DCCC941/2024

DCCC941/2024

A A B B DCCC 941/2024 C [2025] HKDC 603 C D D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E CRIMINAL CASE NO 941 OF 2024 F F G ---------------------------- G HKSAR H H v I ZHANG HONGPING I ---------------------------- J J K Before: Deputy District Judge Daniel Tang K Date: 3 April 2025 L L Present: Mr Lam Chak Man, Jacky, Public Prosecutor of the M Department of Justice, for HKSAR M Mr Chan Ging Man, Robert, instructed by Ng & Co, assigned N N 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 Background C C 1. The Defendant, Mr Zhang, pleads guilty before the Court, for D D a charge of “Dealing with property known or believed to represent E proceeds of an indictable offence”, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the E Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance Cap 455 (the “money laundry” F F charge), that Mr Zhang, between 19 October 2023 and 3 November 2023, G both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, together with a person known as G “Huang Zhenguo”, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that H H a total sum of HK$3,555,677.35, in the bank account with Standard I Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited, account number 402-8-632707-1 I (the “Account”), in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any J J person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property1. K K 2. Mr Zhang also admits before the Court that the contents of the L L Summary of Facts to be true and correct2 , inter alia that: M M a. Between 26 October 2023 and 29 October 2023, Mr N N Wong Anthony (“PW1”) fell for a compensated dating O scam. PW1 suffered a total loss of HK$335,235, O among which, HK$600 was dissipated in a single P P transaction to the Account on 26 October 2023. Q Q b. At all material times, Mr Zhang was the sole account R R holder of the Account. He opened the Account in his S name on 17 October 2023. S T T 1 For details, please refer to the Charge Sheet 2 For details, please refer to the Summary of Facts U U V V  -3- A A B B C c. Between 19 October 2023 and 3 November 2023:- C D D i. A total of 109 deposits amounting to E HK$3,555,677.35 were deposited into the Account; E F F ii. A total of 129 withdrawals amounting to G HK$3,555,588.25 were withdrawn from the Account; G H H iii. Most deposits and withdrawals were made I by the internet transfer, which involved numerous I different counterparties. Multiple deposits were J J usually made on the same day, the funds accumulated K and were gradually dissipated on the same day or K shortly after; and L L M iv. As at 3 November 2023, the Account had a M closing balance of HK$89.1 with no known further N N transaction thereafter. O O d. At all material times, the Account was being used as a P P temporary repository of funds. Q Q R R e. On 5 May 2024, PC5255 (“PW2”) arrested Mr Zhang. S Under caution, he remained silent. S T T U U V V  -4- A A B B f. Under a cautioned video-recorded interview conducted C by DPC25581 (“PW3”) held on the same day, Mr C Zhang said he opened a bank account in the Standard D D Chartered Bank. He opened the Account on request by E a friend named Huang Zhenguo (“Huang”). The E account opening documents was prepared by Huang F F and he accompanied Mr Zhang to open the Account. G After the Account was opened, Mr Zhang received G $1,200 as remuneration from Huang. Huang told Mr H H Zhang that the bank card of the Account was kept by I the bank. I J J g. Mr Zhang voluntarily surrendered his phone to PW3 for K examination. PW3 found WeChat conversation K between Mr Zhang and an account named Huang L L Zhenguo. The counterparty sent the Defendant an M address of a Standard Chartered Bank branch on the M account opening date of the Account (17 October 2023) N N and a few hours later asked Mr Zhang if he got the card O (拿到卡了/是吧)。 O P P h. Travel movement record confirmed Mr Zhang arrived Q Q at Hong Kong at 09.10 hour and departed Hong Kong R at 18.21 hour on 17 October 2023. R S S i. Between 19 October 2023 and 3 November 2023, Mr T Zhang, together with a person known as Huang T Zhenguo, knowing or having reasonable grounds to U U V V  -5- A A B B believe that property, namely that the monies deposited C into the Account, in whole or in part, directly or C indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an D D indictable offence, dealt with the said property. E E 3. Mr Zhang has a clear record in Hong Kong. F F G The Starting Point G H H 4. Under section 25 of the Organized and Serious Crimes I Ordinance, the offence is punishable on indictment with a fine of I $5,000,000 and imprisonment for 14 years. There is no tariff for this type J J of offence because of the wide range of culpability involved. K K 5. Generally speaking, the main sentencing factor is the amount L L of “black money” involved in the individual cases. M M 6. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, the Court of N N Appeal emphasized that the amount of money being laundered is a major O sentencing consideration. Cheung JA, in giving the judgment of the court, O also had the following observations at para 9: P P “9. There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of Q Q dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence because the facts vary from case to case. However the following factors are R to be taken into account when determining sentence: R (1) It is the amount of money involved that is a major S consideration and not the amount of benefit received by S a defendant in the transaction. T T (2) The culpability of the offence lies in the assistance, support and encouragement offered to the U U V V  -6- A A B commission of an indictable offence. So a defendant's B level of participation and the number of occasions on C which he is involved in the ‘money laundering' activities C are relevant factors to be considered. D (3) The offence of dealing with the proceeds from an D indictable offence does not necessarily have any direct E correlation with the indictable offence in question. E However if the relevant indictable offence can be identified, the court may take into account the sentence F imposed on the indictable offence pre se when F determining the sentence of the dealing offence. G G (4) If the case has an international element involving activities carried out across different regions, the court H may impose a more severe sentence. This is to protect H Hong Kong's reputation as an international finance and banking hub from being tarnished. I I (5) The length of time the offence lasted.” J J 7. In Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD K K 201, Yeung JA (as he then was) observed that: L L “12. “Money laundering” is a serious offence for not only M does it encourage criminal activities indirectly, but also attempt M to legitimize the proceeds of crime. In order to crack down on serious crimes, to prevent offenders from getting financial gains, N it is necessary to deter the commission of the “money laundering” N offence (See Court of Appeal cases HKSAR v Javid Kamran O (CACC 400/2004), HKSAR v Xu Xia Li and another [2004] 4 O HKC 16 , etc.). P 13. Generally, the sentence for “money laundering” offence P should mainly reflect the amount of “black money” laundered Q and not the benefit obtained by the defendant or others. The Q reason being that it is very difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most “money laundering” cases, there may not R be evidence to show from what indictable offence the “black R money” are in fact derived. Of course if there is information to prove that the “black money” is originated from serious crimes, S S including drug trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes, etc. or the defendant’s T benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted upward. T U U V V  -7- A A B 14. This Court has, in a number of other similar cases, also B listed others factors relevant to the sentence to be imposed C including the number of offences, the length of time the offence C lasted, the degree to which the defendant participated in the offence involving “black money” and whether or not it was an D organised and sophisticated crime, etc. D E 15. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536, Cheung E JA set out the amounts of money involved and the sentences passed in a number of “money laundering” cases. The F sentencing starting point is 3 years or so where the “black money” F involved is between 1 million and 2 million dollars, 4 years or so where it is between 3 million and 6 million dollars, and could G G be over 5 years where it is above 10 million dollars.” H H 8. In fact, the sentencing framework of money laundering cases I keeps on evolving in Hong Kong. In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, I the Court of Appeal emphasized that at para 38 that “the question of the J J amount of the money laundered is not the be-all and end-all of a case, but K is a significant feature”. The Court went on to list out other relevant factors K that should be taken into account at para 40: L L “(1) The nature of the predicate offence for generating “black money” and the sentence to be imposed; M M (2) Whether the defendant knew what the predicate offence was; N N (3) Whether there is an international element; O O (4) Whether the offence of “money laundering” involves elaborate steps, schemes or fraudulent means; P P (5) Whether there is a criminal syndicate; Q Q (6) The number of transactions and the length of time during which the offences were committed; R R (7) Whether the defendant continued to launder money after the nature of the predicate offence; S S (8) The role and remuneration of the defendant.” T T U U V V  -8- A A B B 9. In this case, the black money involved in slightly over HK$3.5 C million; the duration involved is about 16 days; there were 129 withdrawals C and 109 deposits; the known predicted offence is a compensated dating D D scam, and most of the other predicted offences are unidentified; the modus E operandi is a very primitive one; there is no international element; other E than Mr Zhang received HK$1,200 to allow others to use the Account, he F F had no other involvement in this case. G G 10. After considering all the matters in this case, I conclude that H H Mr Zhang should be put at the lower level of the category that the I appropriate starting point should be a 3 years and 3 months imprisonment. I J J Mitigation Aggravation Total Sentence K K 11. Mr Zhang pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, he will L L have one-third discount on sentence. M M 12. According to Mr Robert Chan, the Defence Counsel, Mr N N Zhang is utterly remorseful. He lives with his family in China; at the O material time, he was asked by his friend, Mr Huang, to open the Account O and received a sum of HK$1,200 as remuneration. P P Q 13. In general, the Court does not consider Mr Zhang has any Q mitigating factor other than his timely plea. The sentence for Mr Zhang is R R one of 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment after deduction. S S 14. The prosecution applies enhancement of sentence under s. 27 T T of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance Cap 455. U U V V  -9- A A B B C 15. Mr Chan has no objection to the application. C D D 16. I read the witness statement of Mr Li Yiu Nam, the Chief E Inspector of Police, and I am satisfied that the offence committed by Mr E Zhang is a specified offence, that the prevalence of the offence and the F F nature and extent of any harm caused to the community by recent G occurrences of the offence, that a more severe sentence should be G imprisoned. H H I 17. I conclude the appropriate enhancement should be one of 20% I of the original sentence. J J K 18. Hence, Mr Zhang should be imprisoned for 2 years and 7 K months after proper deduction and aggravation. L L M Conclusion M N N 19. Mr Zhang is sentenced to a prison term of 2 years and 7 O months. O P P Q Q ( Daniel Tang ) R R Deputy District Judge S S T T U U V V