區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Amy Chan9/4/2025[2025] HKDC 595
DCCC855/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 855/2024
C [2025] HKDC 595 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 855 OF 2024
F F
G --------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I YIP LONG TIM I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Amy Chan K
Date: 10 April 2025
L L
Present: Ms Leung Po Kei Peggy, Senior Public Prosecutor, for
M HKSAR M
Mr Wong Ka Wing Kevin, instructed by Li & Lai, assigned by
N N
the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
O Offence: Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds O
P
of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴 P
Q
罪行的得益的財產) Q
R R
-----------------------------------------
S REASONS FOR SENTENCE S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C 1. D is convicted upon his plea on an amended charge of dealing C
with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable
D D
offence, contrary to s 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes
E Ordinance, Cap 455, commonly known as “money laundering”. E
F F
2. This was a money laundering case involved in lending of
G bank account to others. G
H H
The Facts
I I
3. The police received a report that a victim was deceived to part
J J
with a total sum of HK$7,530,310 in an investment scam. Among the said
K sum of HK$7,530,310, a sum of US$39,500 (equivalent to K
HK$307,152.54) was remitted into an account held in the name of D with
L L
HSBC (“the Account”).
M M
4. Investigation with relation to the Account was then
N N
conducted. The records of the Account showed that:
O O
(a) The Account was an integrated personal account
P P
opened on 11 November 2020.
Q (b) D was the sole signatory of the Account; Q
(c) He reported a living of HK$30,000 to HK$49,999 a
R R
month as a construction worker;
S (d) Between 3 and 18 December 2020, a total sum of S
HK$5,855,721.46 was deposited into the Account by
T T
45 transfer deposits;
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(e) During the same period, a total sum of
C HK$5,751,992.19 was withdrawn from the Account by C
way of 28 transfer withdrawals;
D D
(f) Repository patterns were noted. Sums deposited into
E the Account were transferred out of the Account shortly E
after the deposits were made.
F F
G 5. On 28 July 2021, D was arrested and cautioned. In the G
subsequent video-recorded interview, D made the following statements
H H
under caution:
I I
(a) He opened the Account at around October to November
J J
2020;
K (b) On-line banking facility was available to the Account; K
(c) He had lost the ATM card of the Account about a week
L L
after the Account was opened. He had made a loss
M report to the bank and police. M
N N
6. Investigation revealed that D had reported loss of the ATM
O Card to the bank on 16 November 2020 but no loss report was made to the O
police.
P P
Q 7. At all material times, D had never filed any tax return with the Q
Inland Revenue Department.
R R
S 8. Between 3 and 18 December 2020, D dealt with the amount S
of HK$5,855,721.46 in the Account despite having known or had
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
reasonable grounds to believe the said total sum was either in whole, in
C part directly, or indirectly represented proceeds of an indictable offence. C
D D
Enhancement of Sentence
E E
9. In this case, the prosecution applies for an enhancement of the
F F
sentence based on section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes
G Ordinance. G
H H
10. According to Chief Inspector Li from the Financial
I Intelligence and Investigation Bureau, he stated that money laundering I
stooges are recruited to allow criminals to use their accounts for money
J J
laundering purposes by opening new accounts. The police have spent a lot
K of resources on crime prevention and warning people not to “sell” or “lend” K
their bank accounts to others as they could possibly be lured into taking
L L
risks of money laundering offences.
M M
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
N N
Deception and 3,017.89M 9,662.30M 36,644.73M 12,033.26M 6,115.15M
O money O
laundering cases
(HKD)
P (no of cases) (1,844) (2,269) (3,705) (5,529) (5,250) P
Q Cases with 1,879.83M 5,565.15M 36,320.17M 9,984.38M 4,466.39M Q
Stooge accounts
(HKD)
R R
(no of cases) (845) (1,451) (2,886) (3,970) (3,675)
Percentage of money 62.29% 57.60% 99.11% 82.97% 73.04%
S S
from deception/
Money from stooge
accounts
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
11. The amount of reported monetary losses and proceeds
C laundered has been very significant. Since 2022, over 73% of such losses C
and laundered proceeds involve the use of stooge accounts.
D D
E 12. Mr Wong for D does not challenge the evidence of Chief E
Inspector Li.
F F
Criminal Record
G G
H
13. D had 38 previous court appearances giving rise to a total of H
57 convictions, of which include theft, burglary, robbery, gambling,
I I
dangerous drugs, MOTS and offences relating to dutiable goods. The last
J conviction was the offence of money laundering in September 2024. He J
was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment.
K K
L Mitigation L
M M
14. D is currently 60 years old, single with a primary school
N education. He was a construction worker. He lived with his two brothers in N
public housing.
O O
P 15. D’s bank account was opened in 2020 for receiving his salary. P
However due to the pandemic, D became unemployed.
Q Q
R 16. Counsel for D submitted that sometime after opening the R
Account, D’s friend asked him to borrow his ATM card to receive his
S S
salary. The friend told D that he would return the ATM card once he had
T confirmed his salary had been paid. D complied and handed his ATM card T
with all the relevant details to his friend without asking any questions.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
However, when D tried to bet back his ATM card back a few days later,
C his friend could not be contacted or located. C
D D
17. As a result, D foolishly decided not to report the matter to the
E police. It was only when he was arrested by the police for the first time on E
28 July 2021 did he realize there was something seriously wrong.
F F
G 18. Mr Wong has no objection to the application of enhancement G
of sentence.
H H
I Sentence I
J J
19. Money laundering is a serious offence. The offence carries a
K maximum penalty of a fine of $5 million and an imprisonment term of 14 K
years on indictment.
L L
M 20. In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal M
set out the general approach and principles relevant to sentencing in money
N N
laundering cases. There is a non-exhaustive list of factors, such as the
O nature of the predicate offence; the state of the offender’s knowledge; any O
international dimension, involvement of an organized crime syndicate;
P P
sophistication of planning; the number of transactions; the length of time
Q over which the offences had occurred; the role of the offender and whether Q
the activity occurred after D had become aware of the nature of the funds.
R R
S 21. I clarified with Mr Wong to ascertain whether D has the S
requisite mens rea for money laundering. He confirmed that although D
T T
did not (or claimed that he did not) have knowledge of the bank
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
transactions conducted with his Account, he knew that his Account was to
C be used for receiving money which he had reasons to believe were proceeds C
of crime.
D D
E 22. There is no evidence that D was involved other than the E
lending of the Account for money laundering purposes. However, it is in
F F
my view that the offence was committed for an organized criminal
G syndicate. Clearly D turned a blind eye as to how the Account was to be G
used during this period. After his Account had been opened for 3 weeks, it
H H
was used to launder more than $5.8M.
I I
23. There were 45 transfer deposits and 28 transfer withdrawals
J J
made from the Account. These transactions took place over a period of 15
K days after the Account was opened for only 3 weeks. The total sum K
involved is over $5.8M. There is no evidence of benefit or gain to D for
L L
commission of this offence.
M M
24. In the case of Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012]
N N
1 HKLRD 201, the court said that money laundering is a serious offence
O and must be deterred. The sentence should reflect the amount of “black O
money” laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant.
P P
Q 25. In Wan Kwok Keung, the Count of Appeal referred to the case Q
of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, which stated that the
R R
sentencing starting point is 4 years if the “black money” involved is
S between $3 million and $6 million. S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
26. Considering the above, I find the appropriate starting point is
C 45 months of imprisonment. C
D D
27. Mr Wong asked me to take into account the delay in charging
E D. He informed me D was first arrested in July 2021 but was charged on E
28 May 2024, almost three years after he was arrested. He understood that
F F
there was the Covid-19 occurred during the period of time.
G G
28. According to the chronology provided by Prosecution, this
H case involved nine suspects of a total of 9 bank accounts. It reflects there H
is a degree of complexity in the investigation. D was arrested in July 2021
I I
and had since been released on police bail. He failed to report since
J September 2021. He was re-arrested in March 2023. The file was J
submitted to the Department of Justice in the same month. Advice was
K K
given in January 2024 despite the number of suspects and bank accounts
L involved in this case. I find that there had been no delay in D’s prosecution L
and will not reduce the sentence on that basis.
M M
N N
29. In HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830, the Court
O
of Appeal stated that a heavier sentence is to be imposed on a persistent O
offender.
P P
Q 30. D is a repeat offender based on his criminal record. I find this Q
an aggravating factor. The sentence will have to be enhanced accordingly
R R
in order to deter him from re-offending and to protect the public. For this
S reason, I enhance the sentence by 3 months. The resulting starting point is S
therefore 48 months (45 + 3).
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
31. D is entitled to one-third reduction for his guilty plea.
C Therefore, he is sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment. C
D D
32. I have considered the statement made by Chief Inspector Li,
E and I attach full weight to the statement accordingly. E
F F
33. In my view, it is a case where enhancement should be made. I
G am satisfied that the use of stooge accounts is prevalent in the commission G
of the offence of money laundering. The financial harm imposed onto
H H
society by recent occurrences is also substantial. The enhancement of 30%
I is appropriate. I
J J
34. For the reasons given, I sentence D to 41 months’
K imprisonment after the enhancement. K
L L
M M
( Amy Chan )
N N
Deputy District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
法官根據 HKSAR v Boma 確立的原則，分析洗黑錢的量刑因素，包括predicate offence 的性質、被告的 knowledge 以及交易數量。法官引用 Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung 認為量刑應反映洗黑錢的總額而非被告獲益。由於涉案金額在 300 萬至 600 萬港元之間，根據 HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi，起刑點定為 45 個月。法官認定被告對帳戶用途「視而不見」(turned a blind eye)，且其多次犯罪紀錄構成 aggravating factor，故增加 3 個月刑期。
引用案例與條文
引用 HKSAR v Boma 確立洗黑錢量刑的一般原則；Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung 及 HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi 用於確定基於洗黑錢金額的起刑點；HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi 則支持對 persistent offender 處以更重刑罰。
### 案件基本資料
- 案件名稱：HKSAR v Yip Long Tim
- 法院：區域法院 (District Court)
- 法官：Deputy District Judge Amy Chan
- 判決日期：2025年4月10日
### 案情摘要
被告 Yip Long Tim 是一名建築工人。他在 2020 年開設了一個 HSBC 銀行帳戶，隨後將 ATM 咭交給一名朋友使用。該帳戶隨後被用於洗黑錢，在 15 天內透過 45 次轉帳存入約 585 萬港元（其中部分資金源自投資騙局），並透過 28 次轉帳提取約 575 萬港元。被告雖聲稱失去 ATM 咭，但僅向銀行報告而未向警方報案。
### 核心法律爭議
本案的核心 legal issue 在於對被告的量刑 (sentencing)。控方申請根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第 27(2) 條對刑期進行加重 (enhancement)，理由是「傀儡帳戶」(stooge accounts) 在洗黑錢犯罪中極為普遍且對社會造成重大損害。被告則請求法庭考慮其教育程度、失業狀況以及從被捕到被起訴之間的時間延遲。
### 判決理由
法官根據 HKSAR v Boma 確立的原則，分析洗黑錢的量刑因素，包括predicate offence 的性質、被告的 knowledge 以及交易數量。法官引用 Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung 認為量刑應反映洗黑錢的總額而非被告獲益。由於涉案金額在 300 萬至 600 萬港元之間，根據 HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi，起刑點定為 45 個月。法官認定被告對帳戶用途「視而不見」(turned a blind eye)，且其多次犯罪紀錄構成 aggravating factor，故增加 3 個月刑期。
### 引用案例與條文
引用 HKSAR v Boma 確立洗黑錢量刑的一般原則；Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung 及 HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi 用於確定基於洗黑錢金額的起刑點；HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi 則支持對 persistent offender 處以更重刑罰。
### 裁決與命令
被告被判處監禁 41 個月。計算過程為：起刑點 45 個月 $\rightarrow$ 因多次犯罪加 3 個月 (48 個月) $\rightarrow$ 因承認控罪減 1/3 (32 個月) $\rightarrow$ 根據 $\text{Cap } 455$ 進行 30% 的 sentence enhancement $\rightarrow$ 最終刑期 41 個月。
### 判決啟示
本案強調了法院對「傀儡帳戶」採取嚴厲打擊的趨勢。即使被告未從中獲利，僅僅是「出借」帳戶且對其用途採取無視態度，仍會面臨嚴重的監禁刑罰，且會受到 statutory enhancement 的影響。
---
### 免責聲明
本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details
- Case Name: HKSAR v Yip Long Tim
- Court: District Court
- Judge: Deputy District Judge Amy Chan
- Date of Judgment: 10 April 2025
### Factual Background
The defendant, a construction worker, opened an HSBC account in 2020 and lent his ATM card to a friend. The account was subsequently used as a stooge account to launder approximately HK$5.85 million over 15 days via 45 deposits and 28 withdrawals. Some funds originated from an investment scam. The defendant reported the card lost to the bank but failed to notify the police.
### Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was the determination of an appropriate sentence for money laundering. The prosecution sought a sentence enhancement under s 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance due to the prevalence of stooge accounts. The defense argued for leniency based on the defendant's background and an alleged delay in prosecution.
### Ratio Decidendi
The judge applied the principles from HKSAR v Boma, focusing on the volume of transactions and the defendant's state of knowledge. Following Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung, the sentence was based on the total amount laundered rather than the defendant's gain. Based on HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi, the starting point for HK$3-6 million is 4 years (adjusted here to 45 months). The judge found the defendant 'turned a blind eye' to the criminal use of the account and treated his extensive criminal record as an aggravating factor.
### Key Precedents & Statutes
HKSAR v Boma (general sentencing principles); Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung and HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi (sentencing benchmarks based on laundered sums); HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi (heavier sentences for persistent offenders).
### Decision & Orders
The defendant was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment. The calculation: 45 months starting point + 3 months for previous convictions = 48 months; reduced by one-third for guilty plea to 32 months; then increased by a 30% statutory enhancement to a final term of 41 months.
### Key Takeaways
The judgment underscores the judiciary's zero-tolerance approach toward 'stooge accounts'. It clarifies that lack of personal financial gain does not mitigate the seriousness of providing the infrastructure for organized money laundering.
---
### Disclaimer
This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.
A A
B B
DCCC 855/2024
C [2025] HKDC 595 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 855 OF 2024
F F
G --------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I YIP LONG TIM I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Amy Chan K
Date: 10 April 2025
L L
Present: Ms Leung Po Kei Peggy, Senior Public Prosecutor, for
M HKSAR M
Mr Wong Ka Wing Kevin, instructed by Li & Lai, assigned by
N N
the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
O Offence: Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds O
P
of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴 P
Q
罪行的得益的財產) Q
R R
-----------------------------------------
S REASONS FOR SENTENCE S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C 1. D is convicted upon his plea on an amended charge of dealing C
with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable
D D
offence, contrary to s 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes
E Ordinance, Cap 455, commonly known as “money laundering”. E
F F
2. This was a money laundering case involved in lending of
G bank account to others. G
H H
The Facts
I I
3. The police received a report that a victim was deceived to part
J J
with a total sum of HK$7,530,310 in an investment scam. Among the said
K sum of HK$7,530,310, a sum of US$39,500 (equivalent to K
HK$307,152.54) was remitted into an account held in the name of D with
L L
HSBC (“the Account”).
M M
4. Investigation with relation to the Account was then
N N
conducted. The records of the Account showed that:
O O
(a) The Account was an integrated personal account
P P
opened on 11 November 2020.
Q (b) D was the sole signatory of the Account; Q
(c) He reported a living of HK$30,000 to HK$49,999 a
R R
month as a construction worker;
S (d) Between 3 and 18 December 2020, a total sum of S
HK$5,855,721.46 was deposited into the Account by
T T
45 transfer deposits;
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(e) During the same period, a total sum of
C HK$5,751,992.19 was withdrawn from the Account by C
way of 28 transfer withdrawals;
D D
(f) Repository patterns were noted. Sums deposited into
E the Account were transferred out of the Account shortly E
after the deposits were made.
F F
G 5. On 28 July 2021, D was arrested and cautioned. In the G
subsequent video-recorded interview, D made the following statements
H H
under caution:
I I
(a) He opened the Account at around October to November
J J
2020;
K (b) On-line banking facility was available to the Account; K
(c) He had lost the ATM card of the Account about a week
L L
after the Account was opened. He had made a loss
M report to the bank and police. M
N N
6. Investigation revealed that D had reported loss of the ATM
O Card to the bank on 16 November 2020 but no loss report was made to the O
police.
P P
Q 7. At all material times, D had never filed any tax return with the Q
Inland Revenue Department.
R R
S 8. Between 3 and 18 December 2020, D dealt with the amount S
of HK$5,855,721.46 in the Account despite having known or had
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
reasonable grounds to believe the said total sum was either in whole, in
C part directly, or indirectly represented proceeds of an indictable offence. C
D D
Enhancement of Sentence
E E
9. In this case, the prosecution applies for an enhancement of the
F F
sentence based on section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes
G Ordinance. G
H H
10. According to Chief Inspector Li from the Financial
I Intelligence and Investigation Bureau, he stated that money laundering I
stooges are recruited to allow criminals to use their accounts for money
J J
laundering purposes by opening new accounts. The police have spent a lot
K of resources on crime prevention and warning people not to “sell” or “lend” K
their bank accounts to others as they could possibly be lured into taking
L L
risks of money laundering offences.
M M
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
N N
Deception and 3,017.89M 9,662.30M 36,644.73M 12,033.26M 6,115.15M
O money O
laundering cases
(HKD)
P (no of cases) (1,844) (2,269) (3,705) (5,529) (5,250) P
Q Cases with 1,879.83M 5,565.15M 36,320.17M 9,984.38M 4,466.39M Q
Stooge accounts
(HKD)
R R
(no of cases) (845) (1,451) (2,886) (3,970) (3,675)
Percentage of money 62.29% 57.60% 99.11% 82.97% 73.04%
S S
from deception/
Money from stooge
accounts
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
11. The amount of reported monetary losses and proceeds
C laundered has been very significant. Since 2022, over 73% of such losses C
and laundered proceeds involve the use of stooge accounts.
D D
E 12. Mr Wong for D does not challenge the evidence of Chief E
Inspector Li.
F F
Criminal Record
G G
H
13. D had 38 previous court appearances giving rise to a total of H
57 convictions, of which include theft, burglary, robbery, gambling,
I I
dangerous drugs, MOTS and offences relating to dutiable goods. The last
J conviction was the offence of money laundering in September 2024. He J
was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment.
K K
L Mitigation L
M M
14. D is currently 60 years old, single with a primary school
N education. He was a construction worker. He lived with his two brothers in N
public housing.
O O
P 15. D’s bank account was opened in 2020 for receiving his salary. P
However due to the pandemic, D became unemployed.
Q Q
R 16. Counsel for D submitted that sometime after opening the R
Account, D’s friend asked him to borrow his ATM card to receive his
S S
salary. The friend told D that he would return the ATM card once he had
T confirmed his salary had been paid. D complied and handed his ATM card T
with all the relevant details to his friend without asking any questions.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
However, when D tried to bet back his ATM card back a few days later,
C his friend could not be contacted or located. C
D D
17. As a result, D foolishly decided not to report the matter to the
E police. It was only when he was arrested by the police for the first time on E
28 July 2021 did he realize there was something seriously wrong.
F F
G 18. Mr Wong has no objection to the application of enhancement G
of sentence.
H H
I Sentence I
J J
19. Money laundering is a serious offence. The offence carries a
K maximum penalty of a fine of $5 million and an imprisonment term of 14 K
years on indictment.
L L
M 20. In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal M
set out the general approach and principles relevant to sentencing in money
N N
laundering cases. There is a non-exhaustive list of factors, such as the
O nature of the predicate offence; the state of the offender’s knowledge; any O
international dimension, involvement of an organized crime syndicate;
P P
sophistication of planning; the number of transactions; the length of time
Q over which the offences had occurred; the role of the offender and whether Q
the activity occurred after D had become aware of the nature of the funds.
R R
S 21. I clarified with Mr Wong to ascertain whether D has the S
requisite mens rea for money laundering. He confirmed that although D
T T
did not (or claimed that he did not) have knowledge of the bank
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
transactions conducted with his Account, he knew that his Account was to
C be used for receiving money which he had reasons to believe were proceeds C
of crime.
D D
E 22. There is no evidence that D was involved other than the E
lending of the Account for money laundering purposes. However, it is in
F F
my view that the offence was committed for an organized criminal
G syndicate. Clearly D turned a blind eye as to how the Account was to be G
used during this period. After his Account had been opened for 3 weeks, it
H H
was used to launder more than $5.8M.
I I
23. There were 45 transfer deposits and 28 transfer withdrawals
J J
made from the Account. These transactions took place over a period of 15
K days after the Account was opened for only 3 weeks. The total sum K
involved is over $5.8M. There is no evidence of benefit or gain to D for
L L
commission of this offence.
M M
24. In the case of Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012]
N N
1 HKLRD 201, the court said that money laundering is a serious offence
O and must be deterred. The sentence should reflect the amount of “black O
money” laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant.
P P
Q 25. In Wan Kwok Keung, the Count of Appeal referred to the case Q
of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, which stated that the
R R
sentencing starting point is 4 years if the “black money” involved is
S between $3 million and $6 million. S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
26. Considering the above, I find the appropriate starting point is
C 45 months of imprisonment. C
D D
27. Mr Wong asked me to take into account the delay in charging
E D. He informed me D was first arrested in July 2021 but was charged on E
28 May 2024, almost three years after he was arrested. He understood that
F F
there was the Covid-19 occurred during the period of time.
G G
28. According to the chronology provided by Prosecution, this
H case involved nine suspects of a total of 9 bank accounts. It reflects there H
is a degree of complexity in the investigation. D was arrested in July 2021
I I
and had since been released on police bail. He failed to report since
J September 2021. He was re-arrested in March 2023. The file was J
submitted to the Department of Justice in the same month. Advice was
K K
given in January 2024 despite the number of suspects and bank accounts
L involved in this case. I find that there had been no delay in D’s prosecution L
and will not reduce the sentence on that basis.
M M
N N
29. In HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830, the Court
O
of Appeal stated that a heavier sentence is to be imposed on a persistent O
offender.
P P
Q 30. D is a repeat offender based on his criminal record. I find this Q
an aggravating factor. The sentence will have to be enhanced accordingly
R R
in order to deter him from re-offending and to protect the public. For this
S reason, I enhance the sentence by 3 months. The resulting starting point is S
therefore 48 months (45 + 3).
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
31. D is entitled to one-third reduction for his guilty plea.
C Therefore, he is sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment. C
D D
32. I have considered the statement made by Chief Inspector Li,
E and I attach full weight to the statement accordingly. E
F F
33. In my view, it is a case where enhancement should be made. I
G am satisfied that the use of stooge accounts is prevalent in the commission G
of the offence of money laundering. The financial harm imposed onto
H H
society by recent occurrences is also substantial. The enhancement of 30%
I is appropriate. I
J J
34. For the reasons given, I sentence D to 41 months’
K imprisonment after the enhancement. K
L L
M M
( Amy Chan )
N N
Deputy District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V