DCCC638/2024

DCCC638/2024

A A B B DCCC 1259/2023 & 638, 1518 & 1558/2024 (Consolidated) C C [2026] HKDC 46 D D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE E E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION F CRIMINAL CASE NOS 1259 OF 2023 AND 638, 1518 & 1558 OF 2024 F G G -------------------------------------- H HKSAR H v I I MOK HOI TIK (D2) J KAM SHUN SHING (D5) J LAU CHUN WAI (D6) K K --------------------------------------- L L Before: Deputy District Judge L C Cheng M M Date: 6 January 2026 N N Present: Mr Tsui Shiu Wah Raymond, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR O Mr Chan Kay K W, instructed by Mike So, Joseph Lau & Co, O nd for the 2 defendant P P Ms Lai Annie S M, instructed by S H Chou & Co, for the 5th Q defendant Q Ms Tin Sze Wai,Tiffany, instructed by Lee & Chow, for the R R 6th defendant S Offence: [1] – [12] Dealing with property known or believed to S represent proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相 T T 信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) U U V V  -2- A A B B C ------------------------------------- C REASONS FOR SENTENCE D D ------------------------------------- E E 1. D2 pleaded guilty to 3 charges (Charge 2, 7 and 8). D5 pleaded F F guilty to 1 charge (Charge 5). D6 pleaded guilty to 1 charge (Charge 6). All G the charges against D2, D5 and D6 were dealing with property known or G believed to represent proceeds of an indicatable offence, commonly known H H as money laundering. I I 2. In a gist, 25 victims, namely PW1 to PW25, fell prey to J J different scams between January and November 2022. As a result, they K transferred various amount of money to the accounts of different defendants. K With a total loss of around HK$23 million, around HK$5.5 million was L L deposited into the accounts of D2, D5 and D6 and 3 other defendants. The M transaction patterns in the relevant bank accounts of the defendants all M displayed hallmarks of money laundering during the offence period. N N O Facts of the case O P P D2 Q Q Charge 2 R R S 3. D2 opened an account with Bank of China (“BOC”) on 20 S January 2022 and was the sole authorized signatory of the account. Between T T 1 and 31 March 2022, D2’s BOC account received 176 deposits, totaling U U V V  -3- A A B B more than HK$8.19 million, including HK$500,000 from PW1. During the C same period, the account had 246 withdrawals, also totaling more than C HK$8.19 million. D D E Charge 7 E F F 4. D2 opened an account with Standard Chartered Bank (“SCB”) G and was the sole authorized signatory of the account. D2’s SCB account G was only active between 1 and 17 March 2022. During these 17 days, the H H account had 50 deposits, totaling more than HK$2.5 million and 92 I withdrawals, totaling more than HK$2.5 million. The account was clearly I used as temporary repository of funds. The deposits were swiftly withdrawn J J and the day-end balance were kept low. A pattern of smurfing was also K observed in the account. K L L Charge 8 M M 5. D2 opened an account with The Hongkong and Shanghai N N Banking Corporation Limited (“HSBC”) and was the sole authorized O signatory of the account. Between 5 and 11 March 2022, D2’s HSBC O account had 19 deposits, totaling more than HK$1.3 million and 40 P P withdrawals, also totaling more than HK$1.3 million. Money deposited into Q the account was swiftly withdrawn and the day-end balance of the account Q was kept low. The account displayed patterns of smurfing and mirroring R R and appeared to be used as temporary repository of funds. S S T T U U V V  -4- A A B B D2’s arrest and background C C 6. D2 was arrested by police. Under video recorded interviews, D D D2 confirmed that: E E (1) the BOC and SCB accounts belonged to him; and F F G (2) he was a construction worker with a monthly salary of G HK$15,000 and did not file any tax return. H H I 7. Pursuant to the record in Inland Revenue Department (“IRD”), I D2 did not file any tax return. J J K D5 K L L Charge 5 M M 8. D5 opened an account with BOC was the sole authorized N N signatory of the account. Between 6 and 28 February 2022, there were 56 O deposits, totaling more than HK$3.8 million, including HK$400,000 from O PW1. During the same period, the account had 98 withdrawals, totaling P P more than HK$3.8 million. Q Q D5’s arrest and background R R S 9. D5 was arrested on 14 March 2023. Under video recorded S interview, D5 said that: T T U U V V  -5- A A B B (1) the BOC account was opened by him when he was a C teenager; and C D D (2) he was unemployed but had worked as a waiter E previously making HK$8,000 to HK$10,000 monthly. E F F 10. Pursuant to the IRD’s record, D5’s total income for the G financial years of 2020/21 and 2021/22 was HK$249,786. G H H D6 I I Charge 6 J J K 11. D6 opened an account with BOC and was the sole authorized K signatory of the account. Between 7 January and 10 February 2022, the L L account received 85 deposits, totaling more than HK$3.6 million, including M a total of more than HK$1.2 million from PW2 to PW9. During the same M period, the account had 126 withdrawals, totaling more than HK$3.6 N N million. O O D6’s arrest and background P P Q 12. D6 was arrested on 22 August 2023. Under caution, he said he Q originally opened the account for receiving salary, but later gave the bank R R card and password of the account to another person. S S T T U U V V  -6- A A B B 13. A video recorded interview was conducted with D6 in which C he said: C D D (1) he worked as a promoter with monthly salary of E HK$4,000 to HK$5,000, with savings of around E HK$12,000 but no other properties or assets; F F G (2) he acquainted a male named William, who asked him to G open a new bank account for salary after he was H H interested in part-time jobs; I I (3) later, he met a colleague introduced by William; and J J K (4) he then opened a bank account with BOC and passed all K the bank account documents to the colleague. L L M Background and mitigation of D2 M N N 14. D2 is now 22 years old, single and resides with his mother and O an elder brother. He received education up to Form 6. He was a part time O construction worker. He is a person of clear record. P P Q 15. In mitigation, Mr Chan, counsel for D2, handed up mitigation Q letters by D2, his family members, relatives and friends. They all asked me R R to impose a lenient sentence. S S T T U U V V  -7- A A B B 16. Mr Chan urged me to consider D2 was under coercion and C submitted that in 2021, D2 was introduced by a friend to a person named C “Ming”, who knew D2’s home address and threatened him to open bank D D accounts and to hand up ATM cards. Between 1 February 2022 and 17 E March 2022, D2 was detained by the fraud syndicate, who used D2’s bank E cards to deal with the black money. Mr Chan emphasized that at the F F material time, D2 was young. Fearing for his family’s safety, he allowed G the syndicate to use his bank accounts. To protect his family’s safety, D2 G chose not to report to the police even after he was released by the fraud H H syndicate, who had warned D2 not to do so. For that mitigating factor, the I prosecution maintain a neutral position. I J J Background and mitigation of D5 K K 17. D5 was born in Hong Kong and is now 32 years old. He lives L L with his father (64 years old) and mother (61 years old). D5 is the only child M of the family. D5 received education up to Form 4 and then started working M as a waiter. N N O 18. D5 has 7 previous conviction records and 6 of them relating to O gambling. Ms Lai, counsel for D5, submits that the remaining conviction P P record of D5 is not only of the same nature as present but was also Q committed out of the same background. In early 2022, D5 encountered Q financial difficulties during the COVID pandemic. In response to a R R recruitment of stock trading assistants referred by a friend, he went to a S hotel for a job interview whereby he was asked to lend his 2 bank accounts S in return for monetary rewards of several thousand dollars. Out of T T momentary greed, he provided ATM cards and online banking passwords U U V V  -8- A A B B of his bank accounts with BOC and Nanyang Commercial Bank. At that C time, he knew his bank accounts would be used for handling illegal money. C Ultimately, he committed the present offence out of the BOC account and D D a case in the Fanling Magistrates’ Court (“Fanling Case”) out of the E Nanyang Commercial Bank account. In the Fanling Case, D5 had already E pleaded guilty and served a 6 months’ imprisonment. He was released on F F 24 February 2023. G G 19. D5 has reflected upon his past wrongdoings while on remand H H and indicated his wish to turn a new leaf. He intends to apply for vehicle I repair courses once he starts serving his sentence. I J J 20. Ms Lai handed up mitigation letters written by D5, his parents K and grandmother begging for a lenient sentence. K L L Background and mitigation of D6 M M 21. D6 is now 25 years old and was 21 at the time of offence. He N N was locally born and is the only child of his family. He resides with his O father (65 years old) and mother (62 years old). He was of clear record at O the time of offence. P P Q 22. In 2019, with an unsatisfactory result in public examination, Q D6 enrolled himself into a diploma course. However, due to financial R R pressure of the family, D6 decided to start helping out at the hardware shop S operated by his parents, and taking up part-time job as sales and waiter. He S also completed a foundation diploma and aspired to become a kindergarten T T teacher. In around July 2023, he enrolled a 2 years high diploma programme U U V V  -9- A A B B which was due to start in September 2023. Unfortunately, he was arrested C on 22 August 2023 for the present case. Still, unwilling to give up, D6 C continued his education. A mitigation letter written by his class teacher D D indicates that D6 displayed a genuine desire to teach as well as to serve the E community. E F F 23. Besides, D6, D6’s mother and friends also wrote mitigating G letters and ask me to impose a lenient sentence. G H H 24. Ms Tin, counsel for D6, submits that D6 was charged with an I offence also of the same nature as present and also committed out of the I same background. In a gist, D6 followed instruction of a colleague of his J J friend known as “William” and set up 2 bank accounts. Then, he handed K over the bank documents of both accounts. Ultimately, he committed the K present offence out of the BOC account and a case in the Kowloon City L L Magistrates’ Court (“Kowloon City Case”) out of another bank account. In M the Kowloon City Case, D6 was convicted after trial and served a 18 months’ M imprisonment. He was released on 14 September 2025. N N O Sentencing Consideration O P P 25. Money laundering is a serious offence. An immediate term of Q imprisonment should be imposed to deter would-be offenders. Q R R 26. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, the Court of S Appeal stressed again the fact-specific nature of the offence regarding S sentence. However, the amount of the money being laundered is a major T T sentencing consideration. In paragraph 9 thereof, Cheung JA stated: U U V V  - 10 - A A B B “9. There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing C C with the proceeds from an indictable offence because the facts vary from case to case. However the following factors are to be D taken into account when determining sentence: D (a) It is the amount of money involved that is a major E consideration and not the amount of benefit received by E a defendant in the transaction. F F (b) The culpability of the offence lies in the assistance, support and encouragement offered to the G commission of an indictable offence. So a defendant’s G level of participation and the number of occasions on H which he is involved in the “money laundering” H activities are relevant factors to be considered. I (c) The offence of dealing with the proceeds from an I indictable offence does not necessarily have any direct correlation with the indictable offence in question. J J However if the relevant indictable offence can be identified, the court may take into account the sentence K imposed on the indictable offence per se when K determining the sentence of the dealing offence. L (d) If the case has an international element involving L activities carried out across different regions, the court M may impose a more severe sentence. This is to protect M Hong Kong’s reputation as an international finance and banking hub from being tarnished. N N (e) The length of time the offence lasted.” O O 27. In Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD P P 201, Yeung JA (as Yeung VP then was) observed that: Q Q “12. “Money laundering” is a serious offence for not only does R it encourage criminal activities indirectly, but also attempts to R legitimise the proceeds of crime. In order to crack down on serious crimes and to prevent offenders from getting financial S gains, it is necessary to deter the commission of “money S laundering” offences (see Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Javid T Kamran (unrep., CACC 400/2004, [2005] HKEC 80), HKSAR v T Xu Xia Li [2004] 4 HKC 16). U U V V  - 11 - A A B 13. Generally, the sentence for a “money laundering” offence B should mainly reflect the amount of “black money” laundered C and not the benefit obtained by the defendant or others. The C reason being that it is very difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most “money laundering” cases, there may not D be evidence to show from what indictable offence the “black D money” is in fact derived. Of course if there is information to E prove that the “black money” originated from serious crimes, E including drug trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking and other organised crimes etc, or the defendant’s F benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted upward. F 14. This Court has, in a number of other similar cases, also listed G G other factors relevant to the sentence to be imposed including the number of offences, the length of time the offence lasted, the H degree to which the defendant participated in the offence H involving “black money” and whether or not it was an organised and sophisticated crime etc. I I 15. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, Cheung JA J set out the amounts of money involved and the sentences passed J in a number of “money laundering” cases. The sentencing starting point is 3 years or so where the “black money” involved K is between $1 million and $2 million; 4 years or so where it is K between $3 million and $6 million; and could be over 5 years where it is above $10 million.” L L M 28. In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal M emphasized that “the question of the amount of money laundered is not the N N be-all and end-all of a case, but is a significant feature”. The Court went O on to elaborate on the other relevant factors to be considered (at paragraph O 40 of the judgment): P P Q (1) The nature of the predicate offence for generating Q “black money” and the sentence to be imposed; R R S (2) Whether the defendant knew what the predicate offence S was; T T U U V V  - 12 - A A B B (3) Whether there is an international element; C C (4) Whether the offence of “money laundering” involves D D elaborate steps, schemes or fraudulent means; E E (5) Whether there is a criminal syndicate; F F G (6) The number of transactions and the length of time G during which the offences were committed; H H I (7) Whether the defendant continued to launder money I after knowing the nature of the predicate offence; and J J K (8) The role and remuneration of the defendant. K L L 29. In the present case, there is no evidence that D2, D5 or D6 M knew the source of the money. They did not commit the offences for a long M time. The modus operandi was not complicated or sophisticated. They N N were not a member of the criminal syndicate perpetrating the scam. There O was no or only limited international dimension. Their role were merely a O stooge bank account holder. All of them can be regarded as a first-time P P offender of this type of offence. Q Q 30. In respect of D2, the total amount of black money involved R R were about HK$12 million, including about HK$8.1 million for charge 2, S HK$2.5 million for charge 7 and HK$1.3 million for charge 8. S T T U U V V  - 13 - A A B B 31. I adopt 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment as the starting C point for charge 2, 3 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for charge 7 C and 2 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for charge 8. Given the one- D D third discount for the guilty plea, sentence for charge 2 is reduced to 3 years E and 2 months’ imprisonment, charge 7 is reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment E and charge 8 is reduced to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment. F F G 32. D2 was young and of clear record when he handed over his G bank accounts to the fraud syndicate. I am persuaded that at the material H H time, D2 was under coercion and decide to reduce the sentence for each I charge for 2 months. So, charge 2 is reduced to 3 years’ imprisonment; I charge 7 is reduced to 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment; charge 8 is J J reduced to 1 year and 2 months’ imprisonment. K K 33. In respect of D5, the total amount of the black money involved L L were about HK$3.8 million. I adopt 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment as M the starting point for charge 5. Giving him the one-third discount for his M guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. N N O 34. D5 has already served 6 months’ imprisonment in his Fanling O Case. Should D5’s case be dealt with together with his Fanling Case, P P totality principle would certainly be considered. In that special Q circumstance, I decide to reduce the sentence by 3 months to 1 years and Q 11 month’s imprisonment. R R S S T T U U V V  - 14 - A A B B 35. In respect of D6, the total amount of the black money involved C were about HK$3.6 million. I adopt 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment as C the starting point for charge 6. Giving him the one-third discount for his D D guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. E E 36. Should D6’s case be dealt with together with his Kowloon City F F Case, totality principle would certainly be considered. D6 has already G served 18 months’ imprisonment. In that special circumstance, I decide to G reduce the sentence by 9 months to 1 year and 5 months’ imprisonment. H H I OSCO application I J J 37. The prosecution applied for enhancement of sentence based K upon section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap K 455), Laws of Hong Kong. In support of the application, the prosecution L L relied upon a statement made by Chief Inspector Li Yiu Man dated 30 M December 2025 in which the following statistics is provided: M N N (1) the number of deception cases and money laundering O cases, number of arrested persons for those cases and O number to stooges identified from arrested person; and P P Q (2) amount of reported losses and/or proceeds laundered, Q and use of stooge account in deception cases and money R R laundering cases (detected with arrest). S S 38. According to the statistics, the use of stooges in both deception T T and money laundering cases have been prevalent in the past 6 years. The U U V V  - 15 - A A B B defence had no objection to the said application for enhancement of C sentence. Ms Lai suggested that a 20% to 25% enhancement would be C sufficient. D D E 39. On the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the E offences of deception and money laundering involving the use of stooges F F are prevalent. Coupled with the nature and extent of the harm done to the G society, I am of the view that it warrants, in the present case, an G enhancement of 20%. H H I Sentence I J J 40. After enhancement of 20%, the sentence of charge 2 should be K 3 years and 7.2 months’ imprisonment and I decide to round off to 3 years K and 7 months’ imprisonment. For charge 7, the sentence should be 2 years L L and 2.4 months’ imprisonment, and I decide to round off to 2 years and 2 M months’ imprisonment. For charge 8, the sentence should be 1 year and 4.8 M months’ imprisonment, and I decide to round down to 1 year and 4 months’ N N imprisonment. All sentence of charge 2, 7 and 8 to be run concurrently. O O 41. For charge 5, after enhancement of 20%, the sentence is 2 P P years and 3.6 months’ imprisonment. I decide to round down the sentence Q to 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. Q R R 42. For charge 6, after enhancement of 20%, the sentence should S be 1 year and 8.4 months’ imprisonment. I decide to round off the sentence S to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment. T T U U V V  - 16 - A A B B C C 43. To conclude, D2 is sentenced to 3 years and 7 months’ D D imprisonment; D5 is sentenced to 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment; D6 E is sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment. E F F G G ( L C Cheng ) H Deputy District Judge H I I 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