DCCC811/2022

DCCC811/2022

A A B B DCCC 483 & 811/2022 (Consolidated) C [2025] HKDC 591 C D D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E CRIMINAL CASE NOS 483 & 811 OF 2022 F F G ---------------------------------- G HKSAR H H v I LEUNG WAI SUM (D1) I CHAN KA YEE (D2) J J CHAN TIN SUM (D3) K LAI PING (D4) K ---------------------------------- L L M Before: His Honour Judge Tam M Date: 2 April 2025 N N Present: Mr Wong Hay Yiu, counsel-on-fiat for HKSAR O Ms Wong Catherine K K & Ms Lin Yen Yen, Michelle, O instructed by Francis Kong & Co, for the 1st and 2nd P P defendants Q Mr Boyton David Rex & Mr Pannu-Yuon Nicklaus J, Q instructed by Francis Kong & Co, for the 3rd defendant R R th 4 defendant in person S Offence(s): [1] & [2] Dealing with property known or believed to S represent proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或 T T 相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產） - D1 U U V V  -2- A A B B [3] Dealing with property known or believed to represent C proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代 C 表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產） - D1 & D2 D D [4] Dealing with property known or believed to represent E proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代 E F 表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產） - D2 F [5] Dealing with property known or believed to represent G G proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代 H 表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產） - D3 H I [6] Dealing with property known or believed to represent I proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代 J J 表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產） - D4 K K -------------------------------------- L L REASONS FOR VERDICT M -------------------------------------- M N N 1. D1 to D4 face a Charge Sheet consisting of 6 charges of O Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an O indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and P P Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455. They all pleaded not guilty to their Q respective charges resulting in the necessity of a trial. Q R R 2. Particulars of these charges are that A (defendant(s)), between S S B and C, in Hong Kong, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe T that property, namely a total sum of D Hong Kong currency in the E held T under the name of the said A with F, in whole or in part directly or U U V V  -3- A A B B indirectly represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the C said property. C D D 3. For Charge 1, A is D1; B is 30 April 2018; C is 1 April 2020, E D is $11,165,898.29; E is account numbered 012-708-1-014134-0; F is E Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited. F F G 4. For Charge 2, A is D1; B is 30 April 2018; C is 1 May 2020; G D is $7,777,265.00; E is betting account numbered 28634297; F is The H H Hong Kong Jockey Club. I I 5. For Charge 3, A is D1 and D2; B is 24 June 2019; C is 1 April J J 2020; D is $531,521.63; E is account numbered 012-806-2-007339-7; F is K Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited. K L L 6. For Charge 4, A is D2; B is 31 December 2017; C is 21 April M 2020; D is $1,613,095.15; E is account numbered 012-680-1-010982-6; F M is Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited. N N O 7. For Charge 5, A is D3; B is 2 July 2019; C is 20 November O 2019; D is $2,614,187.34; E is account numbered 012-358-2-007157-0; F P P is Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited. Q Q 8. For Charge 6, A is D4; B is 2 December 2018; C is 21 R R December 2019; D is $4,167,208.96; E is account numbered 012-352-1- S 042734-1; F is Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited. S T T U U V V  -4- A A B B 9. The offence the subject of each charge is more commonly C known as “money laundering” offence. C D D PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF E E Against D1 F F G 10. During the charge period, D1’s A/C1 had over $11 million G deposited in it. Most of the funds were soon withdrawn and dissipated in H H different ways. The total amount of withdrawals was very close to the total I amounts of deposits. The amounts were out of proportion to his known I means. Charge 1 refers. J J K 11. During the charge period, D1’s HKJC account recorded a total K of over $7.7 million in deposits (in 919 transactions) and a total of over L L $4.4 million in withdrawals (in 344 transactions). The total betting and M total pay-out were around $26 million and around $23 million respectively. M In terms of deposits, a total of 762 transfers amounting to more than $5.8 N N million came from D1’s A/C1. In terms of withdrawals, a total of 307 O transfers amounting to more than $3.8 million were made in favour of D1’s O A/C1. The amounts were out of proportion to his known means. Charge P P 2 refers. Q Q 12. During the charge period, a total of over $530,000 was R R deposited into D1’s joint account with D2 (A/C2). Most of the funds S deposited were usually withdrawn by cash in around one month. The total S amount of withdrawals was very close to the total amount of deposits. T T Charge 3 refers. U U V V  -5- A A B B C Against D2 C D D 13. During the charge period, a total of over $530,000 was E deposited into D2’s joint account with D1 (A/C2). Most of the funds E deposited were usually withdrawn by cash in around one month. The total F F amount of withdrawals was very close to the total amount of deposits. G Charge 3 refers. G H H 14. During the charge period, a total of over $1.6 million was I deposited into D2’s A/C3. Most of the funds deposited were soon I withdrawn and dissipated in different ways. The total amount of J J withdrawals were close to the total amount of deposits. The amounts were K out of proportion to her known means. Charge 4 refers. K L L Against D3 M M 15. During the charge period, a total of more than $2.6 million N N was deposited into and withdrawn from D3’s A/C4. Most of the funds O (usually in small amounts) deposited into the account were often O withdrawn or transferred out in bulk amounts (mostly by several P P withdrawals) with a short period of time. The amounts were out of Q proportion to her known means. Q R R S S T T U U V V  -6- A A B B 16. On 10 July 2019, that is one week after account opening, D3 C applied to change her mobile number to 6999 0184 and her email address C to [email protected] by filling in and returning in person a “Customer D D Information Amendment Form” to BOC. On the form, “I/D Confirmed” E was stamped near the signature part of the form. Charge 5 refers. E F F Against D4 G G 17. During the charge period, a total of over $4 million was H H deposited into D4’s A/C5. Multiple funds from different counterparties I were usually deposited in smaller amounts, accumulated in the account, I and were often withdrawn or transferred out in bulk amount (in thousands) J J on the same day or shortly after. The total amount of withdrawals were K slightly more than the total amount of deposits. K L L 18. Within the charge period, D4 had made 5 applications for M change of contact information by filling in and returning in person the M respective “Customer Information Amendment Form” to BOC. Charge 6 N N refers. O O DEFENCE CASE IN BRIEF P P Q D1 Q R R 19. D1 gave evidence but called no other witnesses. D1 used to S run a retail business and had made substantial profit. He also received a S legacy from his late father. He gave all these funds in cash to his mother T T for safekeeping. Whenever he needed money, he would ask her. U U V V  -7- A A B B C 20. He ceased his business end of 2017. He met D2 at about this C time. They cohabited as couple. Both of them became addicted to D D gambling. D1 gambled in soccer betting using his HKJC account which E was linked to his A/C1. He also gambled in mobile phone games E purchasing and redeeming points by FPS through his A/C1. He also F F gambled in the streets on “13 pieces” below his housing estate. The funds G in and out of his A/C1 relate to his gambling. The funds in and out of his G joint account with D2 (A/C2) relate to savings with a view to marriage. H H I D2 I J J 21. D2 gave evidence but called no other witnesses. She used to K rely on CSSA and her previous boyfriends. She met D1 end of 2017 and K they, together with her two children from previous relationships, lived L L together. D1 provided for them. Starting 2018, both D1 and D2 became M heavy gamblers. She gambled in mobile phone games and mahjong. Her M A/C3 was used for purchasing and redeeming points in relation to mobile N N phone games hence the numerous FPS transactions. Her joint account with O D1 (A/C2) was for savings with a view to marriage. She gambled daily in O Mahjong Parlour. Her source of funds for gambling were gifts from her P P previous boyfriend(s), D1, her father, and D1’s mother. She also borrowed Q from relatives and friends. She lived from rags to riches as a norm and had Q ups and downs. R R S S T T U U V V  -8- A A B B D3 C C 22. D3 gave evidence but called no other witnesses. On or about D D 1 July 2019, she went for a job interview and she was told that, if successful, E she would have to open a bank account to receive salary. Without waiting E for the outcome, on 3 July 2019, she opened A/C4 at a BOC branch F F together with her then cohabiting boyfriend Ng and their baby daughter. G However, she left with her baby first leaving Ng to collect the documents G including the bank card from the counter. A few days later, she asked Ng H H about the documents including the card, but the response was the I documents (including the card) were lost on 3 July. On a subsequent day I to this response of Ng, D3 saw a letter in BOC envelope on the surface of J J the shoe cabinet. It felt like a card so she asked Ng for the PIN which he K had earlier chosen at the bank counter in her presence. She wrote the PIN K on a label and stuck it on to the envelope before putting the whole in the L L shoe cabinet drawer. On 14 July which was her birthday, D3 and Ng had M a big quarrel and she left Ng’s premises for her maiden home with a few M garments after telling Ng that they were separating. She never returned to N N collect her daughter or other belongings. D3 denied being responsible for O the Customer Information Amendment Form which she said was not O signed by her. P P Q D4 Q R R 23. D4 gave evidence but called no other witnesses. D4 was S working in renovation field and opened A/C5 for the purpose of obtaining S a bank card to facilitate movement of funds in anticipation of forthcoming T T renovation projects. However, the projects never came and he put the card U U V V  -9- A A B B and PIN aside in his Sham Shui Po flat where he lived with his then C girlfriend. The rental of the flat was shared with his renovation friends C who stored tools there. Later, there was no work available so he moved D D back to his maiden and current home in Kowloon City with his girlfriend. E He moved his many stuff back including many letters. He started working E as a kitchen hand but eventually even that work became unavailable. F F Girlfriend was a heavy gambler and she stayed for one year in his maiden G home then left. D4 had salary slips and documents which bore his G signatures where he lived. D4 never used his A/C5 or the bank card. H H I 24. D4 denied operating A/C5 and denied being connected with I any of the 5 Customer Information Amendment Forms. D4 said it was J J possible that someone familiar with his signature forged his signatures. K K ISSUES IN THE CASE L L M 25. The issues in the case revolve in the first instance around the M credibility and reliability of the four defendants as witnesses. If any N N defendant’s exculpatory evidence is true or may be true, that defendant is O not guilty of the charge(s) against him/her. O P P 26. However, if the exculpatory evidence of a particular Q defendant could not possibly be true, then the issue will become whether Q the prosecution evidence against him/her would be sufficient to prove a R R case of money laundering against him/her. S S T T U U V V  - 10 - A A B B APPLICABLE LAW C C Money laundering offence D D E Meaning of “having reasonable grounds to believe” E F F 27. In HKSAR v Harjani Haresh Murlidhar (2019) 22 HKCFAR G 446, the Court of Final Appeal has stipulated what it means to be “having G reasonable grounds to believe”, as follows: H H I (a) What facts or circumstances, including those personal I to the defendant, were known to him that might have J J affected his belief as to whether the property was K tainted? Where the defendant gave evidence of facts K and matters that affected his belief about the nature of L L the property, the court had to decide whether he was, or M might be, telling the truth about the existence of these M facts and matters; N N O (b) Would any reasonable person who shared the O defendant’s knowledge be bound to believe that the P P property was tainted (the Question)? Where the court Q found that the defendant was, or might have been, Q telling the truth about the existence of facts and matters R R that he claimed affected his belief, the court must take S those facts and matters into account when answering S the Question; and T T U U V V  - 11 - A A B B (c) If the answer to question (b) was “yes”, the defendant C was guilty. If it was “no”, the defendant was not guilty C (See paras 25-28 of judgment). D D E 28. Harjani further held that, where the defendant did not give or E adduce evidence, the court had first to find what relevant facts or F F circumstances were known to the defendant and then answer the Question. G If “yes”, the defendant would be convicted, and likely sentenced on the G basis that he must also have believed that the property was tainted (See H H para 29 of judgment). I I 29. Where the defendant gave evidence that he did not believe the J J property was tainted, in answering the Question, the court must give due K consideration to the evidence given by him as to what he believed and why. K It was the facts and circumstances that the defendant asserted led him to a L L particular belief or perception that were significant rather than the M subjective belief or perception itself. The court had to consider two M interrelated questions: (a) was the defendant telling the truth when he said N N that he did not believe that the property was tainted; and (b) could a O reasonable person in the defendant’s position have failed to believe that the O property was tainted? (See paras 27, 30, 41-42, 49 of judgment) P P Q 30. Normally, the court would give the same answer to each Q question. However, a rare case might arise where the court concluded that R R any reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have believed that S the property was tainted but nonetheless accepted the defendant’s evidence S that he did not have this belief. This was only likely in circumstances T T where it was apparent that the defendant lacked the reasoning abilities of a U U V V  - 12 - A A B B normal person. In such circumstances, D should be convicted but his belief C might well be a mitigating factor when he came to be sentenced (See paras C 31-33 of judgment). D D E 31. The court had to weigh the matters of which the defendant had E personal knowledge, which would incline a reasonable person to believe F F that the transaction was clean, against the particulars of the impugned G transaction itself, which would incline a reasonable man to believe that the G transaction was tainted. The defendant’s perception would not necessarily H H carry any weight, let alone determinative weight. If, on balancing all these I matters any reasonable person would be bound to conclude that the I transaction was tainted, the defendant would properly be convicted. If, on J J balance, a reasonable man might conclude that the transaction was clean, K an acquittal must follow (See paras 55, 58-59 of judgment). K L L HKSAR v Wong Chor Wo, CACC 314/2006 (unreported) M M 32. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Wong Chor Wo, CACC N N 314/2006 (unreported) pointed out, O O “108. In the normal course of events, if a man allows another P person to use his bank accounts to deposit and withdraw funds, P in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the inevitable Q inference will arise that the holder of the bank account has Q reasonable grounds to believe that the funds passing through the account represent the proceeds of an indictable offence.” R R PROCEDURAL HISTORY S S T 33. Prosecution called 3 witnesses. They are PW1 Lai Chung Yin T (BOC staff), PW2 DPC7696, PW3 Tsang Hing Lun (HKJC staff). U U V V  - 13 - A A B B C 34. After the close of prosecution case, none of the defence had C half-time submissions to make. After consideration of the relevant D D evidence, I ruled that there was a prima facie case on all charges against E the corresponding defendants. E F F 35. Each of the defendants has elected to give evidence but call G no other witnesses. I will assess their evidence objectively as I have done G in relation to prosecution witnesses but bearing always in mind that only H H the prosecution bears the burden of proof. I I 36. After the close of all evidence, parties made what essentially J J were written submissions (D4’s written submissions in Chinese only). I K have considered them fully without reciting them here. K L L SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE M M PW1 Lai Chung Yin N N O 37. PW1 is a staff member of BOC. A customer under general O circumstances would attend a branch of the Bank to apply to change P P customer information by way of customer information amendment form Q (example is the one relating to D3 ie P1-8 pp 5879-5880 dated 10.7.2019). Q On p 5880, there is a chop “I/D CONFIRMED” beside the signature of the R R customer which means a colleague has verified the identity of the customer S by checking ID card. (The proposed amendments are mobile phone number S to 69990184 and email address to [email protected]) T T U U V V  - 14 - A A B B 38. In relation to the customer information amendment form C relating to D4, P1-11 pp 6793-6794 dated 6.4.2019, there is no “ID C CONFIRMED”. PW1 was not sure if the relevant staff member received D D this form from the customer. (Here, the checker was the same as the E handler)(The proposed amendments are mobile phone number to E 69990184 and email address to [email protected]) F F G 39. In relation to another (a 2nd) customer information amendment G form relating to D4, pp 6795-6796 dated 17.7.2019, which proposed the H H same amendments to mobile phone number and email address as the I previous form; PW1 did not know the reason why. Again, there was no I “ID CONFIRMED” chop here, reason unknown. PW1 reiterated it was J J normal procedure for customer to attend the branch to deal with such K amendments. However, PW1 was not clear if somebody else took the form K to the branch. (The checker here was the same as the handler) L L M 40. Normally, the Bank would have to verify everything M including ID of customer before proceeding but PW1 added the caveat that N N he was not a frontline officer. O O 41. In relation to a 3rd customer information amendment form P P relating to D4, pp 6797-6798 dated 13.8.2019, the proposed changes are Q the address to “1/F, 12 Boundary Street, Prince Edward” and mobile phone Q number to “53774145”. Here, there was “ID CONFIRMED” chop in R R Chinese. Normally, a staff member known as a checker (more senior) S would verify the ID of customer; the staff member who received the form S was known as the handler. The handler made a photocopy of the ID card T T U U V V  - 15 - A A B B and passed it to the checker for verifying ID. On this form, the checker C was the same person as the handler. C D D 42. In relation to a 4th customer information amendment form E relating to D4, pp 6799-6800 dated 23.9.2019, the proposed change was E the mobile phone number to “62155210”. Again, there was an “ID F F CONFIRMED” chop. There was no checker on this form. G G 43. In relation to a 5th customer information amendment form H H relating to D4, pp 6801-6802 dated 15 October 2019, the proposed change I was the address to Flat H, 1/F, 12 Boundary Street, Prince Edward”. There I was no “ID CONFIRMED” chop, nor was there a checker. PW1 was not J J sure if the handler received this form. K K 44. Under cross-examination by D3’s counsel, PW1 explained the L L reason why his evidence was often tagged with “general speaking” was M that he was not a frontline staff member and he learned about the general M practice from branch staff by communicating with them. N N O 45. PW1 said that the checker the photocopy ID card against the O information in the bank system. The frontline staff would also check the P P signature on the customer information amendment form against the bank Q record. Q R R S S T T U U V V  - 16 - A A B B 46. PW1 agreed that the disputed signature purportedly of D3 on C the customer information amendment form at p5880 and D3’s signature on C the Opening Mandate at p 5876 (P1-7) looked different from one another. D D PW1 was not sure if anyone checked the signature against the bank system E on this occasion. E F F 47. Under cross-examination by D4, PW1 said that the difference G between D4’s signature on the Opening Mandate at p 6790 (P1-10) and the G disputed signature on the 1st customer information amendment form p 6494 H H was not big; as regards the 2 nd form at p 6796, the difference is slightly I bigger. I J J 48. PW1 agreed that the customer information amendment form K could be downloaded by the customer, filled in and posted/handed in to the K relevant office; however, he was not sure if the relevant department would L L accept it or not. M M PW2 DPC7696 N N O 49. PW2 was the officer who prepared the fund flow analyses of O the 5 topical bank accounts and the HKJC account: P3 (related to accounts P P of D1 and D2 including D1’s HKJC account); P4 (related to accounts of Q D3 and D4); and P4A (related to account of D4 only in Chinese). He also Q prepared an inter-accounts transactions chart (P22). R R S 50. Under cross-examination by counsel for D1 & D2, PW2 being S not a HKJC staff member was not able fully to assist the court on the details T T of some of the HKJC transaction records. U U V V  - 17 - A A B B C PW3 Tsang Hing Lun C D D 51. PW3 is senior accounts administrative officer of HKJC. He E is conversant with the procedure of betting activities in respect of which E computer is used. He produced P2 computer certificate in relation to D1’s F F HKJC account together with attachments. G G 52. CV stands for cash voucher(s) which could be bought at off- H H course betting centres. CV has validity of 180 days. CV could be used for I placing bets, converted to cash over counter, or deposited into betting I account. CV has serial numbers (19 alphanumeric characters). CV is J J freely transferrable. K K 53. Cash can also be deposited into betting account. In the L L transaction record, there is a record of cash deposit: if there is a serial M number attached to the “cash deposit” record, then it is a CV deposit. M N N 54. Betting account may be but need not be linked to a bank O account of the same name. Computer system will have inter-account O transactions record. P P Q SUMMARY OF DEFENCE EVIDENCE Q R R D1 S S 55. D1 resides with his girlfriend D2, and her daughter and son T T out of D2’s previous relationship. D1 is educated to F3 locally. He has U U V V  - 18 - A A B B worked in kitchen, in retail sector, and in sales sector, and in jobs related C to selling goods at a bargain. Since 2011, he had been learning to sell goods C at temporary retail shops by promotion (the location would be changed D D every 3 to 4 days). E E 56. Since December 2014, he started trading under “D.Church F F Trade Company.HK” (D1/1 p 2). He obtained business registration for the G purpose of running a food festival booth at HKCEC. This business G continued in operation until 2017. D1/2 is the business registration H H document for 2014-15. D1/3 is his namecard. I I 57. His retail shop sold tea leaves, dried seafood and Chinese J J moxa rod sourced from Mainland China. D1/4 are the remittance slips for K purchases during those years. Others could not be located because of lapse K of time. D1/5 is a sourcing document. D1/6 are payment slips etc for rental L L of yards (sales outlets). D1 ran these shops with a partner called Ga Lei M since December 2014. D1/7 are photos in relation to 13th, 14th and 15th M Hong Kong Food Festivals which D1 participated, though he could not N N locate the records of 2016. D1/8 are photos of income and expenses O records from December 2014 to November 2015. O P P 58. D1 ran retail shop business till 2017. As to why there were Q no business records of 2016 and 2017, D1 said he got addicted to gambling Q (in 2017), so he paid less attention to the company. R R S S T T U U V V  - 19 - A A B B 59. Overall, he gained profit (cash) from his business. D1 gave C his share of the profit to his mother for safekeeping. Whenever he needed C cash, he would ask his mother. Mother did work, she could make her living D D on her own income. When his father passed away, he left $400,000 to D1 E which was kept by mother. E F F 60. D1 made expenditures in cash. From 2017 onwards, he co- G habited with D2. He paid rent and school fee of kindergarten where D2’s G on attended. H H I 61. D1 mainly bet through his HKJC account. He deposited cash I into his BOC account (A/C1) and then made transfer to HKJC account. J J Whenever he won in gambling, he could transfer money back to BOC K account from which money could be withdrawn by ATM card without time K limit. L L M 62. Prior to 2017, there was less severe gambling. From mid- M October 2017, he had more frequent betting. In 2017, he mostly played N N “corner HiLo” in soccer games because it was easier to play. D1 also O gambled on horse racing but fewer times. O P P 63. Betting increased progressively. D1 would gamble according Q to the balance in his HKJC account, sometimes using the winnings to bet. Q Other times, he would take out part of the winnings for expenses. Overall, R R D1 made a loss. His funds for betting came from his mother, the money S left in running his business, loan from friends, winnings from bets. S T T U U V V  - 20 - A A B B 64. Sometimes, he would bet at off-course betting centres. C C 65. On 3 July 2018, D1 did purchase cash vouchers to the total D D value of $143,000 at Kowloon City Nga Tsin Long Road off-course betting E centre. The money came from the savings of changes kept inside a water E dispenser plastic bottle (a habit since the days of running retail business) F F and some savings of D2. D1/32(1) shows the current plastic bottle of G savings. G H H 66. Apart from soccer and horse gambling, D1 also street- I gambled in playing cards “13 pieces” on ground floor area in his housing I estate. D1 also played mobile phone games (betting) since around late J J 2018 such as fish-hitting games and jackpot games. D1/9 shows photos of K invitation to join game from January to August 2020. D1/10 shows the K first page of “Joker Gaming” in February 2020. D1/11 shows email L L relating to opening gaming account in December 2020. D1/12 shows M WeChat Pay records between November and December 2020 relating to M fish-hitting and slot machine games. Various persons’ FPS accounts were N N used as source of winnings. O O 67. As regards why there were no records of 2018-2019, D1 said P P he deleted them because there were too many records. Q Q 68. Although the records show that there were inter-accounts fund R R movements between D3 & D4 on one hand and D1 on the other, he did not S know them. S T T U U V V  - 21 - A A B B 69. D1/13 shows WhatsApp records of another gaming group C between December 2019 and May 2020: D1 asked for FPS account C information so that he could deposit money into it in order to play games; D D he was given FPS phone number(s). D1/14 shows WhatsApp records of E fish-hitting game in November to December 2019: one FPS information at E D1 Bundle p 73(5) & (6) showed up in his BOC account (A/C1) record at F F p 5493 (P1-2): 3 December 2019 to Lam Sxx Mxx for $1,000. D1 said that G FPS information changed all the time because the gaming agents differed G on each occasion. Another example of FPS information at D1 Bundle H H p 74(11) showed up in D1’s BOC account (A/C1) record is at p 5504: 10 I December 2019 to YIEN Pxx Kxx for $5,000. I J J 70. D1/15 shows WhatsApp records of another gaming group K between December 2019 and February 2020 in which D1 made payment K through FPS: at D1 Bundle p 75(3), D1 paid FPS Ng Hoi Ting and this is L L reflected in D1’s BOC account record at p 5523. M M 71. When asked why the same name FPS was used for different N N games, D1 said these FPS people would sell their bank accounts to the O gaming agents and that is the reason. O P P 72. D1/16 shows WhatsApp records between April 2020 and Q January 2021 of another gaming group: here D1 could play game on credit Q of $5,000. R R S 73. D1/17 shows WhatsApp records in April and May of 2020 of S “Joker Gold Club” in which D1 paid and played. D1/18 shows WhatsApp T T records in May 2020 of another game in May 2020 in which D1 paid and U U V V  - 22 - A A B B received money. D1/19 shows emails in May 2020 from BOC in May 2020 C relating to game payment through FPS. D1/20 shows WhatsApp records C in May 2020 of a gaming group “Winner”. D1/21 shows WeChat records D D in January 2021 of another gaming group in which D1 paid money. D1/22 E shows notifications from BOC to D1 in February 2020 regarding FPS E transactions in which D1 paid game money to one “Choi”. D1/23 shows F F notifications from BOC to D1 in February 2020 regarding FPS transactions G in which D1 paid game money to one “Ip”. D1/24 shows notifications G from BOC to D1 in February 2020 regarding FPS transactions in which D1 H H paid game money to one “Chuong”. I I 74. In relation to P22 the inter-accounts/parties transactions chart, J J regarding transactions from/to D3’s and D4’s bank accounts, these are FPS K transactions under the instructions of the gaming agents. K L L 75. D1/25 shows WeChat records in December 2020 in which D1 M gave points to D2 (Carson) to play games. D1/26 shows WeChat records M in December 2020 relating to “Isabelle” mentioned in D1/25. D1/27 is a N N screenshot of top-up screen in November 2020 relating to making payment O of $1,000: once the button is pressed, a two decimal place figure will pop O up; D1 will add this to the $1,000 to mark his ID to the game agent of cash P P website (no WhatsApp group or player account number will be involved). Q Q 76. D1/28 shows WhatsApp records in January 2020 of a friend R R who worked as game agent and asked D1 to patronize. D1/29 shows S WeChat records in January 2021 of D1 asking a relative to lend him S RMB100. D1/30 shows WeChat records in January 2021 of D1 asking T T another relative to lend him RMB. D1/31 shows WeChat records in U U V V  - 23 - A A B B January 2021 of D1 asking another relative to give him RMB300 to play C games. C D D 77. Regarding the joint account of D1 & D2 (A/C2), it was E opened in June 2019 for the reason that D1 and D2 wanted to get married E so the joint account was for saving money. The account needs both of their F F signatures to operate lest one of them took out money for gambling. D2’s G source of income in the beginning was CSSA but it later ceased. D2 also G had $100,000 odd from her ex-partner. H H I 78. D2 gambled. Sometimes she played mahjong at Mahjong I Parlour. D2 played phone betting games. D1 gave her points for playing. J J D1 gave D2 funding in cash and by transfers. ATM has daily withdrawal K limit of $20,000; that’s why there were also transfers. D1’s BOC account K (A/C1) record at P1-2 p5536 and D2’s BOC account (A/C3) at P1-5 p5806 L L bear witness to the relevant ATM withdrawals and transfer. M M 79. D1 got money out of his BOC account also for miscellaneous N N family expenses. O O 80. D2 has also contributed to savings in the joint account (A/C2). P P Deposits from D2 were sourced from D2’s winnings in mahjong and Q betting games. Q R R 81. In the joint account’s statements P1-2 at p 5736, the reason S for withdrawing $120,000 on 2 October 2019 was for the purpose of S holding a wedding banquet in the Mainland home town. D1 and D2 left T T Hong Kong on the next day and came back on 6 October 2019. In the end, U U V V  - 24 - A A B B they did not hold the wedding banquet and unused part of the money was C brought back and deposited into the joint account. They continued to C deposit money into the joint account after October 2019. D D E 82. On 21 January 2020 (p 5738), D1 and D2 had quarrel over E gambling and wanted to terminate the joint account and divide the money F F between them. However, they reconciled and deposited money into the G joint account again. On 19 February 2020 (p 5739), they quarreled again G and withdrew $50,000. Eventually BOC closed the joint account. H H I 83. Under cross-examination, D1 said that he made from his retail I business several 10s of thousand dollars per month. D1 said he was told J J by ex-boss that that there was no need to pay profit tax for the first 3 years K of the operation of SME so he did not pay profit tax. Although he ran his K business for more than 3 years since December 2014, starting from end of L L 2017, he did not take part in real business. He did not have the business M registration renewed and for this reason, he was fined by court twice. M N N 84. The profit mentioned previously had not yet included O commission. On average, the commission would be $20,000 to $30,000 O per month. He had not kept the full business record because of lapse of P P time and also because he did not anticipate legal proceedings. Q Q 85. By the time he stopped the retail business at end of 2017, he R R had managed to save from the profit and salary a total sum of $200,000 to S $300,000 in cash which he handed to his mother. D1’s father passed away S in 2018. T T U U V V  - 25 - A A B B 86. D1 planned to get married in end of 2018. After she came to C know D2, she supported her by paying rents and school fees of her two C kids. D1 had no other income and asked mother for money. D D E 87. The cash vouchers of $143,000 came (as to $113,000) from E the changes plastic bottle (contributed by D1 & D2) and the coins bottle F F (later coins bottle refuted); the balance of $30,000 came from mother (in G re-examination, D1 added that $20,000 (consisting of $500 and $100 G banknotes) of the $143,000 were from savings of D1 & D2). H H I 88. The cash vouchers consisted of 28 x $5,000 and one $3,000 I vouchers. D1 did use them all: with most of which he placed bets on J J betting machines and he deposited a few into his betting account. K K 89. It was because of his gambling addiction that he did not L L engage in other things after 2017. M M 90. After D1 met D2, his household expenses amounted to about N N $15,000 excluding expenses on outings. O O 91. When D1 asked for money ($10,000 to $20,000 each time) P P from his mother, he would say that the money was needed for running Q business. Q R R 92. When asked how he would be able to make deposits S amounting to more than $7.7M into his betting account between 1 May S 2018 and 30 April 2020, he said some of them were winnings. Sometimes T T he took out winnings, other times he placed further bets with winnings. U U V V  - 26 - A A B B C 93. For the $50,000 withdrawn from joint account on 30 July C 2019 (p 5734), D1 said he was intending to get married. However, because D D of quarrel with D2, they did not get married. After withdrawal, the sum of E $50,000 was given to mother and paternal uncle for use of booking E wedding banquet in Mainland. Later on, paternal uncle gave back part of F F the money to mother; the balance was already used. G G 94. The deposits into the joint account from 3 to 5 September H H 2019 were winnings from either D1 or D2. I I 95. On 6 October 2019, when D1 returned from Mainland to J J Hong Kong after cancellation of wedding banquet due to another fall out K with D2 and the pandemic, he brought back only $80,000 to $90,000 some K of which he deposited back into the joint account in November 2019. L L M 96. On p5734 of joint account statement, on 3 September 2019, M the $16,000 and the $4,000 deposited shortly after 2 am were winnings N N from “13 pieces” poker game. O O 97. Under re-examination, D1 added that there was no ATM P P issued for the joint account; the ATM deposits were made by inputting Q bank account number. Q R R D2 S S 98. D2 was educated to F2, all along a housewife. D2 met D1 in T T 2017 and they resided together. D2 has 2 children from her earlier U U V V  - 27 - A A B B relationship with other(s). D2 was arrested with D1 on 28 January 2021 C inside a hotel. The background of the arrest was D2 received a call on D1’s C mobile phone. Police wanted to locate D1 and told what they suspected D D D1 of. D2 told officer that the residence was under renovation and she and E D1 were living in a hotel (address provided to police). E F F 99. Within 21 minutes, police arrived. The couple let them in. G Arrest and caution took place. Police searched the hotel room. The couple G were brought back to Wong Tai Sin residence for house search. D2’s white H H Benz (made in 2011 and purchased in 2019 and a gift by D2’s father) was I also searched. D2 had 2 phones one of which was seized by police; the I other phone had no SIM card. D2 provided the seized phone’s password J J to the police. K K 100. D2’s last partner left her about $140,000 mostly in case, L L balance in his bank account to which she had access. Until early 2018, she M lived on CSSA. Since then, she lived wholly on D1. D1 would from time M to time give her cash of several 100s to several 1,000s each time. N N O 101. D1 made some money to their joint account because they were O saving money. D1 also transferred $40,000 ($20,000 x 2) to D2’s BOC P P account (A/C3) because she asked D1 for money for mahjong games: Q reason was that daily limit was cash withdrawal from his account was Q $20,000 but she wanted $40,000; the only way was to withdraw money R R from her own account after transfer from D1’s account. S S T T U U V V  - 28 - A A B B 102. Since 2018, D2 gambled in mahjong, and mobile phone C betting games (Joker, cash web, slot (Jackpot), and fish-hitting). She C played mahjong in Mahjong Parlours daily but less frequent now. D D E 103. D2 described herself as inveterate gambler. She sometimes E won sometimes lost. She would where necessary ask parents and friends F F and even her daughter to lend money to her for gambling. She would ask G D1 for money too. G H H 104. D2/1 shows photo of a pawn ticket dated 4 February 2020 I evidencing pawn of a watch for $60,000 money which she needed for I gambling. Other times in 2019-2020, she also pawned a diamond ring and J J gold necklace and jade pendant but no records were kept. K K 105. D2 has HKJC betting account but never used it. D2 knew D1 L L had HKJC betting account. D2 knew D1 was engaged in soccer betting; M sometimes D1 would ask her to place bets on corner High or Low. At first, M D2 knew D1 was skillful and he could win several 10s of thousand dollars N N but later they quarreled and did not discuss it anymore. O O 106. When D2 first met D1, he was proud of his engagements in P P retail outlets. When they resided together, D1 stopped those engagements. Q Q 107. D1 got his money for gambling from his mother. Even D2 R R could get cash from D1’s mother. D2 sometimes borrowed money from S parents and relatives and friends in cash or through FPS. S T T U U V V  - 29 - A A B B 108. D2 played mobile phone games. When she played, she C needed to make payments in in a similar way as D1 has described. She has C prepared documents to show how she played games; however, most of D D them related to activities after the charge period. E E 109. There were little or no records of play in 2018, 2019 and 2020 F F because both of them received limited education, and every year she G changed into a new iPhone and there was no record once data was G transferred. H H I 110. D2 continued to play mobile phone games after 2020 and she I chose some of documents to show the court. J J K 111. D2 gambled in mahjong and mobile games in 2018 and 2019. K For mahjong (starting end of 2018 at Mahjong Parlours), it was all in cash. L L M 112. D2 then went through the technicalities of different levels of M play in mahjong (in terms of amounts of bets). The maximum one could N N win in a single round is $7,200 or more but that was rare. The common O winnings were $5,000-$6,000 per round. The usual loss was $1,000 to O $2,000 per round. P P Q 113. D2 got her betting fund initially from the $100,000 odd left to Q her by ex-partner. R R S S T T U U V V  - 30 - A A B B 114. For higher level of bets, one had to exchange money for chips C from Mahjong Parlour which could be redeemed later. C D D 115. D2 would seldom deposit cash winnings from mahjong into E her own bank account (A/C3). She kept them at home. D2 paid for all her E personal expenses in cash. F F G 116. D1 would give D2 cash when latter asked him; other times D1 G gave D2 without her asking when D1 won money from somewhere. D1 H H also transferred money to D2’s account but that was seldom. Once was I $20,000. On that occasion, she wanted to play mahjong and she needed I $40,000; but the ATM daily withdrawal limit was $20,000; so D1 J J transferred $20,000 to her so she could make cash withdrawal on her own. K P1-5 p5806 testified to that. K L L 117. D2 did not make any record of mahjong win/loss. M M 118. For mobile phone betting in 2018-2019, D2 did not have any N N record. Reason was she changed her mobile phone and all messages were O lost. O P P 119. D2/3 shows the game types and how to deposit and withdraw Q money relating to mobile games in January 2021. Q R R 120. D2 played in 2018-2019 games of fish-hitting, jackpot/slot S machine but she did not play soccer gambling. In 2018-2020, D2 needed S to register her personal information, mobile number, FPS and bank account T T number (A/C3) in order to play mobile games. First time when she played, U U V V  - 31 - A A B B she needed to deposit money at convenience store in cash. Subsequent C games were paid through FPS. WeChat Pay was also used. But WeChat C Pay allowed players to pay through FPS or other means. So sometimes D2 D D used WeChat Pay as a platform but paid through FPS. D2 also received E payment by this means through FPS to her BOC account (A/C3). E F F 121. D2 effected FPS payment out by a phone number or QR code G given to her by game organizer. If it was a cash web, would need to add G two decimal places in the sum transferred to identify herself. H H I 122. D2/4 shows payment at convenience store by QR code in I October 2020. J J K 123. D2/14 at D2 Bundle p83 shows a table of mostly deposits to K cash web game where there were 2 decimal places for the payments in July L L 2024. M M 124. D2 then referred to the rest of D2 Bundle which consisted of N N similar game pay and withdrawal records to those submitted by D1 in D1 O Bundle. D2’s records spanned from October 2020 to March 2023 and O hence outside the charge period relating to D2. D2 averred that the position P P in 2018-2020 was similar. Q Q 125. When asked by reference to p1797 the fund flow analysis R R relating D2’s A/C3 why there were cash deposits into the account, D2 S explained that the cash consisted of loans from family members and friends, S that given by D1, and some mahjong winnings, for the purpose playing T T games. U U V V  - 32 - A A B B C 126. When asked by reference to the Breakdown of Transfer C Deposit at p 1800, D2 said #6 was from D1, and #5 “Transfer from Smart D D A/C” was related to using WeChat (Pay) as a platform for FPS receive E transfers (mostly on her redeeming game points). D2 did not know the E name of #8 “Chan Tin Sum” (D3) F F G 127. When asked by reference to p 1797 why there were 415 G withdrawal transfers over 27.5 months, D2 said that she had the habit of H H depositing $1,000 on each occasion when she played games and she played I many times each day. As regards ATM transfer withdrawals, D2 said they I related to penalty tickets, school fees and miscellaneous fees for daughter, J J and loan or repayment to friends. K K 128. D2 did not know D3 or D4 before the proceedings. L L M 129. D2/16 shows that D2 asked a friend for loan for playing games M in October to November 2020. D2/17 shows D2 asked his father for N N $30,000 in November 2020. D2/18 shows D2 asked a friend to add points O to her account even when she was in hospital in November 2020 and D2 O asked a friend for $1,000 in January 2021. D2/19 shows D2 asked a friend P P for loans from $600-$1,000 for playing games in January 2021. D2/20 Q shows D2 asked a friend to pay in $1,000 for games using QR code in Q January 2021. D2/21 shows D2 asking the opposite party for points to play R R games in January 2021. D2/22 shows D2 asking the game agent for points S in January 2021. D2/23 shows D2 asking a friend for $1,000 for playing S games in January 2021. T T U U V V  - 33 - A A B B 130. D2 averred that since 2018, her mode of living was basically C similar. C D D 131. When asked by reference to P22 why she transferred E $113,900 from her A/C3 to the joint account with D1 (A/C2), D2 said these E were winnings from mobile games each of several 10s of thousand dollars. F F Reason was that she did not wish to use the money to gamble; money in G joint account could not be taken out again unless both D1 and D2 signed at G bank counter. There was no ATM card for joint account and one has to H H enter account number for ATM cash deposits. I I 132. Regarding withdrawals from joint account on 30 July 2019 for J J $50,000 and on 2 October 2019 for $120,000, D2 agreed with D1’s K explanation. Withdrawal on 21 January 2020 of $150,000 occurred when K they had a quarrel to the point of separation and they wished to divide the L L funds. Relationship later improved and money started to be deposited M again. There was a quarrel again later and almost all money ($50,000) was M taken out on 30 March 2020. Later the account was cancelled by someone. N N O 133. D2 did not suspect the source of D1’s funds. O P P 134. (With reference to P22) Apart from some transfers (each time Q say $1,000) from “Chan Ka Yee” (D2’s name) to D1’s BOC account (A/C1) Q for purpose of playing games, D2 said she also provided cash to D1, reason R R was D1 had gambled away all the money in soccer betting. The amount of S cash varied from several thousand to several 10s of thousand dollars. S T T U U V V  - 34 - A A B B 135. As regards the transfer of $31,000 (on 21 January 2020 at C p 5737) from the joint account to D1’s A/C1, it was probably because they C went to cancel the joint account and the balance was transferred to D1’s D D account (in re-examination, D2 changed this to maybe D1 needed this E money to gamble). E F F 136. Under cross-examination, D2 repeated what D1 said, that G gamblers lived from rags to riches in a glimpse of time. D2 only became G addicted to gambling (in 2018) after knowing D1 (end of 2017). H H I 137. The watch (a Rolex) and the diamond ring that D2 pawned I were left behind by the deceased boyfriend. J J K 138. D2 disagreed that she was financially very tight because she K said it was like the ups and downs of Hang Seng Index. L L M 139. It was D2 who taught D1 to buy cash vouchers from HKJC M because unlike banks who would charge administration fee for counting N N small changes, HKJC would not. O O 140. D2 agreed when the mobile games and mahjong games were P P combine, as a whole, she made a loss over the years. Q Q 141. There was one occasion when D2 brought along $70,000 to R R $80,000 to Mahjong Parlour to play mahjong. That was when D2 and D1 S split the withdrawal amount of $150,000 into two parts. D2 took her part S on that occasion and she won almost $1 million and took the cash back T T home. The cash in bulk was being kept at home for D1 and D2 to spend U U V V  - 35 - A A B B as each of them liked. D2 thought that the almost $1 million would not last C for one week. C D D D3 E E 142. D3 was born in Hunan and came to Hong Kong in 2007. She F F lived in a unit Kwai Shing Estate of whom she and her mother were G registered tenants. D3 was arrested there on 30 August 2021. G H H 143. At the end of 2016, D3 met a man surnamed Ng and they I became boyfriend/girlfriend. Ng’s job was to lead people to get phone I (service) by registering in the provider without any payment in advance. J J Ng lived in a unit in On Yam Estate. In August 2018, they had a baby girl. K K 144. On 3 July 2019, D3 opened a bank account (A/C4) at BOC (at L L Shek Yam branch). Before that, she went to a restaurant for an interview M for the position of cashier. She was told that if she was successful, she M would need a bank account to receive salary. N N O 145. The Opening Mandate of her BOC account (A/C4) had the On O Yam Estate address where she was living with Ng. On the Mandate was P P also her email address and a phone number “68906662” which was Ng’s Q phone number. The reason for using Ng’s number was she lost her phone Q two days prior. R R S 146. At the job interview, she also left her own email address and S Ng’s phone number. T T U U V V  - 36 - A A B B 147. A few days after (3 July 2019), D3 had a quarrel with Ng. C C 148. D3 did ask Ng if he had received a call back from the D D prospective employer. The response was he had no idea; he did not pay E much attention to it. Eventually, he went back to the prospective employer E and asked why was there no news after so long and they said they had F F already informed her. She did not get the job. G G 149. The reasons why D3 need to find a job was after the birth of H H daughter (in August 2018), Ng was giving less and less money to her for I family expenses. Ng said he lost money in gambling. They always had I quarrels about gambling. After 3 July 2019, there was a big argument on J J 14 July (2019) that is D3’s birthday about D3 asking Ng for money for K buying milk powder and diapers. After the quarrel, they separated. She K grabbed a few garments and nothing else and left. She even left the L L daughter behind. M M 150. The bank card and the bank documents were left in the On N N Yam Estate unit. O O 151. Regarding the prosecution allegation that she went on 10 July P P 2019 to the bank to change contact details, D3 denied it. Q Q 152. When shown the relevant customer information amendment R R form P1-8 p 5879-5880, D3 denied filling in this form. D3 denied it was S her signature. She did not know about the proposed amended phone S number “69990184” nor the proposed amended email address T T [email protected]. U U V V  - 37 - A A B B C 153. She usually kept her HKID card in her handbag placed in the C sitting/dining room. D D E 154. She remembered on 10 July 2019, she went downstairs with E her daughter. She did not take her handbag but only brought along money F F and her (new) phone with her. G G 155. Later, D3 met another man and married him. H H I 156. D3 knew nothing about the transactions in her BOC account I (A/C4). J J K 157. D3 adopted what she said to the police when arrested and K which was recorded in the police notebook, “This card already went L L missing soon after I had applied for it. It had never been used.” M M 158. D3 has not adopted her video-recorded interview as part of N N her evidence. O O 159. Under cross-examination, D3 said it was around 1 July 2019 P P when she went for the job interview. The restaurant where job interview Q took place was in Shek Yam Shopping Mall close to Ng’s residence. Q R R 160. D3 and Ng together went to open the BOC bank account S (A/C4). S T T U U V V  - 38 - A A B B 161. D3 said she did not recall if the bank card and PIN were C mailed to her or she obtained it at the counter at the time. C D D 162. D3 cohabited with Ng at the material time. After she obtained E the bank card and PIN, they were placed in On Yam Estate unit where they E lived. Her daughter and Ng’s family members also lived there. F F G 163. When D3 and daughter went downstairs at 3 to 4 pm on 10 G July 2019 to grab something to eat, Ng was at home. After eating, D3 went H H to purchase milk powder and diapers before returning home at 6 to 7 pm I after being out for nearly 2 hours. On return, Ng was not home. D3 saw I Ng again at around midnight. J J K 164. On 14 July 2019, after she told Ng they were separating, she K left his residence for her parents’ home and she never returned to On Yam L L Estate unit nor did she collect her other belongings. M M 165. D3 told the court in more detail what happened on 3 July 2019 N N when she went to open the bank account. That day, D3 and Ng and their O daughter were all there. D3 and daughter left the bank first leaving Ng to O collect the documents and propaganda leaflets at the counter. P P Q 166. A few days after the bank visit, D3 asked Ng over the phone Q if the documents including the card could be obtained immediately. Ng R R replied that it was lost on that day (of bank visit). S S T T U U V V  - 39 - A A B B 167. On a day subsequent to the phone call between D3 and Ng, C D3 saw on the surface of the top rack of the shoe cabinet a letter in a BOC C envelope. She felt the letter. It felt like a card inside. Besides, a D D notification email of successful application of account had been sent to her E email. So she deduced it was the card. Shen then stuck a label with the E PIN written on it onto the envelope before putting the letter inside the F F drawer of the shoe cabinet. D3 went on to explain where the PIN came G from. She said that at the time when the bank account was being opened, G it was she that set up the PIN in the absence of the bank card. It was Ng H H who chose the PIN. Ng told her and she input the PIN into the system. On I the day of seeing the card at their home, D3 asked Ng again for the number I before writing it down on the said label. J J K 168. D3 disagreed to the suggestion that bank account was opened K for Ng’s use. D3 disagreed that it was she who submitted the customer L L information amendment form to the bank. M M D4 N N O 169. D4 was 62 years old, born in Fujian, of junior secondary O education level in Mainland, divorced, now living in a unit in 43 Kai Tak P P Road (Kowloon City). He was a street stall attendant on Sai Yeung Choi Q Street. Q R R 170. He opened the relevant BOC account (A/C5). He could not S remember if the bank card was given to him over the counter or mailed to S him afterwards. The PIN was later mailed to him. The reason for him to T T open the BOC account card was to deposit money using the card for the U U V V  - 40 - A A B B renovation projects he (was to) engage in. In the end, he was not awarded C any projects to work on, so he put the card aside. He resorted to work as a C casual worker in painting work. D D E 171. The card was opened at Sham Shui Po branch. That time, he E was renting a place in Sham Shui Po to live in and he registered that place F F in the account card application. The card was mailed to that address. The G place was rented with two or three friends for the storage of renovation G tools. D4 lived there. He engaged in renovation field with a few friends. H H I 172. The Sham Shui Po place was rented until 2018/2019. I Whether it was due to riot or epidemic, he did not work anymore. He J J returned to Kowloon City unit where he resided with his mother. Then he K worked as a kitchen worker. K L L 173. After returning to the maiden home, the card was put aside for M many years. Business of the kitchen outlet was not good and did not M continue. Friends in the renovation field called him and offered him work N N as casual worker. On a particular day when he was in Sham Shui Po, in O early evening, he was stopped and searched by uniformed police. It was O discovered that he was wanted. Next day, after he was moved to a Police P P HQ, he was told to be involved in a money laundering case. VRI was Q conducted. House search was conducted. As for the card, it was not used. Q As to when or where it was lost, he could not recall. R R S 174. He has previously lost his HKID card two to three times S between 2010 and 2020 and he had reported the loss each time to the police. T T U U V V  - 41 - A A B B 175. D4 has not adopted his video-recorded interview as part of his C evidence. C D D 176. Under cross-examination, D4 agreed he opened the BOC E account (A/C5) in December 2017. Upon receiving the PIN, he had not E changed it or he could not recall if he had changed it. He had never used F F the bank card nor the account. G G 177. When he moved to Kowloon City, it was placed in the cabinet. H H He did not know when it was lost. I I 178. During December 2017 to December 2018, he had received J J income in cash as a casual worker. K K 179. D4 returned to his maiden home ie a unit in 43 Kai Tak Road, L L Kowloon City, to live with his mother around mid-2018 to early 2019. M When he moved from Sham Shui Po, he moved many other stuff including M many letters. So he did not know if he still had the bank card and PIN after N N the move. O O 180. D4 used to have a girlfriend (who had gambling habits) who P P moved with him from Sham Shui Po to Kowloon City. The girlfriend Q stayed in Kowloon City for almost a year up before she left. Q R R 181. D4 denied having anything to do with the 5 sets of customer S information amendment form. S T T U U V V  - 42 - A A B B 182. At one time, when D4 had received both the bank card and the C PIN, he put one into the other’s envelope but was not sure which into which. C D D 183. When shown the bank statements of his BOC account (A/C5) E P1-12 at p 6803, D4 denied anything to do with the first two ATM E transactions which happened on 4 January 2018, not long after he opened F F the account in December 2017. D4 agreed he must have lost his card as G early as January 2018. G H H 184. As regards the 4th entry on the same page, an auto-deduction I of $4,170 to Prime Credit Limited on 5 January 2018, D4 had no I recollection. D4 admitted having borrowed money from Prime Credit but J J he repaid money by cash delivered to the credit financial institution. D4 K equally had no idea about the 3rd entry of ATM deposit also on 5 January K 2018 of $4,200. L L M 185. D4 said the reason for taking out loans from the institution M was for the sake of his then girlfriend. In the past, she received dunning N N messages or calls from others asking her to make repayment. O O 186. D4 did make repayment for loan thus: once he had salary, he P P would give money to girlfriend for her to make repayment; but she lost Q money in gambling; so he had to take out the loan. When he made Q repayment for loan, he was given a number to make repayment by credit R R financial institution. S S T T U U V V  - 43 - A A B B 187. D4 added that he had never made arrangement for auto- C deduction with the bank. D4 said once he received the salary, he would C give money to girlfriend for her to make the deposit. D D E 188. D4 said someone must have forged his signatures on the E customer information amendment forms. He also had no idea about the F F address change to 12 Boundary Street which did not ring any bell. He also G had no idea about the proposed number change to “53774145” nor to G “62155210”. H H I 189. Using as an example, D4’s then girlfriend would be in a I position to know his signature because he had lots of salary slips and J J documents at home. K K 190. D4 only had one signature because he had limited education. L L M 191. D4 had not been a director of any limited company although M in the past, he did attempt to register a courier transportation company. N N However, he did not start the business. O O 192. D4 denied being the director of two companies named United P P Garment Limited and Everest Groups Limited. Q Q 193. D4 was shown the Companies Registry records of United R R Garment Limited which had D4’s name and the address Flat H, 1 Floor, st S 12 Boundary Street. D4 was also stated as a member of the company. D4 S denied any involvement in it. T T U U V V  - 44 - A A B B 194. D4 was cross-examined about the other company Everest C Groups Limited. However, unfortunately, prosecution used the wrong set C of Companies Registry records, that of a duplicate set of the United D D Garment Limited papers namely pp 2096 and 2100, to cross-examine D4. E So this part of the cross-examination has no value at all. E F F 195. Prosecution put to D4 that from 3 December 2018 to 5 April G 2019, D4 operated A/C5 in dealing with the proceeds of indictable offences. G D4 disagreed. H H I 196. Prosecution put to D4 that from 6 April 2019 to 20 December I 2019, D4 lent his same account to others for them to deal with the proceeds J J of indictable offences. D4 disagreed. K K MY CONSIDERATIONS L L M 197. I have borne in mind the legal principles in HKSAR v Harjani M Haresh Murlidhar (supra) and HKSAR v Wong Chor Wo (supra). N N O 198. I bear in mind the burden rests on the prosecution throughout, O standard being beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence needs to prove P P nothing, least so the innocence of the defendant(s). Q Q 199. I will deal with the charges separately. The verdict in relation R R to one charge does not affect the verdict in relation to another. However, S I will be alert to any possibility of inconsistent verdicts. S T T U U V V  - 45 - A A B B 200. I will consider the evidence for and against each defendant C separately but bearing in mind some of the evidence may be common to C more than one defendant. I bear in mind Charge 3 is a joint charge against D D both D1 and D2 in relation to a joint bank account. E E 201. I have considered all the admissible evidence and all the F F submissions of counsel and D4. G G 202. First, I will assess the credibility and reliability of the H H evidence of each of the witnesses. I I PW1 Lai Chung Yin J J K 203. PW1 admitted that he was not a front-line staff and what he K knew about the front-line practice he learned from others hence hearsay. L L He was not confident about his answers on many instances about the M practice in relation to customer submitting customer information M amendment forms. He even went so far as to say that such form may be N N downloaded by customer and posted to the relevant office. O O 204. As such, I am unable to accept the prosecution’s proposition P P that the customer had to appear in person and had his/her ID checked before Q the amendment form would be processed. Q R R S S T T U U V V  - 46 - A A B B PW2 DPC7696 C C 205. PW2’s evidence on the preparation of the fund flow analyses D D of the 5 bank accounts and HKJC account is uncontroversial and hence I E am prepared to give full weight to it. E F F 206. However, as regards details of some of the HKJC transaction G records, PW2, being not a HKJC staff member, admitted he was unsure G about them. That being so, I will not give full weight to answers relating H H to HKJC transaction records. I I PW3 Tsang Hing Lun J J K 207. PW3’s evidence is not controversial and I am prepared to give K full weight to it. L L M D1 M N N 208. Having thoroughly considered the evidence of D1, I tend to O agree that what he said may be true. With the support of the documents in O the D1 Bundle, it is clear that D1 was a heavy gambler at the relevant time P P and this is also supported by the HKJC transaction statements. The way Q D1 was able to describe his gambling experience both in relation to HKJC Q betting account and the mobile games, I simply could not imagine he made R R all this up just to create a defence for the money laundering charges. The S evidence about keeping his savings with his mother rather than with the S banks may sound strange to most people but could not be said to be T T impossible. U U V V  - 47 - A A B B C 209. D1’s gambling experience could explain the frequent in and C out transactions in his BOC account (A/C1) inclusive of the multiple FPS D D transactions and also the HKJC betting account transactions even the huge E total amounts involved. E F F D2 G G 210. Having thoroughly considered the evidence of D2. I tend to H H agree that what she said may be true. Although the documents in the D2 I bundle were mostly after the charge periods as against D2, they did paint a I picture of D2 being a heavy gambler in at least mobile games after the J J charge period. However, one does not become a heavy gambler overnight K so it is at least possible that she was also a progressive gambler from 2018 K onwards. The way D2 described her mahjong gambling experience did L L have a ring of truth about it. M M D3 N N O 211. After examining carefully D3’s answers in relation to how she O obtained what she believed to be the bank card and how the PIN came P P about, I am sure she was lying on this important aspect of the case. Q Coupled with her initial answer to the police (which she adopted in court) Q that the bank card was lost after she applied for it, which was clearly R R something which was wholly inconsistent with her other evidence in court, S I have lost confidence in her as a credible witness. I reject her evidence in S all areas of dispute and in issue. However, I am able to accept part of her T T evidence where there is no exculpatory effect (more below). U U V V  - 48 - A A B B C D4 C D D 212. Although the auto-deduction from A/C5 to Prime Credit E Limited in the early months of the life of the account look suspicious, it E was explicable on the basis it was the then girlfriend of D4 who had F F hijacked the use of the bank card and the account. Unfortunately, there G was no prosecution evidence as to when and how the auto-deduction G arrangement was made. According to D4, the girlfriend would be in a H H position to know the signature of D4, so it was possible for her to forge the I signatures of D4 on the customer information amendment forms. Also, I there had been repeated amendments of the same particulars (the phone J J number and the email address) on two separate forms thus raising the K possibility they were effected by two different persons not knowing what K the other was doing. L L M 213. As regards the companies, D4 was never asked about the M English signature purportedly of D4 appearing in the Companies Registry N N record of United Garment Limited at P7 pp5065 and 5067. This is relevant O because D4’s evidence that he only had one signature was never challenged. O Besides, the relevant records bear dates well after the charge period P P anyway. Q Q 214. As regards the other company Everest Groups Limited, R R although the Companies Registry record shows D4’s true address at 43 Kai S Tak Road, Kowloon City, these papers (where no signatures appear) were S never shown to D4 during cross-examination and he was not asked T T U U V V  - 49 - A A B B anything about them. In fairness to D4, little weight should be placed upon C them. C D D 215. All in all, D4’s version that he had never used his bank card E and bank account is at least credible in the absence of strong evidence to E the contrary. F F G DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE CASE AGAINST D3 G H H 216. The fact that I have rejected D3’s evidence insofar as matters I of dispute and in issue are concerned does not by itself make D3 guilty of I the Charge 5 against her. I have still to examine the prosecution evidence J J to see if a case of money laundering has been made out. K K 217. The salient admitted facts regarding D3 are reproduced below: L L M “2. At all material times, D3 did not have any landed M properties or connections to the companies registered in Hong Kong. According to the records of IRD, D3 was reported to be N employed as a guest experience service crew with salary N totalling HK$11,206 from 10 June 2016 to 31 March 2017 and O as a part-time staff with salary totalling HK$11,339 from 5 O September 2019 to 31 March 2020 respectively. P … P Q 13. On 3 July 2019, D3 opened a personal savings account Q numbered 012-358-2-007157-0 with BOC in her name (“Account 4”). D3 was the sole signatory of Account 4. The R account opening form is now produced as Exhibit “P1-7”. On R 10 July 2019, an application was made to the bank to change the mobile phone contact number and email to 6999 0184 and S S [email protected] respectively by filling in and returned in person a “Customer Information Amendment Form” to BOC. In T the related application form, “I/D confirmed” was stamped near T the signature part of the form. The related application form is U U V V  - 50 - A A B now produced as Exhibit “P1-8”. Account 4 was closed on 19 B November 2019. C C 14. Between 3 July 2019 and 19 November 2019, a total of HK$2,614,187.34 were deposited into and withdrawn from D Account 4. Most of the funds (usually in small amount) D deposited into the account were often withdrawn or transferred E out in bulk amount (mostly by several withdrawals) within short E period of time. Other features of the flow of funds of Account 4 during the said period are mainly as follows : F F Deposit G G (a) the monthly average amount of the deposits were HK$475,306.79; H H (b) there were a total of 6,672 deposits via FPS amounting to HK$2,595,675.50; I I (c) there were a total of 8 ATM cash deposits J amounting to HK$18,500; J (d) most of the transactions were in multiple of K hundreds, ranging from HK$0.1 to HK$10,000 K per transaction. At least 398 counterparties were involved in the deposit of the account; L L Withdrawal M M (a) there were a total of 376 withdrawals via FPS transfer amounting to HK$1,406,203.1; N N (b) there were a total of 108 ATM cash withdrawals O amounting to HK$1,110,000; and O (c) most of the transactions were in multiple of P hundreds and thousands, ranging from $0.1 to P $20,000 per transaction. At least 169 Q beneficiaries were involved in the withdrawal of Q the account. R … R 18. On 30 August 2021, D3 was arrested at her residence in S S Kwai Chung for money laundering. Under a post-recorded caution statement by DPC 7903, D3 stated that she had lost the T bank card of Account 4 soon after she applied for the card and T she had never used it. The voluntariness of the post-recorded caution statement is not in dispute. The post-recorded caution U U V V  - 51 - A A B statement and its certified English translation are now produced B as Exhibits “P14” and “P14A” respectively.” C C 218. I found from the above admitted movements of funds in the D D account that the account clearly displays money laundering traits. Indeed, E the defence has not submitted otherwise. The main (and perhaps the only) E contention of the defence was that the operation of the account had nothing F F to do with D3 nor with her connivance. I found as a fact that during the G charge period, A/C4 had been used for money laundering purpose. G H H 219. Now, regarding the purpose for which the account (A/C4) was I opened. Prosecution has put to D3 that “You opened the account - the bank I account for Mr Ng’s use, not for your own use”. First of all, I found it J J strange that somebody had to open a bank account to receive salary even K before an offer of appointment had been given, as testified by D3. K L L 220. Secondly, I found it doubly-strange that D3 would allow Ng M to choose the PIN for her account, given her rocky relationship with him M unless there was some hidden reason to do so. Surely, D3 could have N N chosen her own PIN with something she could easily remember and which O O was private to herself. P P 221. Thirdly, I found it triply-strange that D3 and her baby girl Q Q would leave the bank first even before everything was completed at the R counter, leaving Ng to collect the documents (possibly including the bank R card) unless there was some hidden reason to do so. S S T 222. I do not find it possible D3 opened the account for the purpose T of receiving a contingent salary and I reject that evidence. However, I U U V V  - 52 - A A B B accept the evidence that D3 went with Ng to open the bank account, that C D3 allowed Ng to choose the PIN. I accept D3 left the bank first to allow C Ng to collect the bank documents (possibly including the bank card). All D D of these facts point to the only logical and irresistible inference – D3 E opened the account (with the associated bank card) for Ng’s use. E F F 223. Defence challenged para 36 of the prosecution’s written G submissions which reads “… the only irresistible inference must be that G D3 had lent or allowed others to use her bank card to operate Account 4…”. H H Defence seems to suggest that that had not been put to D3 in cross- I examination. I J J 224. In fact, apart from putting to D3 the purpose for which the K account was opened, prosecution also put to D3 that “You let somebody K else to use your bank account, be it Mr Ng or other person.” Since use of L L the account would include use of the card, so I adjudge that the prosecution M is entitled to so submit in closing. M N N 225. By knowingly leaving the card and PIN in the possession of O Ng (which I found as a fact), D3 has clearly relinquished her control of her O account for others’ use. Knowing Ng to be a heavy gambler (which I found P P as a fact), D3 clearly had reasonable grounds to believe that whatever funds Q that passed through the account subsequently represented the proceeds of Q an indicatable offence (Wong Chor Wo applied). R R S 226. Regarding the Customer Information Amendment Form S relating to D3’s account, because of the way in which I have treated PW1’s T T evidence, I cannot be sure that the account holder had to personally attend U U V V  - 53 - A A B B at a branch and had his / her ID checked by the teller. In any event, the C evidence is not strong enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the C disputed signature is the signature of D3. However, this aspect of the case D D does not affect the main theme of the prosecution case that D3 lent or E allowed others to use her bank account and the associated bank card. E F F 227. I have revisited the legal principles in Harjani and do not find G anything that would detract me from finding the only logical and G irresistible inference that by allowing others to use her bank account and H H the associated bank card during the charge period, D3 had dealt with the I property stated in Charge 5, having reasonable grounds to believe that that I property, in whole or in party, directly or indirectly represented any J J person’s proceeds of an indictable offence. K K 228. Prosecution has proved all elements of the offence subject of L L Charge 5 against D3. M M OTHER MATTERS N N O 229. In closing, the prosecution, for the first time, suggested that O D1 and D2 might be liable for section 7 (Bookmaking) and/or section 14 P P (Providing money for unlawful gambling or for an unlawful lottery) of the Q Gambling Ordinance, Cap148, and therefore the money they dealt with in Q the corresponding accounts could be proceeds of indictable offence(s). R R With respect, this is a preposterous suggestion. All D1 and D2 did were S gambling, perhaps even unlawful gambling which is a summary offence. S There is no way the winnings of a gambler could suddenly become T T proceeds of an indictable offence. This cannot be the legislative intent. U U V V  - 54 - A A B B C CONCLUSION C D D 230. For the above reasons, I found D1 not guilty of Charge 1, E Charge 2, and Charge 3; I found D2 not guilty of Charge 3 and Charge 4; E I found D3 guilty of Charge 5; and I found D4 not guilty of Charge 6. F F G G H H ( Isaac Tam ) District Judge 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