DCCC623/2024 HKSAR v. EKEJI ANTHONY CHIBUIKE - LawHero
DCCC623/2024
區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Alice Chan18/6/2025[2025] HKDC 1035
DCCC623/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 623/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1035 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 623 OF 2024
F F
G ------------------------------------------ G
HKSAR
H H
V
I EKEJI ANTHONY CHIBUIKE I
------------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Alice Chan K
Date: 19 June 2025
L L
Present: Mr Chan Joe W Y, counsel-on-fiat for HKSAR/Director of
M Public Prosecutions M
Mr Sherry James Anthony, instructed by Lee, Wong & Lam, for
N N
the defendant
O Offence: [1] & [2] Dealing with property known or believed to represent O
proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代表
P P
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
Charge
B B
C 1. The Defendant (“D”) is charged with 2 counts of “dealing with C
property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”,
D D
contrary to section 25(1)&(3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance,
E Cap 455 (more commonly known as money laundering offence). He pleaded E
guilty to Charge 1 and agreed to the facts in support. He is duly convicted of
F F
the charge and upon the application of the prosecution, the second charge is
G ordered to be left on the court’s file and not to proceed with without the leave G
of the court.
H H
I I
Facts
J J
2. The subject property involved in Charge 1 was a total sum of
K K
HK$5,973,475.22 in a client account of an investment company in Hong Kong
L
known as Sincere Bullion Limited (“Sincere Bullion”). In its daily operation, L
Sincere Bullion would keep an individual ledger for each of its clients and the
M M
client could invest with the money through the company by depositing funds
N into the bank accounts of Sincere Bullion. Mr TSOI Siu Ho (“TSOI”) was a N
broker of Sincere Bullion.
O O
P P
3. In March 2013, D and his wife were introduced to TSOI. D said
Q
a friend of his from overseas was interested in investing in Hong Kong but this Q
friend was unable to open an account with Sincere Bullion personally.
R R
S
4. Later, upon D’s request, TSOI opened an investment account S
numbered 205639 with Sincere Bullion (TSOI’s Account) and became its
T T
client so that TSOI could invest with the money for D’s friend.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
5. On 16 April 2013, a sum of EUR 56,864.65 (HK$575,712.22)
B B
was deposited by Dobond (Shanghai) Electronics Meter into TSOI’s Account.
C The money came from outside Hong Kong. C
D D
6. Shortly afterwards, upon D’s instruction, TSOI withdrew the
E deposited sum (less around HK$10,000 as TSOI’s reward) and gave the money E
to D in cash. According to the records of TSOI’s Account, a cheque in the sum
F F
$550,000 was issued to TSOI. It was then deposited into TSOI’s personal
G account with the Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited and a cash withdrawal G
$550,000 was made on the following day.
H H
I 7. On 9 May 2013, TSOI’s Account received another sum of I
J
US$696,000 (HK$5,397,763) which was deposited by a company known as J
Demeter Technologies Incorporation from overseas. D again requested TSOI
K K
to withdraw the deposited sum and pay him the money in cash. TSOI passed
L
the cash to D directly. The records of TSOI’s Account revealed that after the L
funds were received, 3 cheques in the sum of $1,950,000, $1,900,000 and
M M
$1,100,000 were issued to TSOI within the next few days. He then deposited
N the cheques in his 2 other personal bank accounts and made cash withdrawals N
soon afterwards.
O O
P 8. On 4 June 2013, Sincere Bullion was notified that the said P
Demeter Technologies Incorporation had requested to set aside the deposit of
Q Q
US$696,000 (HK$5,397,763) resulting in Sincere Bullion demanding TSOI to
R return US$696,000. Soon afterwards, TSOI could not be reached and Sincere R
Bullion made a police report and TSOI surrendered himself to the police on
S S
the same day.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
9. Upon arrest and under caution D said that he had been a trader
B B
since mid-2012 and his business involved sending goods, including clothes and
C car parts to Nigeria. In January 2013, he came to know a Nigerian male called C
Uche Amadi (“Uche”) in a wedding ceremony in Nigeria and later Uche asked
D D
him to recommend an investment company to his customers who wanted to
E invest in Hong Kong. D forwarded details of TSOI’s Account to Uche. Later, E
Uche told D that about EUR50,000 had been deposited into TSOI’s Account
F F
but D said he did not know the source of the money. He did not receive any
G reward from Uche. Shortly thereafter, Uche notified D that he wanted to G
withdraw money from TSOI’s Account. Uche told D that his cousin Chidi
H H
would be coming Hong Kong to collect the money. TSOI withdrew the money
I I
in cash and passed it to D who then passed the money to Chidi.
J J
10. D also said under caution that later, Uche told D that a further sum
K K
of US$696,000 (ie HK$5,397,763) had been deposited in TSOI’s Account for
L
investment and D would be rewarded. D said he did not know the source of L
the money. A few days later, Uche asked D to withdraw the money and pass
M M
it to Chidi. Although D started to feel suspicious about the money, he and
N TSOI arranged to make the withdrawal from TSOI’s Account and then passed N
the cash to Chidi.
O O
P Background of D P
Q Q
11. D is now 50 years old and is of clear criminal record. He was
R born in Nigeria and was educated up to Secondary 6 level there. He came to R
Hong Kong in 2006 and is now a permanent resident. He is married with 2
S S
sons aged 16 and 14.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
12. Mr Sherry, counsel representing D, in his detailed written
B B
mitigation submissions, submitted that the money-laundering scheme in this
C case did not appear to be sophisticated. The offence took place within a period C
of just over 1 month. He said D was unaware of any details of the predicate
D D
offence and had been used by Uche as a pawn, mainly responsible for
E delivering the cash withdrawn by TSOI to Chidi and did not receive any E
reward. D was cooperative with the police all along.
F F
G 13. Mr Sherry submitted authorities in respect of the sentencing G
principles for the offence of money laundering, including HKSAR v Boma
H H
[2012] 2 HKLRD 33, HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and SJ v Wan
I I
Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201. He urges the Court to adopt a starting
J
point at the lowest end of the scale upon considering the matters mentioned J
above. He also produced mitigation letters written by D, members of his
K K
family and leader of the Nigerian Igbo (ebo) Community in Hong Kong.
L L
14. Mr Sherry submits that there is no international element in this
M case, thus there is no aggravating feature. Mr Chan for the prosecution, M
confirms with the court that the 2 deposits (comprising EUR 56,864.65 and
N N
US$696,000) were sent from overseas and this is reflected in the Summary of
O Facts. Besides, the Summary of Facts showed that, as far as D was concerned, O
he knew the monies were sent by Uche, or D’s friend in Nigeria, from overseas
P P
who claimed to wish to invest in Hong Kong. D knew the deposits made by
Q his overseas friend were in foreign currencies (EUR & US dollars). I take the Q
view that there is no question that the funds deposited into TSOI’s Account
R R
came from outside Hong Kong and there is an international element in this
S case. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
Delay
B B
C 15. Mr Sherry further submitted that there has been an unreasonable C
delay in prosecution and this should be taken into account as a mitigating
D D
factor.
E E
16. The offence occurred between April and May 2013 and a police
F F
report was made in June 2013. It was shown in the Case Chronology prepared
G by the Prosecution for the purpose of these proceedings that D was arrested in G
October 2013. He was granted police bail until 10 June 2015 when he was
H H
“temporarily released with bail money refunded”. The bail money was in the
I I
sum of $100,000.
J J
17. D was re-arrested and charged for the offence on 17 October 2023
K K
and was brought to the Eastern Magistrates’ Court on the following day.
L L
18. Mr Sherry submitted that D was very co-operative after his arrest
M M
and in the cautioned interviews, which took place shortly after his arrest in
N October 2013. He gave a full account of his role in the case and admitted to N
feel suspicious about the source of the money when Uche asked him to
O O
withdraw the second deposit. Mr Sherry submitted that there was then
P sufficient evidence to charge D. P
Q 19. It was further submitted that after D’s release in 2015, he Q
remained in full employment and obtained his status as a permanent resident
R R
in Hong Kong. He continued to work as a businessman and raised a family
S here. The unexpected revival of the matter in October 2023 caused D a lot of S
stress and anxiety.
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
20. The Case Chronology showed that after the return of bail money
B B
to D in June 2015, the case was submitted to the Department of Justice for
C Legal Advice in March 2017 and the advice was finalized in March 2022. Mr C
Chan supplemented today that a lot of time was spent on the investigation of
D D
the predicate offence, believed to be e-mail scam, though it did not lead to a
E fruitful result. After the legal advice was finalized, the police was unable to E
locate D and could only arrest him for the second time when he returned to
F F
Hong Kong on 17 October 2023.
G G
Sentencing Principles
H H
I 21. Money laundering is a serious offence with a maximum fine in I
the sum of HK$5 million and maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.
J J
While there are no sentencing guidelines or tariffs and each case depends on
K its own facts, it is a well-settled principle that a deterrent sentence is warranted. K
L 22. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi and HKSAR v Boma L
held that the sentence should mainly reflect the money laundered, but not the
M M
amount of benefit received by a defendant in the transaction. Other significant
N factors that should be taken into account include: the nature of the predicate N
offence; the offender’s state of knowledge; whether the operation involved an
O O
international element; the sophistication of the offence or the degree of
P P
planning; whether the offence was committed by or on behalf of an orgainsed
Q
criminal syndicate; number of offences involved, the duration of the offence Q
and the defendant’s level of participation (see paragraph 9 of Hsu Yu Yi and
R R
paragraph 40 of Boma).
S S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
23. In the present case, it is accepted that it cannot be shown D had
B B
any knowledge of the predicate offence. While the offence took place slightly
C more than one month and that there were two foreign funds deposits and a few C
withdrawals, the operation was not unsophisticated, as it involved deposits
D D
made into the account of an investment company specifically opened by one
E of its brokers (ie TSOI) upon D’s request, rather than through the operation of E
ordinary bank accounts. The funds received were then transferred out of the
F F
investment account to TSOI’s own personal accounts. He then made cash
G withdrawals and passed the money to D. G
H H
24. Taking into account the sentencing principles mentioned above
I I
and upon considering the features in this case, in particular, the amount of the
J
total funds laundered, the duration of the offence, the level of sophistication J
and D’s role, I adopt a starting point of 45 months’ imprisonment.
K K
L
25. As stated above, there is an international element in this case, thus L
an aggravating feature. The Court of Appeal in Hsu Yu Yi said “a more severe
M M
sentence is needed to protect Hong Kong’s reputation as an international
N finance and banking hub from being tarnished”. I enhance the starting point N
by 3 months to 48 months to reflect this aggravating feature.
O O
P Mitigation P
Q Q
26. D made a timely plea and thus entitled to a full one-third discount
R in sentence. The sentence is, therefore, reduced to 32 months’ imprisonment. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
27. Regarding the issue of delay in prosecution, the Court of Appeal
B B
in HKSAR v Chiu Chi Wing CACC 243/2012, endorsed the principles of delay
C being a mitigating factor as set out in the Australian authority of Scook v the C
Queen [2008] 185 A Criminal Review 164. In Scook, Buss JA identified the
D D
following factors that are relevant to delay as a mitigating factor for sentence,
E namely: E
F F
“First, delay is not, of itself, a mitigating factor.
G G
Secondly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it has
been caused by difficulties in detecting, investigating or proving the
H offences committed by the offender, and the period of the delay is H
reasonable in the circumstances.
I Thirdly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it is caused I
by the offender’s obstruction or lack of co-operation with the State,
J
prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies, but the offender’s J
reliance on his or her legal rights is not obstruction or lack of co-
operation for this purpose.
K K
Fourthly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it results
from the normal operation of the criminal justice system, including
L L
delay as a result of the offender or a co-offender exercising his or her
rights; for example, interlocutory appeals and other interlocutory
M processes. M
Fifthly, delay may be conducive to the emergence of mitigating
N factors; for example, if, during the period of delay, the offender has N
made progress towards rehabilitation or other circumstances
O favourable to him or her have emerged. O
Sixthly, delay (not being delay of the kind described in the second,
P third and fourth guiding principles) will ordinarily be a mitigating P
factor if:
Q Q
(a) the delay has resulted in significant stress for the
offender or left him or her, to a significant degree, in
R ‘uncertain suspense’; or R
(b) during the period of delay the offender has adopted a
S S
reasonable expectation that he or she would not be
charged, or a pending prosecution would not proceed,
T and the offender has ordered his or her affairs on the T
faith of that expectation.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
Seventhly, delay caused by dilatory or neglectful conduct by the
B State, prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies may result in a B
discount of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed on the
offender, if the court thinks it an appropriate means of marking its
C C
disapproval of the conduct in question.”
D 28. In the present case, about 7 years passed between D’s temporary D
release and the return of the bail money in June 2015 and the final decision to
E E
prosecute him in March 2022. I accept that the Prosecution would have
F sufficient evidence to proceed with charging D for the present offence after his F
arrest and conducting the cautioned interview in 2013. There did not appear to
G G
be any reasonable justification for this considerable lapse of time nor was it
H caused by obstruction or lack of co-operation on the part of D. While it is H
I
noted that the authority was unable to locate D between May 2022 and October I
2023, D should not be held responsible for this as he would certainly be
J J
unaware of the development of the matter. I also recognize D has been put
K
under the strain of his re-arrest after the long lapse of time since he was K
informed of his temporary release in 2015. He has then moved on and
L L
continued to settle in Hong Kong.
M M
29. In the circumstances, I accept that the delay amounts to a
N N
mitigating factor and I further reduce the sentence by 6 months. In exercising
O my discretion in this regard, I am aware of what the Court of Appeal said in O
HKSAR v Ho Hon Chung Danel & others CACC 350/2002 (at paragraph 35)
P P
“that delay as a mitigating factor would necessarily only warrant a relatively
Q short reduction in sentence, for otherwise, it might give rise to a wrong idea Q
that it would be better for a defendant to unjustifiably drag out a case in which
R R
he is eventually convicted rather than to plead guilty or to proceed to trial
S expeditiously”. However, in the circumstances of this case, I consider that a 6- S
month reduction is just and appropriate.
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
30. There is no further mitigating factor in this case. D is sentenced
B B
to a term of 26 months’ imprisonment.
C C
D D
( Alice Chan )
E
Deputy District Judge E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 623/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1035 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 623 OF 2024
F F
G ------------------------------------------ G
HKSAR
H H
V
I EKEJI ANTHONY CHIBUIKE I
------------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Alice Chan K
Date: 19 June 2025
L L
Present: Mr Chan Joe W Y, counsel-on-fiat for HKSAR/Director of
M Public Prosecutions M
Mr Sherry James Anthony, instructed by Lee, Wong & Lam, for
N N
the defendant
O Offence: [1] & [2] Dealing with property known or believed to represent O
proceeds of an indictable offence（處理已知道或相信為代表
P P
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
Charge
B B
C 1. The Defendant (“D”) is charged with 2 counts of “dealing with C
property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”,
D D
contrary to section 25(1)&(3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance,
E Cap 455 (more commonly known as money laundering offence). He pleaded E
guilty to Charge 1 and agreed to the facts in support. He is duly convicted of
F F
the charge and upon the application of the prosecution, the second charge is
G ordered to be left on the court’s file and not to proceed with without the leave G
of the court.
H H
I I
Facts
J J
2. The subject property involved in Charge 1 was a total sum of
K K
HK$5,973,475.22 in a client account of an investment company in Hong Kong
L
known as Sincere Bullion Limited (“Sincere Bullion”). In its daily operation, L
Sincere Bullion would keep an individual ledger for each of its clients and the
M M
client could invest with the money through the company by depositing funds
N into the bank accounts of Sincere Bullion. Mr TSOI Siu Ho (“TSOI”) was a N
broker of Sincere Bullion.
O O
P P
3. In March 2013, D and his wife were introduced to TSOI. D said
Q
a friend of his from overseas was interested in investing in Hong Kong but this Q
friend was unable to open an account with Sincere Bullion personally.
R R
S
4. Later, upon D’s request, TSOI opened an investment account S
numbered 205639 with Sincere Bullion (TSOI’s Account) and became its
T T
client so that TSOI could invest with the money for D’s friend.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
5. On 16 April 2013, a sum of EUR 56,864.65 (HK$575,712.22)
B B
was deposited by Dobond (Shanghai) Electronics Meter into TSOI’s Account.
C The money came from outside Hong Kong. C
D D
6. Shortly afterwards, upon D’s instruction, TSOI withdrew the
E deposited sum (less around HK$10,000 as TSOI’s reward) and gave the money E
to D in cash. According to the records of TSOI’s Account, a cheque in the sum
F F
$550,000 was issued to TSOI. It was then deposited into TSOI’s personal
G account with the Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited and a cash withdrawal G
$550,000 was made on the following day.
H H
I 7. On 9 May 2013, TSOI’s Account received another sum of I
J
US$696,000 (HK$5,397,763) which was deposited by a company known as J
Demeter Technologies Incorporation from overseas. D again requested TSOI
K K
to withdraw the deposited sum and pay him the money in cash. TSOI passed
L
the cash to D directly. The records of TSOI’s Account revealed that after the L
funds were received, 3 cheques in the sum of $1,950,000, $1,900,000 and
M M
$1,100,000 were issued to TSOI within the next few days. He then deposited
N the cheques in his 2 other personal bank accounts and made cash withdrawals N
soon afterwards.
O O
P 8. On 4 June 2013, Sincere Bullion was notified that the said P
Demeter Technologies Incorporation had requested to set aside the deposit of
Q Q
US$696,000 (HK$5,397,763) resulting in Sincere Bullion demanding TSOI to
R return US$696,000. Soon afterwards, TSOI could not be reached and Sincere R
Bullion made a police report and TSOI surrendered himself to the police on
S S
the same day.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
9. Upon arrest and under caution D said that he had been a trader
B B
since mid-2012 and his business involved sending goods, including clothes and
C car parts to Nigeria. In January 2013, he came to know a Nigerian male called C
Uche Amadi (“Uche”) in a wedding ceremony in Nigeria and later Uche asked
D D
him to recommend an investment company to his customers who wanted to
E invest in Hong Kong. D forwarded details of TSOI’s Account to Uche. Later, E
Uche told D that about EUR50,000 had been deposited into TSOI’s Account
F F
but D said he did not know the source of the money. He did not receive any
G reward from Uche. Shortly thereafter, Uche notified D that he wanted to G
withdraw money from TSOI’s Account. Uche told D that his cousin Chidi
H H
would be coming Hong Kong to collect the money. TSOI withdrew the money
I I
in cash and passed it to D who then passed the money to Chidi.
J J
10. D also said under caution that later, Uche told D that a further sum
K K
of US$696,000 (ie HK$5,397,763) had been deposited in TSOI’s Account for
L
investment and D would be rewarded. D said he did not know the source of L
the money. A few days later, Uche asked D to withdraw the money and pass
M M
it to Chidi. Although D started to feel suspicious about the money, he and
N TSOI arranged to make the withdrawal from TSOI’s Account and then passed N
the cash to Chidi.
O O
P Background of D P
Q Q
11. D is now 50 years old and is of clear criminal record. He was
R born in Nigeria and was educated up to Secondary 6 level there. He came to R
Hong Kong in 2006 and is now a permanent resident. He is married with 2
S S
sons aged 16 and 14.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
12. Mr Sherry, counsel representing D, in his detailed written
B B
mitigation submissions, submitted that the money-laundering scheme in this
C case did not appear to be sophisticated. The offence took place within a period C
of just over 1 month. He said D was unaware of any details of the predicate
D D
offence and had been used by Uche as a pawn, mainly responsible for
E delivering the cash withdrawn by TSOI to Chidi and did not receive any E
reward. D was cooperative with the police all along.
F F
G 13. Mr Sherry submitted authorities in respect of the sentencing G
principles for the offence of money laundering, including HKSAR v Boma
H H
[2012] 2 HKLRD 33, HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and SJ v Wan
I I
Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201. He urges the Court to adopt a starting
J
point at the lowest end of the scale upon considering the matters mentioned J
above. He also produced mitigation letters written by D, members of his
K K
family and leader of the Nigerian Igbo (ebo) Community in Hong Kong.
L L
14. Mr Sherry submits that there is no international element in this
M case, thus there is no aggravating feature. Mr Chan for the prosecution, M
confirms with the court that the 2 deposits (comprising EUR 56,864.65 and
N N
US$696,000) were sent from overseas and this is reflected in the Summary of
O Facts. Besides, the Summary of Facts showed that, as far as D was concerned, O
he knew the monies were sent by Uche, or D’s friend in Nigeria, from overseas
P P
who claimed to wish to invest in Hong Kong. D knew the deposits made by
Q his overseas friend were in foreign currencies (EUR & US dollars). I take the Q
view that there is no question that the funds deposited into TSOI’s Account
R R
came from outside Hong Kong and there is an international element in this
S case. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
Delay
B B
C 15. Mr Sherry further submitted that there has been an unreasonable C
delay in prosecution and this should be taken into account as a mitigating
D D
factor.
E E
16. The offence occurred between April and May 2013 and a police
F F
report was made in June 2013. It was shown in the Case Chronology prepared
G by the Prosecution for the purpose of these proceedings that D was arrested in G
October 2013. He was granted police bail until 10 June 2015 when he was
H H
“temporarily released with bail money refunded”. The bail money was in the
I I
sum of $100,000.
J J
17. D was re-arrested and charged for the offence on 17 October 2023
K K
and was brought to the Eastern Magistrates’ Court on the following day.
L L
18. Mr Sherry submitted that D was very co-operative after his arrest
M M
and in the cautioned interviews, which took place shortly after his arrest in
N October 2013. He gave a full account of his role in the case and admitted to N
feel suspicious about the source of the money when Uche asked him to
O O
withdraw the second deposit. Mr Sherry submitted that there was then
P sufficient evidence to charge D. P
Q 19. It was further submitted that after D’s release in 2015, he Q
remained in full employment and obtained his status as a permanent resident
R R
in Hong Kong. He continued to work as a businessman and raised a family
S here. The unexpected revival of the matter in October 2023 caused D a lot of S
stress and anxiety.
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
20. The Case Chronology showed that after the return of bail money
B B
to D in June 2015, the case was submitted to the Department of Justice for
C Legal Advice in March 2017 and the advice was finalized in March 2022. Mr C
Chan supplemented today that a lot of time was spent on the investigation of
D D
the predicate offence, believed to be e-mail scam, though it did not lead to a
E fruitful result. After the legal advice was finalized, the police was unable to E
locate D and could only arrest him for the second time when he returned to
F F
Hong Kong on 17 October 2023.
G G
Sentencing Principles
H H
I 21. Money laundering is a serious offence with a maximum fine in I
the sum of HK$5 million and maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.
J J
While there are no sentencing guidelines or tariffs and each case depends on
K its own facts, it is a well-settled principle that a deterrent sentence is warranted. K
L 22. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi and HKSAR v Boma L
held that the sentence should mainly reflect the money laundered, but not the
M M
amount of benefit received by a defendant in the transaction. Other significant
N factors that should be taken into account include: the nature of the predicate N
offence; the offender’s state of knowledge; whether the operation involved an
O O
international element; the sophistication of the offence or the degree of
P P
planning; whether the offence was committed by or on behalf of an orgainsed
Q
criminal syndicate; number of offences involved, the duration of the offence Q
and the defendant’s level of participation (see paragraph 9 of Hsu Yu Yi and
R R
paragraph 40 of Boma).
S S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
23. In the present case, it is accepted that it cannot be shown D had
B B
any knowledge of the predicate offence. While the offence took place slightly
C more than one month and that there were two foreign funds deposits and a few C
withdrawals, the operation was not unsophisticated, as it involved deposits
D D
made into the account of an investment company specifically opened by one
E of its brokers (ie TSOI) upon D’s request, rather than through the operation of E
ordinary bank accounts. The funds received were then transferred out of the
F F
investment account to TSOI’s own personal accounts. He then made cash
G withdrawals and passed the money to D. G
H H
24. Taking into account the sentencing principles mentioned above
I I
and upon considering the features in this case, in particular, the amount of the
J
total funds laundered, the duration of the offence, the level of sophistication J
and D’s role, I adopt a starting point of 45 months’ imprisonment.
K K
L
25. As stated above, there is an international element in this case, thus L
an aggravating feature. The Court of Appeal in Hsu Yu Yi said “a more severe
M M
sentence is needed to protect Hong Kong’s reputation as an international
N finance and banking hub from being tarnished”. I enhance the starting point N
by 3 months to 48 months to reflect this aggravating feature.
O O
P Mitigation P
Q Q
26. D made a timely plea and thus entitled to a full one-third discount
R in sentence. The sentence is, therefore, reduced to 32 months’ imprisonment. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
27. Regarding the issue of delay in prosecution, the Court of Appeal
B B
in HKSAR v Chiu Chi Wing CACC 243/2012, endorsed the principles of delay
C being a mitigating factor as set out in the Australian authority of Scook v the C
Queen [2008] 185 A Criminal Review 164. In Scook, Buss JA identified the
D D
following factors that are relevant to delay as a mitigating factor for sentence,
E namely: E
F F
“First, delay is not, of itself, a mitigating factor.
G G
Secondly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it has
been caused by difficulties in detecting, investigating or proving the
H offences committed by the offender, and the period of the delay is H
reasonable in the circumstances.
I Thirdly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it is caused I
by the offender’s obstruction or lack of co-operation with the State,
J
prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies, but the offender’s J
reliance on his or her legal rights is not obstruction or lack of co-
operation for this purpose.
K K
Fourthly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it results
from the normal operation of the criminal justice system, including
L L
delay as a result of the offender or a co-offender exercising his or her
rights; for example, interlocutory appeals and other interlocutory
M processes. M
Fifthly, delay may be conducive to the emergence of mitigating
N factors; for example, if, during the period of delay, the offender has N
made progress towards rehabilitation or other circumstances
O favourable to him or her have emerged. O
Sixthly, delay (not being delay of the kind described in the second,
P third and fourth guiding principles) will ordinarily be a mitigating P
factor if:
Q Q
(a) the delay has resulted in significant stress for the
offender or left him or her, to a significant degree, in
R ‘uncertain suspense’; or R
(b) during the period of delay the offender has adopted a
S S
reasonable expectation that he or she would not be
charged, or a pending prosecution would not proceed,
T and the offender has ordered his or her affairs on the T
faith of that expectation.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
Seventhly, delay caused by dilatory or neglectful conduct by the
B State, prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies may result in a B
discount of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed on the
offender, if the court thinks it an appropriate means of marking its
C C
disapproval of the conduct in question.”
D 28. In the present case, about 7 years passed between D’s temporary D
release and the return of the bail money in June 2015 and the final decision to
E E
prosecute him in March 2022. I accept that the Prosecution would have
F sufficient evidence to proceed with charging D for the present offence after his F
arrest and conducting the cautioned interview in 2013. There did not appear to
G G
be any reasonable justification for this considerable lapse of time nor was it
H caused by obstruction or lack of co-operation on the part of D. While it is H
I
noted that the authority was unable to locate D between May 2022 and October I
2023, D should not be held responsible for this as he would certainly be
J J
unaware of the development of the matter. I also recognize D has been put
K
under the strain of his re-arrest after the long lapse of time since he was K
informed of his temporary release in 2015. He has then moved on and
L L
continued to settle in Hong Kong.
M M
29. In the circumstances, I accept that the delay amounts to a
N N
mitigating factor and I further reduce the sentence by 6 months. In exercising
O my discretion in this regard, I am aware of what the Court of Appeal said in O
HKSAR v Ho Hon Chung Danel & others CACC 350/2002 (at paragraph 35)
P P
“that delay as a mitigating factor would necessarily only warrant a relatively
Q short reduction in sentence, for otherwise, it might give rise to a wrong idea Q
that it would be better for a defendant to unjustifiably drag out a case in which
R R
he is eventually convicted rather than to plead guilty or to proceed to trial
S expeditiously”. However, in the circumstances of this case, I consider that a 6- S
month reduction is just and appropriate.
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
30. There is no further mitigating factor in this case. D is sentenced
B B
to a term of 26 months’ imprisonment.
C C
D D
( Alice Chan )
E
Deputy District Judge E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V