區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Edward Wong25/1/2026[2026] HKDC 160
DCCC1479/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 1479/2024
C [2026] HKDC 160 C
D D
E IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE E
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
F F
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1479 OF 2024
G G
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H H
HKSAR
I V I
ACOSTA LYNIE BIBAL
J J
----------------------------------------------------------------
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge Edward Wong in Court
L L
Date: 26 January 2026
M Present: Ms HERBERT Elizabeth Anne, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR M
Mr RAFFELL, Andrew J., instructed by Boase, Cohen &
N N
Colins, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
O defendant O
Offences: [1] - [3] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
P P
proceeds of an indictable offence
Q Q
R R
---------------------------------------
S REASONS FOR SENTENCE S
---------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
A. Charges
C C
1. The Defendant (“D”) was convicted after trial of 3 charges of
D D
dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an
E indictable offence, contrary to s25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious E
Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455. The particulars are that she, in Hong Kong,
F F
together with Jane Corpuz and other persons unknown, knowing or having
G reasonable grounds to believe that property, in whole or in part directly or G
indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt
H H
with the said property. The other particulars are as follows:
I I
Charges Dates Accounts Amount (HKD1)
J J
1 26 March to Mox Bank Limited (“MB”), $8,597,833.36
K 9 May 2023 account number 389- K
74961515645 (“Charge 1
L L
Account”)
M 2 26 to 31 Standard Chartered Bank $92,940.08 M
March 2023 (Hong Kong) Limited
N N
(“SCB”), account number
O 959-8-670206-1 (“Charge 2 O
Account”)
P P
3 The Hongkong and $45,100.78
Q Q
Shanghai Banking
R
Corporation Limited R
(“HSBC”), account number
S S
T T
1
The same hereinafter.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
166-872887-833 (“Charge 3
C Account”) C
D D
B. Facts
E B.1. Online scams E
F F
2. On 3 April 2023, Pw1 saw an online post placed by a scammer
G posing as a genuine seller, stating that a PlayStation 5 games console, two G
controllers, and two games were for sale for $2,800. Pw1, acting on the
H H
scammer’s instructions, transferred a total of $2,800 to 2 personal accounts,
I of which $2,000 to Charge 1 Account on 4 April 2023. Pw1 never received I
the goods and reported the case.
J J
K 3. On 6 May 2023, Pw2 saw an online post placed by a scammer K
posing as a genuine seller, stating that concert tickets were for sale. Pw2,
L L
acting on the scammer’s instructions, transferred a total of $24,645.10 to
M various personal accounts, of which $3,960.46 to Charge 1 Account. Pw2 M
never received the tickets and reported the case.
N N
O B.2. Charge 1 Account O
P P
4. Charge 1 Account, held in D’s name, was opened on 26 March
Q 2023. In setting it up, her identity card and face were scanned as proof. Q
R R
5. Between 28 March and 9 May 2023, $8,597,833.36 was
S S
credited to that account through 4,787 deposits, and $8,565,738.10 was
T
debited from it through 1,407 withdrawals. T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
6. The deposits were made by 2,312 individuals; of these, 313
C made deposits into that account more than 3 times. There were 958 deposits C
between $2,000 and $50,001.58, including those made by Pw1 and Pw2.
D D
Money credited into that account was commingled and disposed of through
E outward transfers on a daily basis. 959 individuals received money from E
that account.
F F
G 7. On 9 May 2023, that account had a closing balance of G
$32,095.26, which was entirely withdrawn on 9 August 2023.
H H
I B.3. Charge 2 Account I
J J
8. Charge 2 Account, held in D’s name, was opened on 26 March
K 2023. In setting it up, her identity card and face were scanned as proof. K
L L
9. On 31 March 2023, $92,940.08 was credited into that account
M through 70 deposits, and $92,800 was debited from it through 10 M
withdrawals. The deposits, made by 64 individuals, were between $100
N N
and $10,000.87. Money credited into Charge 2 Account was commingled
O and transferred to 9 other accounts on the same day. O
P P
B.4. Charge 3 Account
Q Q
10. Charge 3 Account, held in D’s name, was opened on 26 March
R R
2023. In setting it up, her identity card and face were scanned as proof.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
11. On 31 March 2023, $45,100.78 was deposited into that
C account by 3 individuals, of which $10,000 was transferred to another C
individual.
D D
E B.5. D E
F F
12. D had been employed to work in Hong Kong as a foreign
G domestic helper since 14 July 2017. Her monthly salary was $4,630 G
between 14 July 2021 and 13 July 2023, and $4,730 between 14 July 2023
H H
and her arrest on 27 November 2023.
I I
13. For the years of assessment 2020/21 to 2022/23, no tax return
J J
or Employer’s Return of Remuneration and Pensions in respect of D was
K filed. K
L L
14. On 11 June 2020, D opened an account with AliPayHK,
M registering with the phone number 5644 7664. M
N N
C. Cautioned statements
O O
15. Under arrest and caution, D stated, ‘In March 2023, a Filipino
P P
friend approached me in Tseung Kwan O and asked me to do some facial
Q recognition process on her phone. She also took photos of my Hong Kong Q
ID card. She claimed it was for a game. As a return, she paid me 400 dollars
R R
in cash.’ 2
S S
T T
2
P11.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
16. In video-recorded interview, D stated the followings:3
C C
(a) She was born in the Philippines, 38 years old, and a
D D
widow. She had tertiary education and spoke Tagalog
E and English.4 She had a child aged 14 who lived with E
her mother-in-law.5
F F
G (b) D came to Hong Kong in 2017 to work as a domestic G
helper, earning a salary of $6,000 payable by cash, with
H H
no other income source.6 She had no assets, company,
I or bank account in Hong Kong. She was not a director I
or shareholder of a company. She did not file any tax
J J
return in Hong Kong. She had a bank account in the
K Philippines with $4,000 therein which she received K
upon her husband’s death, and she had no investment.7
L L
M (c) During D’s holiday on a Sunday in March 2023 in M
Popcorn Mall, Tseung Kwan O (“TKO”), her sister
N N
introduced her friend, a Filipino woman called Jane
O Corpuz, to D. Jane asked if D would like to earn ‘instant O
cash’ for which D only had to register her HKID card
P P
and scan her face. D agreed to register by having her
Q facial recognition taken and her HKID card Q
R R
S S
3
P12B.
4
Counter 97-121.
T 5 T
Counter 160-180.
6
Counter 122-158.
7
Counter 182-238.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
photographed. This was the only time D saw Jane
C whom D could contact only on Facebook. 8 C
D D
(d) The facial recognition and photo-taking, lasted about
E 30 to 45 minutes, were done by one of two Chinese men E
who were present.9 D did not know their names, did not
F F
see them again, and had no means to contact them.10
G G
(e) D was paid $400 the next day through her Alipay
H H
account which she registered with her mobile phone
I number, name, and HKID number.11 She had no other I
‘stored value facilities’. 12
J J
K 17. After trial, I found that: K
L L
(a) D must have known that the face scanning and photo-
M taking were done for opening the accounts in the 3 M
charges;
N N
O (b) she must have known that the 3 accounts were opened O
for deposits and withdrawals of funds; and
P P
Q (c) during all the Charges periods in Hong Kong, D Q
together with Jane and other persons unknown must
R R
S S
8
Counter 243-348.
9
Counter 349-392.
T 10 T
Counter 446-452.
11
Counter 394-440.
12
Counter 886-888.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
have dealt with the respective property in those charges;
C and C
D D
(d) any reasonable person who shared D’s knowledge
E would be bound to believe that, during all the Charges E
periods, the property stated in all the charges was
F F
tainted; thus, she must have known or had reasonable
G grounds to believe that such property in whole or in part G
directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds
H H
of an indictable offence.
I I
D. Enhancement
J J
K 18. Prosecution (“P”) apply for enhancement of sentence under K
s27 of Cap. 455.
L L
M 19. Defence object, relying on HKSAR v Fong Chi Yam [2020] 2 M
HKLRD 700 in which the Court of Appeal held that enhancement of
N N
sentence for money laundering on the basis of the prevalence of telephone
O deceptions is erroneous.13 This is, however, inapplicable in the present case O
because P’s basis is precisely the prevalence of money laundering which
P P
D was convicted of.
Q Q
20. If the Court allows the application, Defence ask for an
R R
enhancement by 1/5. P do not object.
S S
T T
13
Para. 106.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
E. Mitigation
C C
21. D is aged 40 with a clear criminal record. She completed a
D D
diploma program in hotel and restaurant management. D is a widow and
E her son aged 16 is in the Philippines under her mother-in-law’s care. She E
was a domestic helper in Hong Kong and is highly regarded by Dw who
F F
was her ex-employer.
G G
22. Defence cited the following cases. In Secretary for Justice v
H H
Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the Court of Appeal held:
I I
‘12. “Money laundering” is a serious offence for not
J J
only does it encourage criminal activities indirectly,
but also attempt to legitimize the proceeds of crime.
K K
In order to crack down on serious crimes, to prevent
L offenders from getting financial gains, it is necessary L
to deter the commission of the “money laundering”
M offence … M
13. Generally, the sentence for “money laundering”
N N
offence should mainly reflect the amount of “black
money” laundered and not the benefit obtained by the
O O
defendant or others. The reason being that it is very
P difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most P
“money laundering” cases, there may not be
Q evidence to show from what indictable offence the Q
“black money” are in fact derived. Of course if there
R R
is information to prove that the “black money” is
S originated from serious crimes, including drug S
trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human
T trafficking, other organized crimes, etc. or the T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B defendant’s benefit is huge, then the sentence should B
be adjusted upward.
C C
14. This Court has … listed others factors relevant to
D the sentence to be imposed including the number of D
offences, the length of time the offence lasted, the
E degree to which the defendant participated in the E
offence involving “black money” and whether or not
F F
it was an organised and sophisticated crime, etc.
15. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536,
G G
Cheung JA set out the amounts of money involved
H and the sentences passed in a number of “money H
laundering” cases. The sentencing starting point is 3
I years or so where the “black money” involved is I
between 1 million and 2 million dollars, 4 years or so
J J
where it is between 3 million and 6 million dollars,
K
and could be over 5 years where it is above 10 K
million dollars.’
L L
23. The Court also held that the starting point ‘should not be lower
M M
than 4 years’ for the defendant who laundered 14 million dollars for
N thousands times over 7 years.14 N
O O
24. In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal
P held that the sentencing judge should engage his ‘feel’ for the case,15 and P
that the amount of money laundered is a ‘significant’ feature but not ‘be-
Q Q
16 17
all and end-all’ . It also identified other obvious factors of sentencing:
R R
S S
14
Para. 17-19.
T 15 T
Para. 25.
16
Para. 38.
17
Para. 40.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B ‘(1) The nature of the predicate offence, if known, B
and the penalty available for the predicate offence …
C C
(2) … the person who knows the nature of the
D predicate offence is more culpable than the person D
who does not …
E (3) An international dimension will always be a E
significant aggravating feature; and by international
F F
dimension we include money laundered from, or for
those operating in, the Mainland.
G G
(4) The sophistication of the offence is always
H relevant. This will include the degree of planning H
and whether deceit is practised to achieve the
I objective. I
(5) Where the offence is committed by or on behalf
J J
of an organized criminal syndicate, that is an
K
aggravating fact. K
(6) … whether there is one transaction or many and
L the length of time over which the offence was L
committed.
M M
(7) … it will be an aggravating feature where the
offender continues to launder funds after he has
N N
discovered as a fact that the funds are the proceeds of
O an offence or after he has discovered the nature of an O
offence which is serious.
P (8) … the role of the offender and the acts P
performed by him. In this regard, the director of a
Q Q
laundering operation or scheme should attract a
greater sentence than a person engaged by him
R R
although sentences should be sufficient to deter those
S who might be prevailed upon by directing minds. In S
the case of a person down the chain, the court will
T wish to have regard to whether a benefit has been T
received and if so the nature and size of the benefit.
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B But within the category of persons down the chain B
there will gradations of culpability. So for example
C C
the drug addict or petty crook who is paid a small
D sum to open an account and hand over its operation D
to another with no more participation and no more
E knowledge than that it is going to be used for some E
sort of crime is much less culpable than an offender
F F
of a different sort not “used” in that way.’
G G
25. In HKSAR v Lam Ka Sin [2021] 2 HKLRD 32, the appellant
H H
conspired to launder $1.1 million. The Court of Appeal held that a starting
I point of 2 years was appropriate because:18 I
J J
(a) she was aged 20 and ‘in a vulnerable state and easily
K influenced’; K
L L
(b) she was forced to go along with the arrangement; and
M M
(c) she withdrew after failing to process the subject cheque.
N N
O 26. Regarding the present case, Defence submitted that: O
P P
(a) there is no evidence of international element,
Q sophisticated planning, criminal syndicate, or D’s Q
knowledge of the predicate offences or control of the
R R
accounts; and
S S
T T
18
Para. 32 to 36.
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
(b) she was merely stooge account holders for a reward of
C $400. C
D D
27. Defence ask for a global starting point of less than 2 years for
E all charges. E
F F
F. P’s reply
G G
28. P submit that the global starting point should not be less than
H H
4 years.
I I
G. Sentence
J J
K 29. I have also considered these cases. In HKSAR v Tsang Yiu K
Kong CACC 77/2022, the Court of Appeal held the followings:19
L L
M (a) According to the range of starting points identified in M
Hsu Yu Yi, $3,000,000 to $6,000,000 normally attracts
N N
a sentence of 4 years; where $7,700,000 is involved, the
O starting point should be ‘no less than 4 years’. O
P P
(b) Where $8,130,000 and no layering exercise were
Q involved, a starting point of 3 years and 6 months is ‘too Q
low’.
R R
S 30. In CAAR 4/2024, the Court of Appeal held:20 S
T T
19
Para. 26.
20
Para. 47-54.
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
C (a) Sentencing judges should keep firmly in mind the C
mischief targeted by the relevant legislation, and take
D D
note of the maximum penalty for the offence and the
E need for a deterrent sentence. E
F F
(b) The amount involved is important but not the only
G factor. Wan Kwok Keung merely summarised the G
approximate sentencing ranges corresponding to the
H H
amounts in the cases listed by Hsu Yu Yi. Sentencing
I judges should not rely solely on those ranges, nor adopt I
a purely mathematical approach to sentencing without
J J
proper consideration of other case-specific factors.
K Judges must determine an appropriate term by assessing K
the particular circumstances of each case, drawing on
L L
their own sentencing experience, and their overall
M impression of the case. M
N N
31. In the present case, I have considered the following features:
O O
(a) There is no evidence of international element,
P P
sophisticated planning or steps, or criminal organisation.
Q Q
(b) The predicate offences are online scams, but there is no
R R
evidence that D knew about them.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
(c) She was 3 stooge accounts holders for a $400 reward,
C and there is no evidence that she had further C
participation in the offences.
D D
E (d) Charge 1 Account had 4,787 deposits and 1,407 E
withdrawals, Charge 2 Account had 70 deposits and 10
F F
withdrawals, and Charge 3 Account had 3 deposits and
G 1 withdrawal. G
H H
(e) The total amount involved in all the accounts was about
I $8.7 million. I
J J
(f) The total period of all charges is 26 March to 9 May
K 2023. K
L L
32. In view of the foregoing, a global starting point of 4 years (48
M months) is appropriate. M
N N
33. There is no mitigating factor in this case.
O O
34. Given the information provided by P, I allow the application
P P
for enhancement by 1/5, resulting in a global sentence of 57 months.
Q Q
35. Accordingly, the sentences are as follows:
R R
S (a) The starting points for Charges 1 to 3 are 4 years (48 S
months), 1 year (12 months), and 1 year (12 months),
T T
respectively.
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
C (b) They are enhanced by 1/5 to 57 months, 14 months, and C
14 months, respectively.
D D
E (c) To achieve the global sentence of 57 months, all the E
sentences are to run concurrently.
F F
G (d) Hence, D is sentenced to 57 months’ imprisonment for G
all charges.
H H
I I
J J
K K
( Edward Wong )
L Deputy District Judge 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 1479/2024
C [2026] HKDC 160 C
D D
E IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE E
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
F F
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1479 OF 2024
G G
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H H
HKSAR
I V I
ACOSTA LYNIE BIBAL
J J
----------------------------------------------------------------
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge Edward Wong in Court
L L
Date: 26 January 2026
M Present: Ms HERBERT Elizabeth Anne, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR M
Mr RAFFELL, Andrew J., instructed by Boase, Cohen &
N N
Colins, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
O defendant O
Offences: [1] - [3] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
P P
proceeds of an indictable offence
Q Q
R R
---------------------------------------
S REASONS FOR SENTENCE S
---------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
A. Charges
C C
1. The Defendant (“D”) was convicted after trial of 3 charges of
D D
dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an
E indictable offence, contrary to s25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious E
Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455. The particulars are that she, in Hong Kong,
F F
together with Jane Corpuz and other persons unknown, knowing or having
G reasonable grounds to believe that property, in whole or in part directly or G
indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt
H H
with the said property. The other particulars are as follows:
I I
Charges Dates Accounts Amount (HKD1)
J J
1 26 March to Mox Bank Limited (“MB”), $8,597,833.36
K 9 May 2023 account number 389- K
74961515645 (“Charge 1
L L
Account”)
M 2 26 to 31 Standard Chartered Bank $92,940.08 M
March 2023 (Hong Kong) Limited
N N
(“SCB”), account number
O 959-8-670206-1 (“Charge 2 O
Account”)
P P
3 The Hongkong and $45,100.78
Q Q
Shanghai Banking
R
Corporation Limited R
(“HSBC”), account number
S S
T T
1
The same hereinafter.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
166-872887-833 (“Charge 3
C Account”) C
D D
B. Facts
E B.1. Online scams E
F F
2. On 3 April 2023, Pw1 saw an online post placed by a scammer
G posing as a genuine seller, stating that a PlayStation 5 games console, two G
controllers, and two games were for sale for $2,800. Pw1, acting on the
H H
scammer’s instructions, transferred a total of $2,800 to 2 personal accounts,
I of which $2,000 to Charge 1 Account on 4 April 2023. Pw1 never received I
the goods and reported the case.
J J
K 3. On 6 May 2023, Pw2 saw an online post placed by a scammer K
posing as a genuine seller, stating that concert tickets were for sale. Pw2,
L L
acting on the scammer’s instructions, transferred a total of $24,645.10 to
M various personal accounts, of which $3,960.46 to Charge 1 Account. Pw2 M
never received the tickets and reported the case.
N N
O B.2. Charge 1 Account O
P P
4. Charge 1 Account, held in D’s name, was opened on 26 March
Q 2023. In setting it up, her identity card and face were scanned as proof. Q
R R
5. Between 28 March and 9 May 2023, $8,597,833.36 was
S S
credited to that account through 4,787 deposits, and $8,565,738.10 was
T
debited from it through 1,407 withdrawals. T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
6. The deposits were made by 2,312 individuals; of these, 313
C made deposits into that account more than 3 times. There were 958 deposits C
between $2,000 and $50,001.58, including those made by Pw1 and Pw2.
D D
Money credited into that account was commingled and disposed of through
E outward transfers on a daily basis. 959 individuals received money from E
that account.
F F
G 7. On 9 May 2023, that account had a closing balance of G
$32,095.26, which was entirely withdrawn on 9 August 2023.
H H
I B.3. Charge 2 Account I
J J
8. Charge 2 Account, held in D’s name, was opened on 26 March
K 2023. In setting it up, her identity card and face were scanned as proof. K
L L
9. On 31 March 2023, $92,940.08 was credited into that account
M through 70 deposits, and $92,800 was debited from it through 10 M
withdrawals. The deposits, made by 64 individuals, were between $100
N N
and $10,000.87. Money credited into Charge 2 Account was commingled
O and transferred to 9 other accounts on the same day. O
P P
B.4. Charge 3 Account
Q Q
10. Charge 3 Account, held in D’s name, was opened on 26 March
R R
2023. In setting it up, her identity card and face were scanned as proof.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
11. On 31 March 2023, $45,100.78 was deposited into that
C account by 3 individuals, of which $10,000 was transferred to another C
individual.
D D
E B.5. D E
F F
12. D had been employed to work in Hong Kong as a foreign
G domestic helper since 14 July 2017. Her monthly salary was $4,630 G
between 14 July 2021 and 13 July 2023, and $4,730 between 14 July 2023
H H
and her arrest on 27 November 2023.
I I
13. For the years of assessment 2020/21 to 2022/23, no tax return
J J
or Employer’s Return of Remuneration and Pensions in respect of D was
K filed. K
L L
14. On 11 June 2020, D opened an account with AliPayHK,
M registering with the phone number 5644 7664. M
N N
C. Cautioned statements
O O
15. Under arrest and caution, D stated, ‘In March 2023, a Filipino
P P
friend approached me in Tseung Kwan O and asked me to do some facial
Q recognition process on her phone. She also took photos of my Hong Kong Q
ID card. She claimed it was for a game. As a return, she paid me 400 dollars
R R
in cash.’ 2
S S
T T
2
P11.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
16. In video-recorded interview, D stated the followings:3
C C
(a) She was born in the Philippines, 38 years old, and a
D D
widow. She had tertiary education and spoke Tagalog
E and English.4 She had a child aged 14 who lived with E
her mother-in-law.5
F F
G (b) D came to Hong Kong in 2017 to work as a domestic G
helper, earning a salary of $6,000 payable by cash, with
H H
no other income source.6 She had no assets, company,
I or bank account in Hong Kong. She was not a director I
or shareholder of a company. She did not file any tax
J J
return in Hong Kong. She had a bank account in the
K Philippines with $4,000 therein which she received K
upon her husband’s death, and she had no investment.7
L L
M (c) During D’s holiday on a Sunday in March 2023 in M
Popcorn Mall, Tseung Kwan O (“TKO”), her sister
N N
introduced her friend, a Filipino woman called Jane
O Corpuz, to D. Jane asked if D would like to earn ‘instant O
cash’ for which D only had to register her HKID card
P P
and scan her face. D agreed to register by having her
Q facial recognition taken and her HKID card Q
R R
S S
3
P12B.
4
Counter 97-121.
T 5 T
Counter 160-180.
6
Counter 122-158.
7
Counter 182-238.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
photographed. This was the only time D saw Jane
C whom D could contact only on Facebook. 8 C
D D
(d) The facial recognition and photo-taking, lasted about
E 30 to 45 minutes, were done by one of two Chinese men E
who were present.9 D did not know their names, did not
F F
see them again, and had no means to contact them.10
G G
(e) D was paid $400 the next day through her Alipay
H H
account which she registered with her mobile phone
I number, name, and HKID number.11 She had no other I
‘stored value facilities’. 12
J J
K 17. After trial, I found that: K
L L
(a) D must have known that the face scanning and photo-
M taking were done for opening the accounts in the 3 M
charges;
N N
O (b) she must have known that the 3 accounts were opened O
for deposits and withdrawals of funds; and
P P
Q (c) during all the Charges periods in Hong Kong, D Q
together with Jane and other persons unknown must
R R
S S
8
Counter 243-348.
9
Counter 349-392.
T 10 T
Counter 446-452.
11
Counter 394-440.
12
Counter 886-888.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
have dealt with the respective property in those charges;
C and C
D D
(d) any reasonable person who shared D’s knowledge
E would be bound to believe that, during all the Charges E
periods, the property stated in all the charges was
F F
tainted; thus, she must have known or had reasonable
G grounds to believe that such property in whole or in part G
directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds
H H
of an indictable offence.
I I
D. Enhancement
J J
K 18. Prosecution (“P”) apply for enhancement of sentence under K
s27 of Cap. 455.
L L
M 19. Defence object, relying on HKSAR v Fong Chi Yam [2020] 2 M
HKLRD 700 in which the Court of Appeal held that enhancement of
N N
sentence for money laundering on the basis of the prevalence of telephone
O deceptions is erroneous.13 This is, however, inapplicable in the present case O
because P’s basis is precisely the prevalence of money laundering which
P P
D was convicted of.
Q Q
20. If the Court allows the application, Defence ask for an
R R
enhancement by 1/5. P do not object.
S S
T T
13
Para. 106.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
E. Mitigation
C C
21. D is aged 40 with a clear criminal record. She completed a
D D
diploma program in hotel and restaurant management. D is a widow and
E her son aged 16 is in the Philippines under her mother-in-law’s care. She E
was a domestic helper in Hong Kong and is highly regarded by Dw who
F F
was her ex-employer.
G G
22. Defence cited the following cases. In Secretary for Justice v
H H
Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the Court of Appeal held:
I I
‘12. “Money laundering” is a serious offence for not
J J
only does it encourage criminal activities indirectly,
but also attempt to legitimize the proceeds of crime.
K K
In order to crack down on serious crimes, to prevent
L offenders from getting financial gains, it is necessary L
to deter the commission of the “money laundering”
M offence … M
13. Generally, the sentence for “money laundering”
N N
offence should mainly reflect the amount of “black
money” laundered and not the benefit obtained by the
O O
defendant or others. The reason being that it is very
P difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most P
“money laundering” cases, there may not be
Q evidence to show from what indictable offence the Q
“black money” are in fact derived. Of course if there
R R
is information to prove that the “black money” is
S originated from serious crimes, including drug S
trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human
T trafficking, other organized crimes, etc. or the T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B defendant’s benefit is huge, then the sentence should B
be adjusted upward.
C C
14. This Court has … listed others factors relevant to
D the sentence to be imposed including the number of D
offences, the length of time the offence lasted, the
E degree to which the defendant participated in the E
offence involving “black money” and whether or not
F F
it was an organised and sophisticated crime, etc.
15. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536,
G G
Cheung JA set out the amounts of money involved
H and the sentences passed in a number of “money H
laundering” cases. The sentencing starting point is 3
I years or so where the “black money” involved is I
between 1 million and 2 million dollars, 4 years or so
J J
where it is between 3 million and 6 million dollars,
K
and could be over 5 years where it is above 10 K
million dollars.’
L L
23. The Court also held that the starting point ‘should not be lower
M M
than 4 years’ for the defendant who laundered 14 million dollars for
N thousands times over 7 years.14 N
O O
24. In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal
P held that the sentencing judge should engage his ‘feel’ for the case,15 and P
that the amount of money laundered is a ‘significant’ feature but not ‘be-
Q Q
16 17
all and end-all’ . It also identified other obvious factors of sentencing:
R R
S S
14
Para. 17-19.
T 15 T
Para. 25.
16
Para. 38.
17
Para. 40.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B ‘(1) The nature of the predicate offence, if known, B
and the penalty available for the predicate offence …
C C
(2) … the person who knows the nature of the
D predicate offence is more culpable than the person D
who does not …
E (3) An international dimension will always be a E
significant aggravating feature; and by international
F F
dimension we include money laundered from, or for
those operating in, the Mainland.
G G
(4) The sophistication of the offence is always
H relevant. This will include the degree of planning H
and whether deceit is practised to achieve the
I objective. I
(5) Where the offence is committed by or on behalf
J J
of an organized criminal syndicate, that is an
K
aggravating fact. K
(6) … whether there is one transaction or many and
L the length of time over which the offence was L
committed.
M M
(7) … it will be an aggravating feature where the
offender continues to launder funds after he has
N N
discovered as a fact that the funds are the proceeds of
O an offence or after he has discovered the nature of an O
offence which is serious.
P (8) … the role of the offender and the acts P
performed by him. In this regard, the director of a
Q Q
laundering operation or scheme should attract a
greater sentence than a person engaged by him
R R
although sentences should be sufficient to deter those
S who might be prevailed upon by directing minds. In S
the case of a person down the chain, the court will
T wish to have regard to whether a benefit has been T
received and if so the nature and size of the benefit.
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B But within the category of persons down the chain B
there will gradations of culpability. So for example
C C
the drug addict or petty crook who is paid a small
D sum to open an account and hand over its operation D
to another with no more participation and no more
E knowledge than that it is going to be used for some E
sort of crime is much less culpable than an offender
F F
of a different sort not “used” in that way.’
G G
25. In HKSAR v Lam Ka Sin [2021] 2 HKLRD 32, the appellant
H H
conspired to launder $1.1 million. The Court of Appeal held that a starting
I point of 2 years was appropriate because:18 I
J J
(a) she was aged 20 and ‘in a vulnerable state and easily
K influenced’; K
L L
(b) she was forced to go along with the arrangement; and
M M
(c) she withdrew after failing to process the subject cheque.
N N
O 26. Regarding the present case, Defence submitted that: O
P P
(a) there is no evidence of international element,
Q sophisticated planning, criminal syndicate, or D’s Q
knowledge of the predicate offences or control of the
R R
accounts; and
S S
T T
18
Para. 32 to 36.
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
(b) she was merely stooge account holders for a reward of
C $400. C
D D
27. Defence ask for a global starting point of less than 2 years for
E all charges. E
F F
F. P’s reply
G G
28. P submit that the global starting point should not be less than
H H
4 years.
I I
G. Sentence
J J
K 29. I have also considered these cases. In HKSAR v Tsang Yiu K
Kong CACC 77/2022, the Court of Appeal held the followings:19
L L
M (a) According to the range of starting points identified in M
Hsu Yu Yi, $3,000,000 to $6,000,000 normally attracts
N N
a sentence of 4 years; where $7,700,000 is involved, the
O starting point should be ‘no less than 4 years’. O
P P
(b) Where $8,130,000 and no layering exercise were
Q involved, a starting point of 3 years and 6 months is ‘too Q
low’.
R R
S 30. In CAAR 4/2024, the Court of Appeal held:20 S
T T
19
Para. 26.
20
Para. 47-54.
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
C (a) Sentencing judges should keep firmly in mind the C
mischief targeted by the relevant legislation, and take
D D
note of the maximum penalty for the offence and the
E need for a deterrent sentence. E
F F
(b) The amount involved is important but not the only
G factor. Wan Kwok Keung merely summarised the G
approximate sentencing ranges corresponding to the
H H
amounts in the cases listed by Hsu Yu Yi. Sentencing
I judges should not rely solely on those ranges, nor adopt I
a purely mathematical approach to sentencing without
J J
proper consideration of other case-specific factors.
K Judges must determine an appropriate term by assessing K
the particular circumstances of each case, drawing on
L L
their own sentencing experience, and their overall
M impression of the case. M
N N
31. In the present case, I have considered the following features:
O O
(a) There is no evidence of international element,
P P
sophisticated planning or steps, or criminal organisation.
Q Q
(b) The predicate offences are online scams, but there is no
R R
evidence that D knew about them.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
(c) She was 3 stooge accounts holders for a $400 reward,
C and there is no evidence that she had further C
participation in the offences.
D D
E (d) Charge 1 Account had 4,787 deposits and 1,407 E
withdrawals, Charge 2 Account had 70 deposits and 10
F F
withdrawals, and Charge 3 Account had 3 deposits and
G 1 withdrawal. G
H H
(e) The total amount involved in all the accounts was about
I $8.7 million. I
J J
(f) The total period of all charges is 26 March to 9 May
K 2023. K
L L
32. In view of the foregoing, a global starting point of 4 years (48
M months) is appropriate. M
N N
33. There is no mitigating factor in this case.
O O
34. Given the information provided by P, I allow the application
P P
for enhancement by 1/5, resulting in a global sentence of 57 months.
Q Q
35. Accordingly, the sentences are as follows:
R R
S (a) The starting points for Charges 1 to 3 are 4 years (48 S
months), 1 year (12 months), and 1 year (12 months),
T T
respectively.
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
C (b) They are enhanced by 1/5 to 57 months, 14 months, and C
14 months, respectively.
D D
E (c) To achieve the global sentence of 57 months, all the E
sentences are to run concurrently.
F F
G (d) Hence, D is sentenced to 57 months’ imprisonment for G
all charges.
H H
I I
J J
K K
( Edward Wong )
L Deputy District Judge L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
DCCC1479/2024 HKSAR v. ACOSTA LYNIE BIBAL - LawHero