A A
B B
DCCC 569/2025
C [2025] HKDC 1723 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 569 OF 2025
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I CHEUNG TSZ MING I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Raymond Wong in Court K
Date: 8 October 2025
L L
Present: Ms Tam Ho Hobe, Senior Public Prosecutor (Ag.), for
M HKSAR M
Ms Ho H Y Vanessa, instructed by Eli K.K. Tsui & Co,
N N
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
O Offence: Dealing with property known or believed to represent O
proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代
P P
表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產)
Q Q
R --------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
---------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Charge
C C
1. Defendant was charged with one count of dealing with
D D
property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence.
E E
Plea
F F
G 2. Defendant pleaded guilty, admitted the facts and was G
convicted.
H H
I Summary of facts I
J J
3. The subject account of the charge was opened by the
K defendant on 2 May 2021 and closed on 26 May 2022. K
L L
4. Arising from some deception cases, a number of deposits,
M namely $10,900, $30,000, $30,000 and $100,000 was made into M
defendant’s account in February and March 2022 respectively.
N N
O 5. In respect of defendant’s account, between November 2021 O
and May 2022, the total amount of the subject charge by way of 34,692
P P
deposits and 4,165 withdrawals were made. All the transactions shown a
Q pattern of temporary repository of frauds. Q
R R
Arrest
S S
6. On 3 August 2022, the defendant was arrested but later
T T
released. The defendant was re-arrested on 5 March 2025 and was first
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
brought to the magistrates' court in March 2025.
C C
Background of the defendant
D D
E 7. He, aged 48 was single, and educated up to Form 1 level. E
F F
8. He had 37 previous convictions but not similar.
G G
Consideration
H H
I 9. In sentencing, I have considered the following points:- I
J J
(1) The facts of the case, involving over 15 million dollars;
K K
(2) The mitigation put forward;
L L
M (3) Defendant’s previous records. M
N N
10. I have also considered the following authorities :-
O O
(1) 香港特別行政區 訴 許有益 [2010] 5 HKLRD 536;
P P
Q Q
(2) HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33;
R R
(3) 律政司司長 訴 雲國強 [2012] 1 HKLRD 197;
S S
T (4) HKSAR v Lam Ka Sin also known as Mak Ka Sin [2021] T
2 HKLRD 32.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C Starting point C
D D
11. Taking into account the amount being over 15 million dollars
E within a period of 6 months, defendant’s background, the mitigation put E
forward, and the authorities mentioned, I adopted 4 ½ years’ imprisonment
F F
as the starting point.
G G
Delay in prosecution
H H
I 12. I have considered the chronology of the case submitted by the I
prosecution.
J J
K 13. For this case, only one bank account was involved. The K
defendant was arrested in August 2022 and was first brought up to court in
L L
March 2025. I was of the view that it constituted a case of delay in
M prosecution, though not a very serious one. I considered it being a factor M
for mitigation, resulting a further discount of 4 months.
N N
O
More Severe Sentence O
P P
14. Having considered section 27 of the Organized and Serious
Q Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, the facts of the case and the material supplied, Q
I was satisfied that all the requirements under the said section had been
R R
fulfilled. I accordingly granted the application for a more severe sentence.
S S
15. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, I allowed
T T
a more severe sentence by 25% increase.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C Sentence C
D D
16. I adopted the starting point of 4 ½ years’ imprisonment. On
E defendant’s guilty plea, it was reduced to 36 months’ imprisonment. E
F F
17. On further deduction of 4 months due to the delay in
G prosecution, it was one of 32 months’ imprisonment. G
H H
18. By way of 25% increase of a more severe sentence under s.27
I of Cap 455, it was 8 months’ imprisonment. I
J J
19. The final sentence was one of 32 months plus 8 months, i.e.
K 40 months’ imprisonment. K
L L
20. The defendant was now sentenced to 40 months’
M imprisonment. M
N N
O O
( Raymond Wong )
P P
Deputy District Judge
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V