, the I
fact that cash payment was made for this amount does not necessarily bring
J J
D3’s case outside the original analysis.
K K
163. Another unique feature to D3 is that he was the first contact
L L
with Mr Choi, who was not a previous client of his company. He accepted
M the business from Mr Choi for opening of company accounts, yet did not M
keep Mr Choi’s ID Card copy or other documents that could indicate his
N N
identity or role in the companies, and did not even mention Mr Choi’s full
O name in evidence. O
P P
164. This brings D3’s case to a borderline one, as he had received
Q company documents from Mr Choi, and all companies appear to have legit Q
business relating to different fields, apparently justifying the opening of
R R
many different company accounts. The fact that one uses nominees for
S company directorships and operates behind the scene without disclosing S
one’s full name could be for either deceitful or innocent purpose.
T T
U U
V V
- 47 -
A A
B B
165. The Court has to further consider whether the actions and
C words of D2 and D3 after the end date of the Charge, i.e. after 30 April C
2018, can be considered as shedding light upon the mens rea of D2 and D3.
D D
There is no hard and fast rule, apart from the basic principle that words and
E actions after the event may go to prove mens rea during the time of the E
offence, but it depends on the circumstances.
F F
G 166. When D2 received the photo of the SMS message, the dealing G
with proceeds had already been completed a few hours ago. From the
H H
conversation on that occasion between D2 and Lam Man Sze, it is at best
I neutral, and cannot support any allegation that D2 knew about the transfer I
ahead of time and that it was a report from Lam Man Sze to D2. If it was
J J
out of duty that Lam Man Sze was reporting to D2 about a planned event,
K D2 would not have appeared to be rather grateful for the information, as K
shown in the message. Instead it appears as a sharing of information so
L L
that remuneration can be claimed from whoever should pay D2.
M M
167. After D2 received the photo of the SMS from Lam Man Sze
N N
on 30 April 2018, he called and sent it to D3 on 8 May 2018, breaking the
O news that police officers had visited the bank concerning D1’s company O
accounts.
P P
Q 168. The WhatsApp conversation that follows appears gravely Q
suspicious for D2 and D3; there was reference of D3 saying “Very scary”,
R R
asking whether the transfer had already been made, was it taken by
S someone again or blocked by the bank; and D2 mentioning that he wanted S
the sisters to receive money first, otherwise D1 would disclose whatever
T T
she likes in case anything happens; then D3 saying its ok for D2 and
U U
V V
- 48 -
A A
B B
himself as they don’t have monetary dealings with D1, it was only D1 who
C contacted D2 to open bank accounts; and D2 mentioning they might have C
to go to police station. It reflects a picture of D2 and D3 panicking over
D D
the police investigations which might lead to them.
E E
169. In order to make use of behaviour after the charge duration as
F F
circumstantial evidence for the charged period, the inference must be very
G strong. I am of the view that obviously D2 did not think there was anything G
exceptional about the transfer of funds out of the Funson account when he
H H
first received notification by Lam Man Sze on 30 April 2018, otherwise he
I would not have kept quiet about it until 8 May 2018. I
J J
170. On 8 May 2018, as found by the Court, D2 had already heard
K from an agent that the police were investigating accounts opened by D1. K
Under such circumstances, after he had notified D3 about it, D2 and D3
L L
might panic because their involvement in a money laundering scheme
M might be detected, or they might panic because they were taken by surprise M
by the possibility of money laundering. They were in the account opening
N N
business for different duration, yet they must have heard about and realised
O the risk involved in being entangled in money laundering schemes, whether O
intentionally or unknowingly.
P P
Q 171. I am therefore of the view that the post-Charge WhatsApp Q
messages cannot assist the Court in drawing an irresistible inference that
R R
D2 and D3 knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the money
S dealt with in the Funson account were proceeds of an indictable offence. S
To prove a conspiracy charge would still require the objective element of
T T
the money laundering charge to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
U U
V V
- 49 -
A A
B B
C 172. I am therefore of the view that by applying the 2 stage test to C
D2 and D3, they should be found not guilty of the Charge. Despite the
D D
grave suspicion the Court holds over their possible involvement,
E reluctantly D2 and D3 are acquitted. E
F F
G G
H H
( Peony Wong )
I I
Deputy District Judge
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 923/2022
C [2025] HKDC 1148 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 923 OF 2022
F F
G --------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I WONG SAI KUI WILSON 2nd Defendant I
CHAN FAI MAN 3rd Defendant
J J
----------------------------
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge Peony Wong
L L
Date: 4 July 2025
M Present: Mr Maurice Peter Tracy, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR M
Mr Roy K Y Lau, instructed by C.M. Chow & Company, for
N N
the 2nd defendant
O Mr David Boyton, instructed by Francis Kong & Co., for the O
3rd defendant
P P
Offence: Conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to
Q represent proceeds of an indictable offence（串謀處理已知 Q
R
道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產） R
S S
---------------------------------------
T REASONS FOR VERDICT T
---------------------------------------
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C 1. D1 to D3 are jointly charged with a single count of Conspiracy C
to Deal with Property Known or Believed to Represent Proceeds of an
D D
Indictable Offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and
E Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. It is alleged that they had, between E
30 October 2017 and 30 April 2018, conspired together to deal with
F F
US$825,946 in the bank account under the name of Funson Trading
G Limited with Dah Sing Bank Limited, knowing or having reasonable G
grounds to believe that the said amount of money, in whole or in part,
H H
directly or indirectly represented proceeds of an indictable offence.
I I
2. D1 pleaded guilty before me, and had been called as PW1,
J J
pending sentence. The present verdict therefore only deals with D2 and
K D3 who had pleaded not guilty to the charge. K
L L
Admitted Facts and Areas Not in Dispute
M M
3. In the Admitted Facts (P35), the arrest of D2 and D3, as well
N N
as the voluntariness of the VRIs of D2 and D3 are admitted. The chain of
O exhibits is not disputed, which includes that of D2 and D3’s mobile phones O
and SIM cards.
P P
Q 4. Although the admissibility of the WhatsApp messages found Q
in D1 and D2’s mobile phones are not challenged, the Prosecution only
R R
relies on those in P28 (P28A certified translation). D2 in his evidence
S maintains that the messages shown to have been sent by his phone number S
were not all sent by him, and could possibly be sent when he was outside
T T
Hong Kong by his staff who had left service.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 5. D2 and D3’s ID are also not in dispute. It is also admitted that C
D1 positively identified D2 as Nam Gor, the responsible person at an ID
D D
Parade held on 15 May 2019.
E E
Prosecution Case
F F
G 6. The Prosecution called D1 as the only witness. In her G
evidence, she states that she is 28 years old, and had received associate
H H
degree education but had not been able to complete the course. She is at
I the time of the evidence an assistant puppy walker. I
J J
7. She states that in September 2017, she was in debt of about
K $100,000 from credit card and financial institutions debts and had ceased K
her studies. She took up part time jobs but the salary was low.
L L
M 8. In September or October 2017, she started looking for jobs on M
Facebook and IG, and through her elder sister Lam Man Sze who was also
N N
looking for work. Her elder sister arranged a meeting with a woman named
O Lala for a job as wedding witness. O
P P
9. At the meeting between D1, her elder sister and Lala, Lala
Q obtained personal information of the sisters, and came to know that the Q
sisters were in debt. Lala informed them that there were no more vacancies
R R
for wedding witnesses, but she could help them look for other job
S opportunities from colleagues. S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
10. There was also another occasion where Lala and 2 males came
C to visit D1 and her elder sister in Tuen Mun (hereinafter referred to as ‘the C
Second Meeting with Lala’). D1 did not know the purpose of the visit.
D D
The sisters boarded the vehicle driven by the other party. It was mentioned
E in the journey that the sisters were in debt. One of the males said that since E
the amount of D1’s debt was small, it could be easily settled. It was
F F
mentioned that a job of opening company accounts is available for the
G sisters, and that $1,000 would be the remuneration for each account G
successfully opened. The sisters’ contacts were asked for, they signed on
H H
a piece of paper, and their ID card copies were collected by the other side.
I Lala did not speak much. After having a meal, the other party drove the I
sisters home.
J J
K 11. Upon the introduction of the group of people including Lala K
and the 2 males, a meeting on 3 November 2017 was arranged between the
L L
sisters and a male called Nam Gor (D2), who D1 said was the responsible
M person. Before the meeting on 3 November 2017, D2 called D1 and M
confirmed D1’s name and that she wanted to take up the job of opening
N N
accounts.
O O
12. During the meeting, D2 gave a big bundle of documents
P P
(including a pile of company names) to D1, saying that they were company
Q information, and asked D1 to read and memorize the information such as Q
the business of the company, for the purposes of opening company
R R
accounts. D2 told D1 that the bank would ask her about the nature of the
S business and the amounts that would be moved into and out of the company S
accounts. Her initial understanding was to open USD company accounts,
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
but later on she came to know that it was in fact accounts that have online
C banking transfer functions. C
D D
13. D2 mentioned the names of the companies that needed
E accounts to be opened, one of which was Funson Trading Limited E
(hereinafter referred to as “Funson”), and said that D2 had to open these
F F
accounts, and later on the accounts would be transferred to the companies.
G D2 mentioned that D1 would be paid $1,000 for each company account G
successfully opened. He also mentioned that there might also be future
H H
work opportunities.
I I
14. After reading the company documents given to her, D1 went
J J
to Dah Sing Bank in Wan Chai, and then Dah Sing Bank in Causeway Bay,
K for the purposes of opening company accounts. One of the accounts was K
for Funson, and she could not remember the name of the other one.
L L
M 15. On 3 November 2017, at the Wan Chai branch of Dah Sing M
Bank, D1 gave the pile of company documents and her ID card to the bank
N N
staff, and was asked by the bank staff to fill in some information, including
O her email address and mobile telephone number. O
P P
16. On the same day at the Causeway Bay branch of Dah Sing
Q Bank, D1 opened a bank account for Funson. Documents were given to Q
her by the bank staff, and she passed them to D2, mistakenly leaving her
R R
ID card inside the pile of documents.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
17. On that day D1 and her elder sister were opening accounts at
C different counters of the same branch. When they had finished the relevant C
procedure, they would leave the bank and join D2 nearby. D2 and the
D D
sisters discussed about the possibility that the bank staff might call and
E followup. D1 understood that she would only receive $1,000 per account E
as remuneration if the account was successfully opened. After the
F F
discussion, they parted ways.
G G
18. D1 was involved in similar arrangements for opening of
H H
company accounts for a few months. Every time there would be prior
I arrangements with the bank before D1 attended the bank for the account I
opening. The communication between D1 and D2 after 3 November 2017
J J
took the form of whatsapp, phonecalls and face to face meetings. She had
K met D2 not more than 10 times after 3 November 2017. K
L L
19. She had received calls from bank staff concerning the bank
M accounts that she had opened on the instructions of D2, and passed on M
messages from banks concerning requests for bank transfer documents,
N N
depositing money into accounts and other matters concerning opening of
O bank accounts. The documents were all prepared by D2, and she did not O
have a clear understanding of what they were. She was merely responsible
P P
for submitting the documents to the bank.
Q Q
20. When D1 realized that she had left her ID card with the
R R
documents from the bank with D2, she whatsapped him trying to get the
S ID card back for work. They arranged to meet the following day. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
21. The meeting took place a few days after 3 November 2017, in
C either Wan Chai or Causeway Bay. She got back her ID card. C
D D
22. After that, when bank staff informed her that further
E documentation is required, she contacted D2. D2 asked D1 to send her E
signature and email address, so that documents can be sent to her. She had
F F
also met D2 during that period of time, but she could not recall the exact
G date. G
H H
23. In January 2018, D1 was asked to attend Causeway Bay Dah
I Sing Bank to complete the procedure for setting up online banking or USD I
account of Funson. After the USD account of Funson was opened, bank
J J
staff gave her some information and she in turn passed those to D2 at Hysan
K in Causeway Bay. K
L L
24. For the first company account opened by her, she wrote her
M home address as the correspondence address due to inexperience. She M
cannot recall the address that she provided for the later company accounts
N N
opened by her.
O O
25. The bank cards of the company accounts opened by her were
P P
not sent to her. Even though she had no idea whether the bank cards were
Q sent directly to D2, D2 called her concerning those accounts and said that Q
the bank cards had been received, so that she would not have to follow up
R R
with the bank.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
26. After the said visit in January 2018, D1 did not contact Dah
C Sing Bank anymore. She responded once to D2 after the said visit. In late C
January 2018, D1’s family members paid off her debts, and she did not
D D
want to be involved with D2 anymore, therefore she did not pick up D2’s
E phonecalls nor respond to his whatsapp message (Counter 942, p 17 of P28, E
15 February 2018). After 15 February 2018, there were no further
F F
messages between her and D2. She did not have any contact with Lala
G since she met D2. G
H H
27. A few months after the USD account was opened for Funson,
I D1 received an SMS stating that a large sum of money had been deposited I
into the Funson account, whereupon she realized that “there might be a
J J
problem”. She was afraid to contact D2, and therefore forwarded the SMS
K to her sister, asking her elder sister to forward it to D2. According to her K
understanding, her elder sister did as requested.
L L
M 28. She testified that her telephone number at that time was M
54509099, and she had not allowed anyone to use that number.
N N
O 29. She was arrested in 2019, and had positively identified Nam O
Gor at an ID parade in 2019.
P P
Q D2’s VRI Q
R R
30. D2 stated in his VRI that he had met D1 on 2 to 3 occasions
S in late 2017 in order to provide service to bring D1 to Dah Sing Bank to S
open 2 company accounts. She was referred to him by D3 (Petrick/Patrick
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Chan) from an accounting firm, who had clients wishing to open such bank
C accounts. He did not know if it was D3 who asked D1 to open the account. C
D D
31. He arranged a date to meet D1 outside the bank, and bring the
E company documents to her which would be used for the account opening E
procedure. He would wait somewhere and not enter the bank with D1.
F F
After D1 finished opening the bank accounts, he took the company
G documents from D1, and will bring them to her again if it is required to go G
to the bank again. In case supplementary company documents are required,
H H
D2 would also provide that to D1.
I I
32. After the account opening is completed, D2 would pass back
J J
the company documents to D1, and would not keep them any further.
K K
33. He stated that when the bank had vetted and approved the
L L
opening of the company account, he would then be paid HK$10,000 per
M account by D3 as reward. He denied having given money to D1. M
N N
34. In the VRI, he also admitted that he did not ask D1 how she
O intended to use the company accounts. O
P P
D3’s VRI
Q Q
35. D3 stated in his VRI that he was a corporate consultant who
R R
had set up his company Chong Fung (transliteration) Business Company
S Limited (hereinafter referred to as “IBBA”) in 2004. The Company S
provides secretarial services, and its main business includes assisting
T T
clients to open limited companies, receiving phonecalls and letters for
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
clients, providing registered address, some accounting work, tax returns
C filing, auditing services, trademark registration, applying for financial C
licences, and referring clients to open company accounts.
D D
E 36. Where it is confirmed that clients would like to open a E
company bank account, IBBA would refer the clients to intermediary
F F
companies who can help clients open these accounts successfully, as the
G intermediaries have direct contact with the bank staff. For different banks, G
intermediary companies charge different fees. On top of that, IBBA would
H H
add HK$3,000 as IBBA’s referral fee. IBBA would charge the clients the
I full price which includes the intermediary’s fees and IBBA’s referral fee. I
J J
37. The documents will be sent by email or WhatsApp to the
K intermediary. Then the intermediary will read the documents and decide K
which client is more suitable for a particular bank. The intermediary then
L L
make an appointment with the bank.
M M
38. After the company accounts had been successfully opened
N N
with the bank, D3 would pay the intermediary’s fee from the fee earlier
O paid by the clients. O
P P
39. For existing clients of IBBA, application form for opening
Q company accounts would be provided, and they would be forwarded to Q
intermediary companies. D3 would review the application, and depending
R R
on the nature of company business, different kinds of documents would be
S required by specific banks. S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
40. For the present case, a “Mr Tsoi” (referred to as “Mr Choi” in
C IBBA’s records) called IBBA and said some staff members wants to open C
company accounts, and he had with him the company information of a
D D
dozen companies. D3 did not know the definition of ‘staff members’. D3
E referred these companies to D2. He prepared a table with a list of 4 E
companies with D1’s name listed as director and shareholder, and the
F F
registered address of each company, as the information of clients that
G requested for company account opening services, and sent the table to D2. G
After the accounts had been opened, the name of the bank and the date of
H H
account opening would be recorded in the table. The banks were suggested
I by and appointments were made with the banks by D2. I
J J
41. As Mr Tsoi was not originally a client of the Company, D3
K merely referred him to D2, and did not keep any of the company documents, K
save as glancing through them briefly. The company documents would be
L L
handed over by those with the companies directly to the bank, or to the
M intermediary D2. M
N N
42. D3 communicated with Mr Tsoi through WeChat. He did not
O keep the information of Mr Tsoi, as he did not know if Mr Tsoi was the O
boss of those companies, and Mr Tsoi was only a contact person at the time.
P P
D3 thinks that there is no need to ask for Mr Tsoi’s ID card, residential
Q proof and other personal documents as Mr Tsoi was not the person who Q
would be opening the bank accounts. D3 does not know the real boss
R R
behind those companies. He is of the view that it was the owners of the 4
S or 5 companies mentioned by Mr Tsoi who wanted to open bank accounts. S
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
43. He thinks, however, that Mr Tsoi was an important client, as
C he brought along a large number of companies, and he paid all fees quoted C
in full and in cash.
D D
E 44. He states that due diligence should be performed by the E
intermediary, and then ultimately by the bank.
F F
G 45. D3 stated that for D1 and her sister, whom he referred to as G
the “Slutty Sisters” in his correspondence with D2, each had 4 company
H H
accounts to be opened, and therefore a total of 8 companies as stated in the
I pdf file sent by him to D2 named Sister8. He admitted he had sent the ID I
card copy of D1 to D2.
J J
K Defence Case K
L L
D2’s Evidence
M M
46. D2 elected to give evidence but did not call any Defence
N N
Witness. He testifies that in 2012, he opened a finance company named
O Power Cash Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Power Cash”). As O
the finance company business in 2016 to 2017 was poor, and opening of
P P
company bank accounts was difficult at that time, he contacted an agent
Q for opening company bank accounts named Tony in order to get into the Q
business. Tony had good relationship with many banks and therefore a
R R
higher success rate, and he introduced such business to D2.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
47. Tony indicated that most of his clients came from accounting
C firms. Since Power Cash’s accounts were handled by a person that D2 C
called “Accountant Chan” (D3), D2 contacted D3 and asked if D3 could
D D
refer any clients who wished to obtain services for opening of company
E accounts. D3 agreed and indicated that he had been conducting this line of E
business.
F F
G 48. Upon referral by D3, D2 started providing service for opening G
of 2 company bank accounts for 2 companies with a British client in
H H
October 2017. He called Tony for arranging meeting with the bank.
I Eventually Tony arranged D2’s client to open 1 account each at Citibank I
and DBS. As Tony charged D2 $27,000, D2 added $6,000 as his own fees,
J J
and quoted the total figure of $33,000 to D3. D3 agreed to the quote.
K K
49. Tony told D2 that bank staff would not allow agent’s presence
L L
at the opening of bank account with client, since sensitive information of
M the company would be asked at the meeting. M
N N
50. D2 therefore accompanied the British client to the vicinity of
O the bank, and waited for client to come out after finishing the account O
opening procedure. He then checked whether the documents taken out of
P P
the bank make a complete set, and kept them for the client, in case the bank
Q requests documents to be faxed again, when D2 can help the client as part Q
of his services.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
51. About 3 weeks later, D2 came to know that the client’s
C company accounts with Citibank and DBS were both successful. He C
therefore returned the set of documents to the client. Payment was made
D D
by D3 to D2 on 23 October 2017 (D2-1 Payment Record).
E E
52. D2 first heard of Mr Choi in about October 2017. D3 said that
F F
Mr Choi had lots of businesses, and needed to open lots of bank accounts.
G D2 asked D3 what kind of business Mr Choi was involved in, whereupon G
D3 said there were many different kinds of businesses, including import
H H
and export, luxury watches, bags, and home decoration items, and those
I require opening of company accounts in order to facilitate normal business I
operation. D2 asked to meet Mr Choi, however D3 said Mr Choi was the
J J
big boss and was too busy to meet D2. D3 also mentioned that Mr Choi
K would ask nominees to open company accounts and D2 could meet those K
nominees directly. Since D2 thought at the time that it was normal for
L L
nominees to hold companies for their boss, he agreed to take up the
M business related to Mr Choi. M
N N
53. In order to complete the work relating to Mr Tsoi, D2 called
O another agent named Chirsty for help in contacting bank staff to open bank O
accounts.
P P
54. The nominees involved in the business with Mr Choi were
Q Cheng Chun Ming (“Cheng”) in relation to 2 companies, and Choi Tai Q
Cheung (“Choi”) in relation to 1 company. He talked to the nominees
R R
about the nature of business, and after D3 agreed the quote he prepared
S based on his fees and Tony’s fees, he and Tony met the nominees at Tony’s S
office.
T T
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
55. Thereafter D2 went to the bank with the nominees on 2
C separate occasions, checked that the documents required were there, and C
gave them the company documents. He also reminded the nominees the
D D
questions that the bank staff would ask, e.g. the annual turnover, nature of
E business, whether there were insurance or MPF payments made for the E
employees. He then waited outside for the nominees to complete the
F F
account opening procedure. Afterwards he checked that all documents had
G been returned by the bank, and kept the documents as part of his service. G
H H
56. Later on, Tony informed D2 that the said 3 accounts were
I successfully opened. D3 paid D2 $47,500 (D2-2 Payment Record). The I
documents were returned to the clients.
J J
K 57. Between October 2017 to early 2018, D2 worked with Tony K
and D3 concerning 4 clients unrelated to Mr Choi. The manner of
L L
operation was similar to that mentioned above. D2 was paid $17,000,
M $16,000, $20,000 and $20,000 for these 4 clients. He was paid $17,000, M
$16,000, $20,000 and $20,000 by D3 for these clients (D2-3 to D2-6).
N N
O 58. Concerning Funson Trading Limited (hereinafter referred to O
as “Funson”), D3 whatsapped D2 on 30 October 2017, and mentioned 2
P P
sisters whom D3 nicknamed “the Slutty Sisters”, who would act as
Q nominees for 5 companies relating to Mr Tsoi. Company accounts were to Q
be opened concerning these companies.
R R
S 59. D2’s understanding was that the sisters were nominees of Mr S
Choi, and that they would receive payment. But he has no information
T T
concerning the amount of payment to the nominees.
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
C 60. On 2 November 2017, D3 whatsapped D2 with the ID card C
photos of D1 and her sister, their mobile telephone numbers and a pdf file
D D
named sister8company. The pdf file contained information of the 2 sisters
E and the 4 companies that each of them would be opening accounts for. The E
companies included Funson. D2 had not heard of the 2 sisters’ names and
F F
telephone numbers before.
G G
61. D2 therefore called D1 using the telephone number stated in
H H
D3’s WhatsApp message. He told D1 that he already had basic information
I about the companies, and asked if she wished to have company bank I
accounts opened for those companies. After D1 replied in the affirmative,
J J
D2 confirmed with D1 that Dah Sing Bank is preferred. A similar
K conversation between D1’s sister and D2 also took place. K
L L
62. D2 then informed Chirsty of the basic information on the
M companies, and requested her to arrange meetings with the bank on 3 M
November 2017, Chirsty called back and said that she had arranged
N N
meetings with 4 Dah Sing Bank branches: Funson at Causeway Bay branch
O (with D1), Samson at Causeway Bay branch (with D1), Gangjin at O
Wanchai branch (with D1), and Panfoo at Wanchai branch (with D1’s
P P
sister Lam Man Sze).
Q Q
63. Chirsty charged $3,500 for each company. D2 then called D3
R R
to make a quote of $16,000 for Causeway Bay branch, and $16,500 for
S Wanchai branch. D3 agreed to the quote. D3 also sent D2 a WhatsApp S
message on 2 November 2017 (D2-10) asking him to contact a person
T T
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
called “Yin Yer” at a telephone number for the company’s documents for
C D1 and Lam Man Sze. C
D D
64. D2 then arranged to meet D1 and Lam Man Sze on 3
E November 2017 at the MacDonald’s at Causeway Bay. He also called Yin E
Yer and arranged to meet at Causeway Bay MTR station the next morning.
F F
G 65. On 3 November 2017, D3 whatsapped D2 and asked D2 to G
take a photo of the signature of the sisters, so that the share transfer could
H H
be dealt with (Counter 1885 of P28).
I I
66. On 3 November 2017, D2 met Yin Yer and obtained company
J J
documents of the 8 companies. Then he met D1 and Lam Man Sze at
K MacDonald’s near Percival Street. After sitting down, he confirmed the K
identity of D1 and Lam Man Sze. Then he gave the documents that he had
L L
obtained from Yin Yer (ie the documents relating to Funson, Samson and
M Gangjin) to D1 and Lam Man Sze to read. M
N N
67. D2 then reminded D1 and Lam Man Sze the questions that the
O bank staff would ask, ie nature of business, number of employees, any O
turnover, whether the companies made MPF and insurance payments for
P P
staff.
Q Q
68. D2 then went with D1 and Lam Man Sze to the Causeway Bay
R R
branch of Dah Sing Bank. He gave the documents of Funson and Samson
S to D1, and D1 went inside the bank to deal with the account opening on S
her own.
T T
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
69. D2 then went to the Wanchai branch of Dah Sing with Lam
C Man Sze, and gave her the documents of Panfoo for the same purpose. C
D D
70. D2 then went back to the Causeway Bay branch to meet D1,
E and checked with her outside the branch to confirm that all documents had E
been returned, whereupon D2 kept them for her as part of the service. The
F F
2 of them then went to the Wanchai branch together. Outside the Wanchai
G branch D2 gave the documents of Gangjin to D1, and asked her to go inside G
the bank to open the company account.
H H
I 71. About 1 hour later, Lam Man Sze called D2 and said that she I
and D1 had finished the business at the bank. D2 then went to the doorway
J J
of the bank to meet them, and checked if all documents had been returned.
K He then kept the documents for the sisters, and told them that he would call K
them when there are further arrangements for other bank accounts. He then
L L
left.
M M
72. On 7 November 2017, D1 whatsapped D2 and said that she
N N
had left her ID card inside the documents and requested to get it back for
O work. They met and it was passed back to her. (D2-11 & D2-12) O
P P
73. On 8 November 2017, D1 called D2 and stated that the bank
Q called and said the share transfer agreement was not clearly printed. D2 Q
called D3 about it, and D3 sent clearly printed documents to D2, for which
R R
D2 emailed them to D1 for onward forwarding to the bank.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
74. On 8 November 2017, D3 and D2 dealt with the manner in
C which share transfer documents of 6 companies relating to the sisters were C
to be emailed by D3 to D2.
D D
E 75. On 15 January 2018, D3 called and said that the USD account E
and online banking was not opened for Funson, and that Mr Choi would
F F
not pay. D2 therefore called D1 and asked her to call Dah Sing Bank to
G open the USD account and activate the online banking function. D1 said G
she had already called the bank about that.
H H
I 76. On 30 January 2018, $48,500 was paid by D3 to D2 for the I
opening of the Funson account. (D2-18). From that amount, D2 paid
J J
Chirsty in February 2018.
K K
77. After 14 or 15 February 2018, D2 tried to contact D1, as only
L L
3 out of 4 company accounts had been opened. As the attempts were
M unsuccessful, D2 called Lam Man Sze to have D1 contact D2. M
N N
78. On 30 April 2018, Lam Man Sze sent through WhatsApp a
O screen capture of a bank SMS concerning an online transfer of O
USD245,740 from the Funson account to an unregistered bank account.
P P
D2 was happy as that meant the account was successfully opened and in
Q use. Lam Man Sze asked if salary was paid for the Funson account. D2 Q
replied not yet. This is so even though $48,500 had been received, yet it
R R
only relates to 3 accounts, so payment for the 4th account had not been
S received. S
T T
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
79. D2 has no idea why D3 whatsapped him on 7 May 2018 about
C the security device of D1 being blocked. D2 stated that he had not received C
any security device concerning the accounts that he had assisted in opening.
D D
E 80. On 8 May 2018, in counters 6159 of P28 onwards, in the E
WhatsApp conversation between D3 and D2, D3 started with “So scary”,
F F
and D2 didn’t know what D3 was talking about. In counter 6160, D2
G mentioned that the sisters had not been paid yet, as he was afraid that they G
would reveal to Mr Choi that they had not been paid, and that might mean
H H
D2 and D3 would lose business. He did not think that there was anything
I suspicious in the messages, and he did not hear anything else about Funson I
or Mr Choi after that day. He thought that was the end of the matter and
J J
there was nothing that aroused his suspicion.
K K
81. In counter 6161 of P28, the name Ah Hei was mentioned by
L L
D3. D2 testified that he did not know Ah Hei.
M M
D3’s Evidence
N N
O 82. D3 elected to give evidence but did not call any Defence O
Witness. He testified that he owns a secretarial company named
P P
International Business Brokerage Advisory Limited (IBBA) providing
Q services to companies. IBBA’s licence issued by the Companies Registry, Q
and copies of the audited accounts for the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019
R R
are exhibited as D3-1 to D3-2; D3-3 and D3-4 respectively. Other people
S refers to him as “Accountant Chan”, but he is not an accountant. S
T T
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
83. IBBA promotes business, inter alia account opening services,
C through its website, and advertisements on google and magazines (D3-21, C
D3-24 to D3-28). It also provides pricing tables on its website and flyers
D D
including the minimum referral fee for account opening services. (D3-20
E and D3-22) E
F F
84. IBBA has a list of clients for account opening services. Mr
G Choi’s employees asked IBBA to open company accounts number 1 to 30 G
on the list. No. 22 in the list is Funson. The company address of Funson
H H
was its registered address, and not the address of IBBA, as Funson was not
I a company set up by IBBA. I
J J
85. D1 became director of Funson on 1 November 2017, as can
K be seen in P20 Funson’s Companies Registry documents filed on 7 K
November 2017. D1 was also the director and shareholder of the
L L
companies listed as no. 21 to 24 of the said list.
M M
86. IBBA had employed a part time staff Ching Cheung Tung
N N
(hereinafter referred to as “Ching”) for account opening services. Ching
O was referred by Mr Choi’s, and started working for IBBA on 4 September O
2017. He was dismissed on 1 May 2018 with one month’s notice, and his
P P
last day of work was 31 May 2018. Ching was responsible for liaising with
Q agents and picking up calls to D3’s mobile phone number when D3 was Q
outside Hong Kong.
R R
S 87. When D3 was outside Hong Kong, Ching followed up on S
matters relating to account opening. D3 was not in Hong Kong when the
T T
messages the Prosecution alleges to have been sent by him were made,
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B B
except for 19 November 2017, when the messages were sent shortly before
C 7 pm, and he had left for mainland China at 9:30 pm. C
D D
88. IBBA was the company secretary for D2’s company Power
E Cash. D2 later became one of the agents engaged by IBBA for account E
opening services. From the very start, D3 instructed D2 to open multi
F F
currency accounts for clients without exception, therefore he assumed that
G when he gave instructions to D2 to open Funson’s company account, it G
would be a multi currency account.
H H
I 89. D3 testified that he never had the security device, password or I
any form of access over clients’ company accounts. The WhatsApp
J J
message that he had sent to D2 on 7 May 2018 (at counter 6139 of P28)
K refers to the security device of D1 being blocked, and that he had called K
customer service hotline. In fact it was Mr Choi who contacted him about
L L
the blocking of the security device, and in order to provide better service
M so that there might be future business opportunities, he took up the M
responsibility to sort out this matter with D2 and D1.
N N
O 90. Concerning the WhatsApp messages between himself and D2 O
at counter 6157 of P28, he sent “So scary” as there was a phone call from
P P
D2 earlier, where D2 said there was big trouble, the agent told D2 that
Q many police officers went to Dah Sing Bank to investigate a case related Q
to the accounts opened by D1 and her sister. D3 hung up the call to pick
R R
up another call from a client, after which he sent this message “So scary”
S to D2. S
T T
U U
V V
- 23 -
A A
B B
91. Concerning the WhatsApp message with D2 at counter 6158
C of P28, D2 forwarded a photo originally from Lam Man Sze to D2, C
showing money had been transferred out of the Funson account. As the
D D
message also showed that the 2 sisters had not been paid yet, D3 thought
E the 2 sisters had stolen money from their boss, and he suspected that was E
the reason that the police went to the bank for investigations. From his
F F
understanding, Ah Hei was someone under Mr Choi, and Ah Hei was
G responsible for paying the employees. G
H H
92. For the messages that followed, D3 was making guesswork
I about what might happen afterwards. He thought that if it was Mr Choi I
who had reported to the police, it might be troublesome to himself and D2
J J
when the nominee status of D1 and her sister had to be proved.
K K
93. D3 stated that he did not conspire with D1 and D2 to deal with
L L
the amount of money specified in the charge, and that he did not know that
M amount of money would be transferred into the Funson account. For the M
rest of the 30 bank accounts that he had helped Mr Choi to open, there were
N N
no complaints or problems.
O O
Case Analysis
P P
Q D1’s Credibility and Reliability (as PW1) Q
R R
94. I have carefully considered the evidence of D1 and her
S demeanour while giving evidence. I bear in mind that she was one of the S
persons jointly charged with D2 and D3, and that by giving evidence
T T
U U
V V
- 24 -
A A
B B
against the other Defendants, she stands a chance for a reduction of
C sentence. I have therefore considered her evidence with the utmost care. C
D D
95. I find that the material part of D1’s evidence is clear and
E logical, and there are no material inconsistencies or material inherent E
improbability. I find her an honest witness, and shall accept the material
F F
parts of her evidence as credible and reliable.
G G
96. Under cross examination by D2’s counsel, D1 stated that she
H H
forgot to mention in her 1st witness statement made on 28 April 2023 that
I there was a second male (“a fat guy”) at the Second Meeting with Lala, as I
the fat male was less involved in the conversation.
J J
K 97. She also agreed that Lala expressed sympathy towards her K
indebtedness, and that Lala also mentioned the more the work, the more
L L
the returns. Lala mentioned that the ID card copies received from D1 and
M her sister were for preparing documents. She could not recall some details M
due to lapse of time.
N N
O 98. When D2’s counsel showed her 1st witness statement during O
cross examination, D1 agreed that she made mistakes in recollecting
P P
certain aspects of the 2nd Meeting with Lala: in fact the job of opening
Q account was explained by the male in the car, that the accounts would be Q
transferred to others to do business, and that for every account opened by
R R
D1, she would be given $1,000 reward. Lala also asked D1 if she was
S interested in this job. S
T T
U U
V V
- 25 -
A A
B B
99. She also agreed that due to the lapse of time, she had mixed
C up the content of her conversation with Lala and the 2 males, and the C
conversation between herself and D2. Despite that, she insisted that at the
D D
first meeting with D2, D2 explained the job nature and also mentioned the
E remuneration to her being $1,000 for every account successfully opened. E
F F
100. D2 also challenges D1’s credibility on the basis that D1 did
G not mention in her witness statement that D2 had asked her to sign on a G
document. D2 replied that she cannot remember regarding the witness
H H
statement.
I I
101. D2’s counsel also put to D1 that on 3 November 2017, D1’s
J J
sister only opened bank account at the Wanchai and not the Causeway Bay
K branch of Dah Sing Bank. D1 replied that they went to the bank together, K
but cannot recall if her sister’s bank account was successfully opened.
L L
M 102. I find that the above challenges to her evidence by the Defence M
can be fully explained by lapse of time. The events unfolded from October
N N
2017 to 2018, and the 1st witness statement made sometime in 2023, and
O her evidence in Court in 2025. As the events spanned a number of months, O
with meetings, whatsapp and telephone calls with different people, it is
P P
easy to confuse the exact content of each and every conversation. The
Q Court does not expect a witness to remember each detail, and makes Q
suitable allowance for memory becoming less accurate with the lapse of
R R
time.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 26 -
A A
B B
103. Although she admitted in Court that she had mixed up some
C of the things said at the meeting with Lala and the males, and those said by C
D2 at their first meeting, what is material in the case is whether D2 was the
D D
person who instructed her to perform the steps required in the opening of
E the bank account, and who had provided the company documents for her E
to read, and briefed her on the kind of questions that would be asked by the
F F
bank staff.
G G
104. Although the pdf file containing the company information
H H
was not exhibited, it is common ground that it contains basic information
I about Funson and its business nature, and Companies Registry documents, I
and proof of business being conducted, in order to be viewed as sufficient
J J
supporting documentation to the bank for opening a company account.
K Although the Prosecution case is unclear about who had prepared the K
documents, it is also common ground that D2 was the person who brought
L L
the documents to D1. There seems to be little dispute as to the factual basis
M of the dealings between D1 and D2, save as the part about the discussion M
about remuneration to D1 and the introduction of the job nature by D2.
N N
O 105. I find that it is understandable that while giving evidence in O
2025, D1 had forgotten certain things that were discussed at the meeting
P P
with Lala and the 2 males in 2017 due to lapse of time, despite being able
Q to recall those events in her 2023 witness statement. Q
R R
106. But despite the cross examination along those lines, she was
S adamant that D2 did mention the job nature and the amount of S
remuneration at their first meeting. From this observation, it is clear from
T T
her evidence that the so called “mix up” between the meeting with Lala
U U
V V
- 27 -
A A
B B
and the males, and the first meeting with D2, was in fact a slip of memory
C mainly concerning the meeting with Lala and the males. I find that her C
evidence concerning the first meeting with D2 as unshaken, clear and
D D
logical.
E E
107. She denied under cross examination that D2 provided services
F F
to assist her in opening accounts for companies. She insisted that D2 was
G the person who asked her to open accounts, and that she had followed D2’s G
orders.
H H
I 108. She also denied knowing anyone named Ah Hei or Mr Choi. I
She also testified that she did not know the meaning of ‘nominee’, and she
J J
did not act as a nominee in the opening of the bank accounts. She stated
K that she only knew she became the director of Funson on 1 November 2017 K
and that she had signed in the Notice of Change of Company Secretary and
L L
Director when the police took the VRI with her.
M M
109. I find that it is credible that she would not understand the
N N
meaning of nominee. She is a young woman in her 20s without having
O completed her associate degree course. Her present occupation is puppy- O
walker and is not related to financial or corporate fields. The concept of
P P
nominee is not a concept so commonly known by the general public as to
Q raise eyebrows when a person displays ignorance of it. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 28 -
A A
B B
D2’s Credibility and Reliability (Evidence in Court and in VRI)
C C
110. I have carefully considered the evidence and demeanour of
D D
D2. D2 has voluntarily disclosed his record in his evidence. In Chief, and
E I shall not draw any adverse inference against him due to the said disclosure. E
I shall further note that his record is not of a similar nature as the present
F F
charge, and is neither of a dishonest nature.
G G
111. Concerning the VRI of D2, I have considered the inculpatory
H H
and exculpatory parts independently. I find that the inculpatory part, the
I parts consistent with the Prosecution case, and those supported by I
documentary proof, as logical and credible, and I therefore accept those
J J
parts as the truth. For the exculpatory part, I find that it is incredible and
K self serving, and I shall therefore not give any weight to this part. K
L L
112. As D2’s evidence is largely in line with the content of his VRI,
M I shall proceed with analyzing both at the same time, save the parts that are M
specifically dealt with separately below.
N N
O 113. During his evidence In Chief, D2 said that he did not know O
what D3 was talking about being “So scary” in the WhatsApp message.
P P
Yet he was able to respond by saying he had called the elder sister and
Q found out that the sisters had not been paid yet, and that he wanted them to Q
receive money first, then if something happens they would know what to
R R
say, otherwise they would disclose whatever she likes. As the conversation
S continued on WhatsApp, D2 mentioned in counter 6166 of P28 WhatsApp S
messages between himself and D3 about going to the police station. I am
T T
of the view that it would not be possible for the several messages to go
U U
V V
- 29 -
A A
B B
back and forth between them without D2 knowing or asking what D1 was
C talking about in the first place. C
D D
114. The suggested scenario put forward by D3’s counsel in cross
E examination of D2 is more convincing, that D3’s message of “So scary” E
was as a result of a telephone call between the 2 of them, where D2
F F
mentioned his friend Chirsty informed him that the police went to Dah Sing
G Bank being concerned about the sisters’ bank accounts. To this, D2 replied G
that he had no recollection of having said that to D3, and that there was no
H H
phone call with D3 as alleged. I am of the view that D2 was lying in the
I witness box, and nothing that he said could explain the absurdity of the I
relevant whatsapp messages on 8 May 2018.
J J
K 115. I am also of the view that the explanation given by D2 about K
‘wanting the sisters to be paid’ is unconvincing.’ Under cross examination
L L
by the Prosecution and also in his evidence In Chief, he explained that he
M was concerned that if the sisters had not been paid, they might reveal or M
report matters to Mr Choi and therefore affect his business. Yet all that
N N
was done by Lam Man Sze at that juncture was sending the SMS that D1
O had received concerning money being transferred out, indicating that the O
USD account was functioning. Nothing was mentioned about the account
P P
running for some time and yet payment was not made to D1, and Lam Man
Q Sze was not chasing for remuneration for herself or D1. It was a far cry Q
from the SMS and the conversation between Lam Man Sze and D2, to D2
R R
claiming that he was afraid the sisters would reveal the outstanding
S payment matter to Mr Choi and causing problems with future business. S
T T
U U
V V
- 30 -
A A
B B
116. D2 also explained under cross examination by the Prosecution
C that he referred to the police station in the whatsapp messages with D3, as C
Mr Choi was a businessman, so if anything happens, and the account is
D D
unclear, Mr Choi would report to the police.
E E
117. According to counter 6161 of P28, D3 mentioned that the
F F
money had already been given to Ah Hei, apparently as the person who
G was responsible for paying the sisters. Yet D2’s reference to the police G
station was later in the conversation. According to D2’s evidence, there
H H
was at that point not even the slightest suggestion that there were unclear
I accounts, or Ah Hei delaying payment to the sisters. To connect that state I
of affairs to Mr Choi making report to the police simply does not make any
J J
sense.
K K
118. D2‘s version of how D1 and Lam Man Sze came to become
L L
nominees of the companies is also unbelievable. He talked about the
M nominees’ contact being provided by Mr Choi to D3, and from D3 to him, M
yet in counter 1897 of P28, D3 asked D2 whether the sisters could open
N N
more than the existing 4 accounts. He agreed under cross examination that
O D3 was asking for his opinion. Yet according to his version, the nominee O
for each company was not his nor D3’s decision. I find that his evidence
P P
in this respect inconsistent with contemporaneous whatsapp evidence.
Q Q
D3’s Credibility and Reliability
R R
S 119. I have carefully considered the content of D3’s evidence and S
his demeanour when giving evidence. Except the parts not disputed or
T T
supported by IBBA company documents, Companies Registry documents
U U
V V
- 31 -
A A
B B
or bank documents, I find D3’s evidence incredible, and rife with inherent
C improbabilities and inconsistencies both within his evidence in Court and C
with his VRI which he stated as containing the truth.
D D
E 120. The Court however accepts the part of D3’s evidence E
concerning D2 making a call to D3 about the news that police officers had
F F
visited Dah Sing Bank about the accounts opened by D1, as the precursor
G for the WhatsApp messages in P28 starting with counter 6157. G
H H
121. Concerning D3’s VRI, I have considered the inculpatory and
I exculpatory parts independently. I find the inculpatory part, those parts I
consistent with the Prosecution case or supported by IBBA company
J J
documents, Companies Registry documents or bank documents, as logical
K and credible. I shall accept such parts as the truth and shall give them K
absolute weight. For the exculpatory part, I find them incredible and
L L
illogical, and I shall therefore refuse to accept them as the truth, nor to
M attach any weight to it. M
N N
122. For avoidance of doubt, the Court accepts that D3 owned a
O secretarial company IBBA, which deals with account opening services O
apart from other usual secretarial company services. It is also accepted that
P P
IBBA engaged D2 as its agent in account opening services. These would
Q apply equally to the Court’s assessment of D2’s evidence and his VRI. Q
R R
123. As D3’s VRI is largely in line with his evidence in Court, I
S shall deal with both in one go, save as the points specifically dealt with S
separately below.
T T
U U
V V
- 32 -
A A
B B
124. D3 testified that he guessed the 2 sisters had stolen the amount
C of money specified in the SMS forwarded to D2 by Lam Man Sze. In fact C
that SMS only indicates that sum of money being transferred out through
D D
online banking from the Funson account to an unregistered account.
E E
125. The photo of the SMS also shows the conversation between
F F
D2 and Lam Man Sze, where Lam Man Sze mentioned that the account
G opened by D1 is now in operation, and asked D2 whether he had been paid G
the fees. From all appearances, even taking into account the information
H H
and knowledge of the events of D3, the messages appear to be sharing of
I the account opening result and obtaining of information concerning the I
payment status to other related parties. It is absolutely illogical to guess
J J
that the sisters have embezzled the funds of Mr Choi, when they disclosed
K without compulsion or duty the fact that a very large amount of money had K
been transferred out of Funson’s account, which would inevitably draw
L L
suspicion on themselves.
M M
126. I am of the view that D3’s explanation above as to his
N N
‘guesswork’ was an attempt to make his discussion with D2 subsequent to
O receiving the forwarded photo containing the SMS less suspicious, bearing O
in mind that the said discussion between himself and D2 related to an
P P
assessment of whether blame would be placed on the 2 of them based on
Q whether money had changed hands, and whether they had to go to the Q
police station. I therefore do not accept D3’s explanation concerning the
R R
messages on 8 May 2018.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 33 -
A A
B B
127. Although D3 did not contest the admissibility of the
C WhatsApp messages between his phone number and D2, he explained in C
the witness box that for all the WhatsApp messages sent from his phone
D D
number and relied on by the Prosecution, all but one day’s messages were
E sent when he was outside Hong Kong and not by him. E
F F
128. Under cross examination by the Prosecution, he claims that he
G had lent the phone number to Ching when he was outside Hong Kong. G
When confronted by his answer in his VRI that he had not ever lent this
H H
phone number to anyone, he initially replied that the police did not ask.
I When fiat counsel pressed him by asking whether his answer in the VRI to I
the specific question by the police about whether he had lent his phone
J J
number to anyone was true, he replied with “I had not lent it to anyone at
K that time.” Fiat counsel then put to D3 that he had not been lending the K
phone to his employee, and then came the answer from D3 “Yes, because
L L
employees are employees, they are not other people.”
M M
129. During Re-examination, he referred to counter 1188 of his
N N
VRI, which mentions the specific phone number “is the phone Number of
O my company. (It) is my phone Number”, and explained that he chose that O
as his phone number, and that any employee of the company can use it.
P P
Q 130. The Court notes that during the questioning in the VRI, some Q
if not all of the whatsapp messages from his phone using the specified
R R
phone number and which are related to the present case were shown to D3
S for his comment. He had never mentioned that some of the WhatsApp S
messages might not have been sent by him as he might not be in HK, or
T T
that he would lend the phone number to his staff for follow up purposes.
U U
V V
- 34 -
A A
B B
Although he is not obliged to provide information to the police, it is too
C much of a coincidence for the lending of phone number and sending of C
WhatsApp by staff to come up for the first time during evidence in Court.
D D
E 131. The above account of the cross examination of D3 by fiat E
counsel and his Re-examination also demonstrates very clearly the
F F
evasiveness and sneakiness in which D3 approaches his evidence. When
G faced with the fact that his evidence is contrary to his earlier statements in G
the VRI, he tries to blame the police, and then to twist the meaning of
H H
everyday plain words.
I I
132. Although D3 does not have the burden to prove his innocence,
J J
his claim that the majority of the WhatsApp messages were sent not by
K himself, and that he had lent his phone number to Ching, a part time staff K
who had since been dismissed by IBBA for reasons of work ethics, for
L L
handling calls in his absence from Hong Kong is easy to make, and is one
M which the Court must take great care to assess. Based on the inconsistency M
with the content of the VRI on the use of the phone number, coupled with
N N
the uncanny coincidental first appearance of such a claim in Court, I find
O that the said claim is incredible and I shall reject it. O
P P
133. Concerning the identity and role of Mr Choi, D3 stated under
Q cross examination by Prosecution that Mr Choi was his company’s client, Q
and he understood him to be the boss. When fiat counsel confronted him
R R
that in his VRI counter 1023, he said Mr Choi might just be an errand boy,
S to which D3 answered he might be. Eventually he agreed that he did not S
care whether Mr Choi was the boss or the errand boy, as long as Mr Choi
T T
U U
V V
- 35 -
A A
B B
brings in the business. When this Court clarified this with him, he stated
C that Mr Choi said his employees wished to open company accounts. C
D D
134. The above shows his evasive attitude concerning a very
E simple question about his impression of someone that according to his VRI E
he considered as an important client who brought in lots of business and
F F
made advance full payment in cash for 8 companies.
G G
WhatsApp Messages
H H
I 135. As stated above in the analysis of D3’s evidence, I reject D3’s I
evidence that save as one of the days, the messages sent from his phone
J J
number on all other days relied upon by the Prosecution were not made by
K him. Despite accepting the Immigration records of D3 (which are agreed K
under s65C Criminal Procedure Ordinance), I reject his evidence that he
L L
had lent his telephone number to Ching.
M M
136. 136. I find that the messages in P28 are consistent with the
N N
roles of D2 and D3, and I therefore accept that all messages sent from D2
O and D3’s telephone number were in fact made by D2 and D3 respectively. O
P P
Legal Principles
Q Q
137. The Prosecution has indicated that the co-conspirator’s rule is
R R
relied on. From the PTR until Closing Submissions, defence counsels and
S the Court had repeatedly enquired with Prosecution as to the factual basis S
which must be proved by the Prosecution before the co-conspirator’s rule
T T
can be invoked. It is imperative upon the Prosecution to make a clear
U U
V V
- 36 -
A A
B B
indication so that the Defence will know how to meet the Prosecution case,
C and to make submissions as to whether the rule can be successfully invoked. C
I have been unable to ascertain from the representations of fiat counsel as
D D
to what those facts are. The Court must not be left in a position of having
E to guess at which facts are relied on as the prerequisite for the application E
of the rule. I am therefore of the view that the Prosecution has failed to
F F
demonstrate, let alone prove, the facts that have to be proved as the basis
G for the co-conspirator’s rule to apply. G
H H
138. Before I may convict D2 and D3, I must be sure that there was
I an agreement to deal with property known or believed to represent I
proceeds of an indictable offence, that they had joined in the agreement
J J
with D1, that they intended to make that agreement, and that, when D2 and
K D3 did so, they intended that they or some other party to the agreement K
would carry out the agreement.
L L
M 139. In HKSAR v Harjani Haresh Murlidhar [2019] HKCFA 47, M
CFA reformulated the relevant legal tests of money laundering in the
N N
following manner:
O O
“(i) What facts or circumstances, including those personal to
P the defendant, were known to the defendant that may P
have affected his belief as to whether the property was
Q
the proceeds of crime (“tainted”)? Q
(ii) Would any reasonable person who shared the
R defendant’s knowledge be bound to believe that the R
property was tainted?
S S
(iii) If the answer to question (ii) is “yes” the defendant is
guilty. If it is “no” the defendant is not guilty.
T T
27. Thus the first issue that the judge or jury (“the court”)
must address is what matters the defendant knew of that might
U U
V V
- 37 -
A A
B have affected his belief as to whether the property was clean or B
tainted. This question is subjective only in as much as it requires
C the tribunal to make findings as to the knowledge of the C
defendant at the time of the relevant transaction. Where the
defendant gives evidence of facts and matters that affected his
D belief about the nature of the property, the court has to decide D
whether he is, or may be, telling the truth about the existence of
E
these facts and matters. E
28. The second issue is whether any reasonable person who
F shared the defendant’s knowledge would have been bound to F
believe that the property was tainted. This question is objective.
Where the court finds that the defendant was, or may have been,
G G
telling the truth about the existence of facts and matters that he
claims affected his belief, the court must take those facts and
H matters into account when answering the question, would any H
reasonable person with knowledge of those facts and matters
have believed that the property was tainted? If the answer to the
I question is “yes” the defendant is guilty. If it is “no” the I
defendant is not guilty.”
J J
140. I will make my deliberations on the application of the legal
K K
principles on each defendant independently.
L L
Case Analysis Based on Evidence Accepted by the Court
M M
N 141. As stated in these Reasons, I have accepted the material part N
of the evidence of D1 as the truth. What has been proved is that in or about
O O
September to October 2017, D3 received instructions and payment from a
P Mr Choi, who requested that company accounts be opened for a number of P
companies already in existence, some of which had D1 becoming the
Q Q
shareholder and director shortly before the opening of company accounts.
R D3 received the company documents from Mr Choi, and forwarded them R
to D2 on 2 November 2017.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 38 -
A A
B B
142. D3 engaged D2 as the agent for the account opening
C procedure. D2’s involvement included contacting and arranging D1 for a C
meeting, where the job nature and remuneration were mentioned, and
D D
company documents required for account opening were passed to D1 for
E studying. D2 instructed another agent with bank contact to arrange the E
account opening meetings at the bank.
F F
G 143. On 3 November 2017, D2 accompanied D1 to the vicinity of G
the bank, handed over company documents for the account opening to D1,
H H
and waited outside while D1 dealt with the procedure. After completion,
I D1 checked and kept the company documents. Then D1 and D2 repeated I
the same procedure at another branch of the same bank. 1 out of the 3
J J
accounts opened by D1 that day was the Funson account.
K K
144. When the bank came back to D1 with request for company
L L
document with a clearer print, D1 passed on the request to D2, and D2
M contacted D3 for the better copy and forwarded to D1 for sending to the M
bank.
N N
O 145. In May 2018 D3 came to know that the security device for O
company accounts opened by D1 had been blocked, D3 called Customer
P P
Service, and thereupon approached D2 on 7 May 2018 to ask D1 to call the
Q bank to unblock. D2 did as requested. Q
R R
146. On 8 May 2018, D2 called D3 and informed D3 that his agent
S Chirsty said that police had visited Dah Sing Bank concerning the accounts S
opened by D1. Thereupon D2 and D3 engaged in a series of WhatsApp
T T
U U
V V
- 39 -
A A
B B
messages as recorded in counters 6157 to 6161, 6164 to 6166 of P28 and
C P28A (see Appendix 1) C
D D
147. There is unarguably an agreement between D1, D2 and D3 to
E open a company bank account for Funson. The question is whether there E
was an agreement to deal with property known or believed to be proceeds
F F
of an indictable offence.
G G
148. There is no direct evidence that D2 or D3 knew that the
H H
amount specified in the Charge and as transferred into and away from the
I Funson account was the proceeds of an indictable offence. In fact there is I
no evidence at the trial of D2 and D3 that the amount was in fact the
J J
proceeds of an indictable offence, or that an indictable offence had
K occurred. K
L L
149. According to HKSAR v Harjani Haresh Murlidhar, a two
M stage test had to be adopted. I have already conducted independent analysis M
on the credibility of the facts and matters within D2’s and D3’s knowledge
N N
separately that might affect their respective belief.
O O
150. The matters that the Court accepts as within D2’s knowledge
P P
within the period of the Charge (ie from 30 October 2017 to 30 April 2018)
Q which might have a bearing on his belief are: Q
R R
(i) he intended to start a company account opening agency
S business in 2017; S
T T
(ii) previously he was in the finance company business;
U U
V V
- 40 -
A A
B B
C (iii) He approached D3 who ran a secretarial company C
(IBBA) for referral of business for company account
D D
opening;
E E
(iv) His finance company accounts were handled by IBBA;
F F
G (v) D3 told him that IBBA provided company account G
opening service;
H H
I (vi) He was informed by D3 that a Mr Choi had a number I
of companies for which he wanted his staff to open
J J
company accounts as nominees;
K K
(vii) D3 sent the pdf file with information of 8 companies,
L L
including Funson, to D2. The file contained documents
M required for nominees of Mr Choi to present to the bank M
for opening company accounts;
N N
O (viii) D1 was the director and shareholder of Funson but as a O
nominee;
P P
Q (ix) That as part of the services to the client, D2 reminded Q
D1 of the questions the bank staff would ask at the
R R
account opening meeting. D2 also brought the original
S company documents to the nominee D1 near the bank, S
and kept the documents for the client after the
T T
U U
V V
- 41 -
A A
B B
procedure in case the bank wants to have document
C copies sent again; C
D D
(x) the bank was in contact with D1 for clarification of
E matters for the opening of the Funson account; E
F F
(xi) The original company documents were returned to
G Funson; and G
H H
(xii) On 30 April 2018, D2 came to know through Lam Man
I Sze that USD245,740 had been transferred out of the I
Funson account by online banking to an unregistered
J J
recipient account.
K K
151. The matters that the Court accepts as within D3’s knowledge
L L
within the period of the Charge (ie from 30 October 2017 to 30 April 2018)
M which might have a bearing on his belief are: M
N N
(i) D2 approached him and his secretarial company (IBBA)
O for referral of business for company account opening; O
P P
(ii) D2’s finance company’s accounts were handled by
Q IBBA; Q
R R
(iii) IBBA had all along advertised and provided company
S account opening service; S
T T
U U
V V
- 42 -
A A
B B
(iv) A man named Mr Choi approached IBBA and stated
C that he had a number of companies with different lines C
of businesses for which he wanted his staff members to
D D
open company accounts as nominees for business
E operations. D3 referred the business of Mr Choi to D2; E
F F
(v) D3 received from Mr Choi, and sent the pdf file with
G information of 8 companies, including Funson, to D2. G
The file contained documents required for nominees of
H H
Mr Choi to present to the bank for opening company
I accounts; I
J J
(vi) Mr Choi was an important client to IBBA, as he paid
K for the company account opening fee for the many K
companies involved in advance full payment and by
L L
cash.
M M
(vii) D1 became the director and shareholder of Funson
N N
shortly before the opening of company account but as a
O nominee; O
P P
(viii) It was D3’s understanding that as part of the services to
Q the client, D2 would remind D1 of the questions the Q
bank staff would ask at the account opening meeting,
R R
and bring the original company documents to the
S nominee D1 near the bank; S
T T
U U
V V
- 43 -
A A
B B
(ix) That the bank was in contact with D1 for clarification
C of matters for the opening of the Funson account, and C
D2 would handle the bank’s requests for D1;
D D
E (x) The original company documents were returned to E
Funson after all documentation and procedure had been
F F
completed; and
G G
(xi) On 30 April 2018, D2 came to know through Lam Man
H H
Sze that USD245,740 had been transferred out of the
I Funson account by online banking to an unregistered I
recipient account.
J J
K 152. For the second stage of the test, I have to consider whether a K
reasonable person with D2 and D3’s respective knowledge, is bound to
L L
believe that the amount of USD245,740 represented the proceeds of an
M indictable offence. M
N N
153. Apparently D2 performs the role of an agent in the Funson
O account opening, as evidenced by the payment slips from D3 to him dated O
30 January 2018 that bear remarks of ‘commission’, with payments
P P
relating to other companies bearing remarks of ‘agent fee’ and initials of
Q banks. Q
R R
154. There is no direct evidence that D2 or D3 knew the said
S amount would be or had been transferred into the Funson account, nor any S
evidence that they knew ahead of time that the said amount would be
T T
transferred out.
U U
V V
- 44 -
A A
B B
C 155. There is also no direct evidence that D2 or D3 had received C
the online banking password, the bank card, or the security device. It
D D
would appear that the bank card was mailed to the registered address of
E Funson, which is not the same address as IBBA’s address. Despite D1 E
mentioning an occasion where D2 informed her that the bank card had been
F F
received, there was no reference as to who had received it, and it was only
G made in the context of telling D1 there is no need to follow up. G
H H
156. There is, however, some suggestion from the WhatsApp
I messages in P28 that in May 2018, D3 contacted D2 and mentioned that I
D1’s security device was blocked, and that he had called the customer
J J
service hotline, with the reply from the hotline that the director of the
K company had to contact the bank to unblock the device. K
L L
157. Despite the court not accepting certain parts of D3’s evidence,
M a careful reading of the WhatsApp message only indicates the security M
device as being blocked, but did not mention the source of such information.
N N
Therefore it cannot support an irresistible inference that D1 was in
O possession of the security device at any point of time. O
P P
158. From the above, I am of the view that there is nothing that
Q would cause a reasonable person with D2’s knowledge of the facts to Q
believe that the agreement to open a company account for Funson involves
R R
dealing with the proceeds of crime. Having nominees as director and
S shareholder of a company is not uncommon in Hong Kong. When a S
company is held by a nominee, the company bank account can only be
T T
U U
V V
- 45 -
A A
B B
opened by a nominee. Late changes of nominees right before opening of
C bank accounts are also not uncommon, C
D D
159. It is also not unusual for companies to engage agents with
E bank contacts to deal with the initial arrangements for company account E
opening, and to advise on the documents required to be presented to the
F F
bank. There were also an abundance of so called ‘accounting services
G companies” advertising services for opening company bank accounts in G
Hong Kong. That is not to say that such companies have a ‘licence’ to
H H
engage in money laundering activities. Much depends on the facts of each
I case. The same analysis applies to D3, save as to certain facts unique to D3 I
which will be discussed below.
J J
K 160. It is not disputed that D2 had received the basic set of K
company documents for account opening purposes from D3, with
L L
information on the line of business of Funson, and business proof. D2
M hasn’t taken up many company account opening instructions before M
Funson; whereas in his understanding D3 had been providing such services
N N
as a secretarial services company.
O O
161. It is also normal for an agent not to have direct contact with
P P
the ‘boss’ who is Mr Choi in the present case. There is also on the face of
Q it, nothing unusual for the agent not to enquire or know about who pays for Q
the fee charged by a secretarial services company of a nominee director
R R
opening a company bank account.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 46 -
A A
B B
162. The facts unique to D3’s knowledge that are not shared by D2,
C and which affects the objective stage of the test, include the fact that he C
charged Mr Choi full payment in advance, which was the same payment
D D
requirement for all clients requiring company account opening service.
E The main feature is that the initial instructions concern 5 companies, and E
from the table produced by D3 (D3-34), the fee paid by the client for
F F
Funson and the other companies where the director and shareholder was
G either D1 or Lam Man Sze, was $16,000 for each account. Although that G
is not a huge sum in business terms, paying for 5 companies in cash all at
H H
once would catch people’s attention. But even though people practising
I illegal means are more likely to use cash to avoid tracing and detection, the I
fact that cash payment was made for this amount does not necessarily bring
J J
D3’s case outside the original analysis.
K K
163. Another unique feature to D3 is that he was the first contact
L L
with Mr Choi, who was not a previous client of his company. He accepted
M the business from Mr Choi for opening of company accounts, yet did not M
keep Mr Choi’s ID Card copy or other documents that could indicate his
N N
identity or role in the companies, and did not even mention Mr Choi’s full
O name in evidence. O
P P
164. This brings D3’s case to a borderline one, as he had received
Q company documents from Mr Choi, and all companies appear to have legit Q
business relating to different fields, apparently justifying the opening of
R R
many different company accounts. The fact that one uses nominees for
S company directorships and operates behind the scene without disclosing S
one’s full name could be for either deceitful or innocent purpose.
T T
U U
V V
- 47 -
A A
B B
165. The Court has to further consider whether the actions and
C words of D2 and D3 after the end date of the Charge, i.e. after 30 April C
2018, can be considered as shedding light upon the mens rea of D2 and D3.
D D
There is no hard and fast rule, apart from the basic principle that words and
E actions after the event may go to prove mens rea during the time of the E
offence, but it depends on the circumstances.
F F
G 166. When D2 received the photo of the SMS message, the dealing G
with proceeds had already been completed a few hours ago. From the
H H
conversation on that occasion between D2 and Lam Man Sze, it is at best
I neutral, and cannot support any allegation that D2 knew about the transfer I
ahead of time and that it was a report from Lam Man Sze to D2. If it was
J J
out of duty that Lam Man Sze was reporting to D2 about a planned event,
K D2 would not have appeared to be rather grateful for the information, as K
shown in the message. Instead it appears as a sharing of information so
L L
that remuneration can be claimed from whoever should pay D2.
M M
167. After D2 received the photo of the SMS from Lam Man Sze
N N
on 30 April 2018, he called and sent it to D3 on 8 May 2018, breaking the
O news that police officers had visited the bank concerning D1’s company O
accounts.
P P
Q 168. The WhatsApp conversation that follows appears gravely Q
suspicious for D2 and D3; there was reference of D3 saying “Very scary”,
R R
asking whether the transfer had already been made, was it taken by
S someone again or blocked by the bank; and D2 mentioning that he wanted S
the sisters to receive money first, otherwise D1 would disclose whatever
T T
she likes in case anything happens; then D3 saying its ok for D2 and
U U
V V
- 48 -
A A
B B
himself as they don’t have monetary dealings with D1, it was only D1 who
C contacted D2 to open bank accounts; and D2 mentioning they might have C
to go to police station. It reflects a picture of D2 and D3 panicking over
D D
the police investigations which might lead to them.
E E
169. In order to make use of behaviour after the charge duration as
F F
circumstantial evidence for the charged period, the inference must be very
G strong. I am of the view that obviously D2 did not think there was anything G
exceptional about the transfer of funds out of the Funson account when he
H H
first received notification by Lam Man Sze on 30 April 2018, otherwise he
I would not have kept quiet about it until 8 May 2018. I
J J
170. On 8 May 2018, as found by the Court, D2 had already heard
K from an agent that the police were investigating accounts opened by D1. K
Under such circumstances, after he had notified D3 about it, D2 and D3
L L
might panic because their involvement in a money laundering scheme
M might be detected, or they might panic because they were taken by surprise M
by the possibility of money laundering. They were in the account opening
N N
business for different duration, yet they must have heard about and realised
O the risk involved in being entangled in money laundering schemes, whether O
intentionally or unknowingly.
P P
Q 171. I am therefore of the view that the post-Charge WhatsApp Q
messages cannot assist the Court in drawing an irresistible inference that
R R
D2 and D3 knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the money
S dealt with in the Funson account were proceeds of an indictable offence. S
To prove a conspiracy charge would still require the objective element of
T T
the money laundering charge to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
U U
V V
- 49 -
A A
B B
C 172. I am therefore of the view that by applying the 2 stage test to C
D2 and D3, they should be found not guilty of the Charge. Despite the
D D
grave suspicion the Court holds over their possible involvement,
E reluctantly D2 and D3 are acquitted. E
F F
G G
H H
( Peony Wong )
I I
Deputy District Judge
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V