區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Peony Wong30/7/2025[2025] HKDC 1306
DCCC923/2022
A A
B B
DCCC 923/2022
C [2025] HKDC 1306 C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 923 OF 2022
F F
----------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H v H
LAM MAN YIN 1st Defendant
I I
----------------------------
J J
Before: Deputy District Judge Peony Wong
K K
Date: 31 July 2025
L Present: Mr Maurice Peter Tracy, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR L
Mr Chan Edward T C, instructed by Yick & Chan, for the 1st
M M
defendant
N N
Offence: Conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to
O
represent proceeds of an indictable offence（串謀處理已知 O
道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產）
P P
Q ----------------------------------------- Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R R
-----------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The 1st Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “D1”) pleaded
C guilty to Conspiracy to Deal with Property Known or Believed to C
Represent Proceeds of an Indictable Offence, contrary to section 25(1) and
D D
(3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455 and sections
E 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. The property dealt E
with was USD 825,946 in a bank account of Funson Trading Limited
F F
(hereinafter referred to as “Funson”). D1 was the person who had acted on
G the instructions of D2, and had opened a company account for Funson. G
H H
2. On 12 April 2018, the Chief Financial Officer (“the CFO”) of
I a company in Denmark, GM Plast A/S (hereinafter referred to as “the I
Company”) received an email purportedly sent by its Chief Executive
J J
Officer and director (“the CEO”), requesting payment by attaching a
K Proforma Invoice issued by a Longqin Hong Kong Industrial Co Ltd K
(“Longqin”). The CFO then transferred USD 424,195.02 to Longqin’s
L L
Hong Kong ICBC account.
M M
3. On 16 April 2018, the CFO received another email purported
N N
sent by the CEO, requesting payment by attaching a Proforma Invoice
O issued by a Longqin Hong Kong Industrial Co Ltd (“Longqin”). The CFO O
then transferred USD 518,460.08 to Longqin’s Hong Kong ICBC account.
P P
Q 4. On 19 April 2018, the CFO received another email Q
purportedly sent by the CEO, requesting payment by attaching an Invoice
R R
issued by Ouman International Industry Co Ltd (“Ouman”). The CFO then
S transferred USD 810,000 to Ouman’s Hong Kong ICBC account. S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. On 20 April 2018, the CFO received another email
C purportedly sent by the CEO, requesting payment by attaching an Invoice C
issued by Hengzheng International Ltd (“Hengzheng”). The CFO then
D D
transferred USD 551,900 to Hengzheng’s Hong Kong ICBC account.
E E
6. On 26 April 2018, the CFO received another email
F F
purportedly sent by the CEO, requesting payment by attaching an Invoice
G issued by Funson. The CFO then transferred USD 826,000 to Funson’s G
Hong Kong ICBC account.
H H
I 7. On 30 April 2018, the email scam was discovered, where none I
of the above emails were sent by the CEO, and all documents attached to
J J
the said emails were forgeries. The Company suffered a total loss of USD
K 3,130,555.10 and reported to the Hong Kong police. K
L L
8. Funson was incorporated on 15 March 2017, and was
M dissolved on 5 June 2020. D1 became and was at all material times the M
director and shareholder since 1 November 2017. The police did not find
N N
any trace of Funson and its secretarial company at their respective
O registered address. Funson had never filed any tax return, and had only O
paid the Business Registration fee for 2017.
P P
Q 9. On 26 January 2018, D1 opened a USD current account for Q
Funson (“Funson’s account”), with D1 being the sole signatory. The
R R
telephone number and email address provided for the said purpose
S belonged to D1. D1 was also the shareholder and director of 2 other S
companies.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
10. USD 331 and USD 825,946 were transferred by Interlinks
C International Limited (“Interlink”) and the Company to Funson’s account C
on 25 and 30 April 2018 respectively. On 30 April 2018, USD 245,740
D D
(less charges) were transferred from Funson’s account to Interlinks.
E E
11. D1 had only filed tax return for the year 2018/2019, reporting
F F
being employed by Adecco Personnel Limited with yearly salary of
G HK$139,794. G
H H
12. D1 was arrested on 15 May 2019. Whatsapp messages on her
I phone disclosed that between 3 November 2017 to 15 February 2018, she I
had reported to and sought instructions from D2 in respect of the opening
J J
of Funson’s and other companies’ bank accounts.
K K
13. Whatsapp messages inside D2’s mobile phone disclosed the
L L
instructions he had given to D1 for opening bank accounts for companies
M including Funson. D2 instructed or gave assistance to 15 other people to M
open bank accounts, one of which was D1’s sister who had received
N N
instructions from D2 to open bank accounts for 3 companies.
O O
14. Whatsapp messages between D2 and D3 from 30 October
P P
2017 to 25 May 2018 revealed that D3 gave instructions to D2 to arrange
Q opening of multiple company accounts through D1 and her sister. D3 was Q
responsible for preparing company documents including the share transfer,
R R
and D2 was responsible for making arrangements for the account opening,
S and bringing the directors of the companies including D1 and her sister to S
the bank for account opening procedure.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
15. In the VRI, D1 admitted that D2 offered her a job for opening
C company bank accounts. She met D2 in November 2017, whereupon she C
was instructed to use the company documents provided to her to open
D D
company bank accounts for Funson and other companies at Dah Sing Bank
E (“DSB”). She was also briefed by D2 on the answers to provide to the E
bank upon being asked in relation to account opening, and was instructed
F F
to familiarize herself with the company information prior to account
G opening. On 26 January 2018, she attended DSB and applied for opening G
of Funson’s bank account. She also stated that she had passed the bank
H H
documents and bank cards to D2 after completion of the account opening
I procedure. She only knew that those were accounts for company business, I
but she had no knowledge about the business operation. As she was
J J
heavily in debt and wanted to earn quick money, she did not consider much
K before deciding to take on the job. K
L L
D1’s Antecedent and Mitigation
M M
16. D1 is 26 years old and has a clear record. She was 20 years
N N
old when she committed the offence. She resides with her parents and
O sibling. She had attended but had yet to finish Associate Degree in O
Creative Media. She works part time as puppy walker for an NGO which
P P
trains dogs for the visually impaired. She donates regularly to an animal
Q welfare charity. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Legal Principles on Sentencing
C C
17. In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal
D D
indicated factors which should be taken into account when sentencing
E money laundering charges: E
F F
(a) the nature of the predicate offence, if known, and the
G penalty available for the predicate offence; G
H H
(b) the state of knowledge of the offender: the question of
I knowledge of the offender as to the nature of the I
predicate offence is relevant in that the person who
J J
knows the nature of the predicate offence is more
K culpable than the person who does not; K
L L
(c) An international dimension will always be a significant
M aggravating feature; M
N N
(d) The sophistication of the offence, including the degree
O of planning and whether deceit is practised to achieve O
the objective;
P P
Q (e) offence is committed by or on behalf of an organized Q
criminal syndicate is an aggravating fact;
R R
S (f) whether there is one transaction or many and the length S
of time over which the offence was committed;
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
(g) it will be an aggravating feature where the offender
C continues to launder funds after he has discovered that C
the funds are the proceeds of an offence or after he has
D D
discovered the nature of an offence which is serious;
E and E
F F
(h) the role of the offender and the acts performed by him.
G G
Sentencing Considerations
H H
I 18. I agree with the Defence that there is no evidence that D1 I
knew anything about the predicate offence, and that D1 was merely
J J
executing orders. The presence and nature of the predicate offence, ie
K email scam, must, however, be considered. The Company suffered a total K
loss of USD 3,130,555.10, although D1 is only convicted of dealing with
L L
USD 825,946, which was deposited into Funson’s account on 30 April
M 2018, for which around USD 245,740 was transferred out from the Funson M
account on the same day. Defence submits that the balance of the amount
N N
deposited remained in the Funson account, and that Funson was able to
O recover the said balance. I take into account such matters, but the potential O
loss cannot be completely disregarded.
P P
Q 19. The Company was a company from Denmark, and the Q
amounts deceived from the Company were sent upon request of the
R R
fraudsters by 5 remittances to the bank accounts of 3 Hong Kong banks
S concerning 4 different companies, including that of Funson. There is S
definitely the presence of an international element, which according to
T T
Boma, is a significant aggravating factor.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 20. The offence was sophisticated. It was part of a bigger scheme C
involving not just D1, but also D1’s sister and others (Lala and 2 males),
D D
as shown in the evidence of D1, and also the whatsapp messages between
E D1 and D2, and those between D2 and D3, although D2 and D3 were E
acquitted for reasons other than their involvement in the arrangements for
F F
opening the company accounts.
G G
21. A lot of planning must have been involved in recruiting of D1,
H H
D1’s sister and others. D1 was shown to have been the director and
I shareholder of 3 companies including Funson, and had made the I
application for opening of company accounts for those companies, whereas
J J
the evidence also shows D1’s sister as having opened multiple company
K accounts. Share transfer documents were prepared at least in relation to K
D1 to enable her to become director and shareholder and to make the
L L
account opening applications, and company documents were provided by
M D3 to D2 and passed on to D1 for studying before going to the bank. D2 M
had the role of briefing D1 on the answers she should give to the bank
N N
staff’s questions. Even though D2 and D3 were acquitted, their
O involvement was planned by the fraudsters. There is without a doubt a O
criminal syndicate operating the scheme which involved D1.
P P
Q 22. There were only 1 deposit and 1 transfer out of the Funson Q
account. But the charge spans a period of 6 months being the duration of
R R
the conspiracy. During this period, apart from going to the bank to open
S firstly a personal account which upon submission by her of further S
documents and making clarifications as requested by the bank, became the
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
company account of Funson. The evidence in Court also indicates that she
C had taken a liaison role between the bank and D2 to pass on messages. C
D D
23. The Defence cited the authorities of Secretary for Justice v
E Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 and HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] E
5 HKLRD 545. In Hsu Yu Yi, the appellant had personally dealt with a
F F
deposit of approximately $2.5 million, although the charge involved $25.8
G million. There was an international element. The Court of Appeal made G
reference to the amounts involved in earlier cases of money laundering,
H H
and compared those with the $2.5 million personally dealt with by the
I appellant. The sentence was reduced to 3 years and 5 months’ I
imprisonment after deducting one month for admission of the facts during
J J
the trial. I consider that the present case is more serious, as it involves a
K larger amount as compared with the $2.5 million of Hsu Yu Yi. K
L L
24. For the case of Wan Kwok Keung, the respondent pleaded
M guilty to money laundering charge which involved depositing football bets M
he had received from clients into bank accounts. There were 2,222
N N
withdrawals and 1,696 deposits for a total amount of about $14 million
O within a period of 7 years. The laundering operation was however simple O
and without a syndicate. It was held that the starting point should not be
P P
less than 4 years.
Q Q
25. I consider that despite the amount of money being
R R
substantially less, and the duration much shorter, than those in Wan Kwok
S Keung, the present case has an international element, involving more S
parties, and is a more sophisticated crime requiring lots of planning. I am
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
therefore of the view that the present case is in nature more serious than
C Wan Kwok Keung. C
D D
26. I have considered the above factors, the guilty plea and clear
E record of D1, as well as all mitigating factors. I find that for the very large E
amount of money involved (around HK$6,600,000), as well as the scale
F F
and degree of planning and the presence of the international element
G aggravating feature, the starting point of 51 months’ imprisonment is G
appropriate.
H H
I Giving Evidence for the Prosecution I
J J
27. D1 had been called as a witness for the Prosecution in the trial
K of D2 and D3. Despite the acquittal of D2 and D3, D1’s evidence had been K
accepted by the Court. In considering the degree of discount to be given
L L
to D1 for her assistance to the Prosecution, I have considered Z v HKSAR
M (2007) 10 HKCFAR 18, the importance of her evidence in the trial, and M
that the Court had accepted her evidence. The Court will allow a 50%
N N
discount in sentence, which already includes the 30% discount for her
O guilty plea. O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Delay
C C
28. Defence submits that there has been a substantial delay since
D D
D1’s arrest to her plea of guilty. The important parts of the Chronologies
E presented by the Prosecution and Defence in the Written Mitigation E
includes:
F F
G (a) D1 was arrested on 15 May 2019; G
H H
(b) Covering report to Department of Justice on 21 May
I 2021; I
J (c) Legal advice from Department of Justice on 9 June J
2022;
K K
L (d) Charge dated on 18 August 2022; L
M M
(e) The first mention date in District Court was held on 27
N October 2022; N
O O
(f) D1 indicated guilty plea and intention to provide
P assistance by writing to the Prosecution on 16 P
November 2022;
Q Q
R (g) On 28 February 2023, D1 indicated her guilty plea in R
Court, and plea and sentence for D1 and trial for D2 and
S S
D3 were fixed for 24 January 2024;
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
(h) D1 thereafter gave 2 NPS on 28 April 2023 and 18
C January 2024; C
D D
(i) D1 pleaded guilty on 24 January 2024. Adjournment
E application made by Prosecution was granted; E
F (j) Translation and certification of 7,000 pages of F
WhatsApp records and bankers’ Affirmation ready in
G G
end of January 2024 ongoing contact with Danish
H witness; H
I I
(k) Case was heard for mention, and the trial of D2 and D3
J was refixed to 17 March 2025; and J
K K
(l) D1 was convicted upon pleading guilty to the Charge
L and admitting the Summary of Facts. The trial against L
D2 and D3 commenced, whereby D1 testified against
M M
D2 and D3.
N N
O
29. Defence submitted the authority of Chiu Chi Wing, CACC O
243/2012 on delay as mitigation. Seven factors were identified, even
P P
though they are not considered exhaustive or inflexible. The factors
Q relevant to the present case are: Q
R R
(a) Delay is not of itself a mitigating factor;
S S
(b) delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it has
T T
been caused by difficulties in detecting, investigating
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
or proving the offences committed by the offender, and
C the period of the delay is reasonable in the C
circumstances;
D D
E (c) delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it E
results from the normal operation of the criminal justice
F F
system, including delay as a result of the offender or a
G co-offender exercising his or her rights; G
H H
(d) delay may be conducive to the emergence of mitigating
I factors; for example, if, during the period of delay, the I
offender has made progress towards rehabilitation or
J J
other circumstances favourable to him or her having
K emerged; K
L L
(e) delay (not of the kind described in the paragraphs above)
M will ordinarily be a mitigating factor if the delay has M
resulted in significant stress for the offender or left him
N N
or her, to a significant degree, in ‘uncertain suspense’;
O and O
P P
(f) delay caused by dilatory or neglectful conduct by the
Q State, prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies Q
may result in a discount of the sentence that would
R R
otherwise be imposed on the offender, if the court
S thinks it is an appropriate means of marking its S
disapproval of the conduct in question.
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
30. Defence submits in the supplemental mitigation that from
C D1’s arrest to formal plea, it took 6 years, whereas in the first mitigation C
submitted, it was stated to be 4.5 years. It is believed that the discrepancy
D D
results from whether one counts the period until the first trial date when
E D1 pleaded guilty, or the refixed trial date when D1 pleaded guilty and was E
convicted. The Court believes that even considering the time from the first
F F
trial date until the refixed trial date in deciding whether there has been any
G delay, it is a result of the combination of the other Defendants exercising G
their right to contest the case, and the decision of D1 to testify against them.
H H
The refixing was due to the voluminous volume of documents required to
I be translated and certified, as well as the need for D1 to provide another I
much more detailed NPS, in light of the WhatsApp messages. These
J J
messages were only made available in December 2023 after the forensics
K division of the police made inspection of the mobile phones. K
L L
31. The Court also notes that D3 being the last Defendant to fall
M into the net, was arrested on 30 June 2020, over 1 year after D1 was arrested. M
The first mention date in District Court was 27 October 2022, roughly 2
N N
years and 4 months after D3 was arrested, which for a case with a predicate
O offence of email scam, although it did not involve a large number of O
remittances, is not unreasonable bearing in mind that investigation would
P P
have to be conducted with the overseas victim of different time zone, bank
Q documents would have to be obtained from 3 different banks on multiple Q
bank accounts, and that the case had to go through mention dates in the
R R
Magistracy before reaching the District Court. I find that there had not
S been any dilatory or neglectful conduct on the part of the authorities and S
the Prosecution to justify deduction in sentence. The time spent reflects
T T
the workings of a normal criminal justice system. I am also of the view
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
that whether the charge against D1 remained the same from start to finish,
C and whether D1 had made admissions in the VRI do not assist the claim C
for delay in this case.
D D
E 32. I am also of the view that the comparison of the duration of E
delay for other cases with vastly different backgrounds with the duration
F F
from arrest to plea in the present case is unhelpful for obviously reasons,
G as each case depends on its own facts. The period as stated is also merely G
one of the factors to be considered. For the above reasons, I find that there
H H
had not been any delay in this case.
I I
33. Assuming I was wrong about the lack of delay, the Court has
J J
been unable to find any rehabilitation progress of D1 on top of what had
K already been advanced in her mitigation of her obtaining a part time job. K
Therefore there is no ground for an additional discount for delay on this
L L
ground.
M M
34. I also find that there is no suggestion of substantial stress, or
N N
that D1 had been left in a state of ‘uncertain suspense’. Any Defendant
O facing punishment would face some degree of uncertainty, but that is not O
to say that every Defendant should be allowed a discount. The uncertainty
P P
D1 faced was whether her evidence would be accepted as useful by the
Q Court, and the sentence that would be imposed; and that more time is Q
needed before she would be sentenced pending her evidence against the
R R
co-accuseds. As D1 would have been given a discount in sentence for her
S assistance to the authorities, to make a further discount under this ground S
would cause an overlap. I am of the view that the meaning of ‘uncertain
T T
suspense’ does not cover the present situation of D1.
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
C 35. The legal principles stated in HKSAR v Lam Ka Sin [2021] C
HKCA 180 as cited by the Defence is accepted by the Court as correct. In
D D
that case, it had been confirmed that persons convicted of money
E laundering, even if they are first offenders, should be sentenced to a term E
of immediate imprisonment. There is no tariff for this type of case.
F F
G 36. It has also been stated that rehabilitation should be considered, G
and the offender must have shown that he has dissociated himself from his
H H
past wrongful conduct, and has committed himself to the future respect of
I the law. While this may appear vague, this Court is of the view that I
guidance should be sought from the facts of Lam Ka Sin. Care must be
J J
taken not to overemphasize rehabilitation without considering at the same
K time the sentencing object of deterrence which is important for this type of K
case.
L L
M 37. I find that the present case is however different in material M
respects from the case of Lam Ka Sin. In Lam Ka Sin, the appellant was
N N
forced to process a cheque through her bank account by someone who
O escorted her to the bank and waited outside while she dealt with the cheque. O
There was a fault on the face of the cheque and the transaction did not go
P P
through. She withdrew from the arrangement. It was a single transaction
Q that did not go through. In the present case, D1 not only did as requested Q
by reading the company documents and making the application to open
R R
bank account, she also handled the follow up and liaison matters with the
S bank. The conspiracy also lasted 6 months. S
T T
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
38. The appellant in Lam Ka Sin was 20 years old and from her
C psychological profile, vulnerable to influence of others. D1 in the present C
case was 20 years old at the time of offence, but there is no suggestion of
D D
her being vulnerable to influence. Her evidence indicated that she wanted
E to earn quick money due to her heavy debts, and she was given a free choice E
of whether to take the job. The impression given by her in the witness box
F F
does not suggest anyone who is vulnerable.
G G
39. Also in Leung Ka Sin, when considering the element of
H H
compassion in sentencing, came the fact that the birth of the appellant’s
I child 2.5 years after the offence and the departure of her boyfriend caused I
the appellant to make substantial change of her lifestyle. Even though D1
J J
in the present case had found a job that is legal, it is far from the degree of
K substantial change of lifestyle envisaged by the authority. K
L L
40. Based on the above analysis, there is no justification for the
M Court to reduce the sentence of D1 for delay, or to order suspended M
sentence or CSO due to exceptional circumstances.
N N
O Sentence O
P P
41. As I have adopted a starting point of 51 months’
Q imprisonment, by applying 50% sentencing discount, D1 is sentenced to Q
25 months and 15 days’ imprisonment.
R R
S S
( Peony Wong )
T T
Deputy District Judge
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 923/2022
C [2025] HKDC 1306 C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 923 OF 2022
F F
----------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H v H
LAM MAN YIN 1st Defendant
I I
----------------------------
J J
Before: Deputy District Judge Peony Wong
K K
Date: 31 July 2025
L Present: Mr Maurice Peter Tracy, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR L
Mr Chan Edward T C, instructed by Yick & Chan, for the 1st
M M
defendant
N N
Offence: Conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to
O
represent proceeds of an indictable offence（串謀處理已知 O
道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產）
P P
Q ----------------------------------------- Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R R
-----------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The 1st Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “D1”) pleaded
C guilty to Conspiracy to Deal with Property Known or Believed to C
Represent Proceeds of an Indictable Offence, contrary to section 25(1) and
D D
(3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455 and sections
E 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. The property dealt E
with was USD 825,946 in a bank account of Funson Trading Limited
F F
(hereinafter referred to as “Funson”). D1 was the person who had acted on
G the instructions of D2, and had opened a company account for Funson. G
H H
2. On 12 April 2018, the Chief Financial Officer (“the CFO”) of
I a company in Denmark, GM Plast A/S (hereinafter referred to as “the I
Company”) received an email purportedly sent by its Chief Executive
J J
Officer and director (“the CEO”), requesting payment by attaching a
K Proforma Invoice issued by a Longqin Hong Kong Industrial Co Ltd K
(“Longqin”). The CFO then transferred USD 424,195.02 to Longqin’s
L L
Hong Kong ICBC account.
M M
3. On 16 April 2018, the CFO received another email purported
N N
sent by the CEO, requesting payment by attaching a Proforma Invoice
O issued by a Longqin Hong Kong Industrial Co Ltd (“Longqin”). The CFO O
then transferred USD 518,460.08 to Longqin’s Hong Kong ICBC account.
P P
Q 4. On 19 April 2018, the CFO received another email Q
purportedly sent by the CEO, requesting payment by attaching an Invoice
R R
issued by Ouman International Industry Co Ltd (“Ouman”). The CFO then
S transferred USD 810,000 to Ouman’s Hong Kong ICBC account. S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. On 20 April 2018, the CFO received another email
C purportedly sent by the CEO, requesting payment by attaching an Invoice C
issued by Hengzheng International Ltd (“Hengzheng”). The CFO then
D D
transferred USD 551,900 to Hengzheng’s Hong Kong ICBC account.
E E
6. On 26 April 2018, the CFO received another email
F F
purportedly sent by the CEO, requesting payment by attaching an Invoice
G issued by Funson. The CFO then transferred USD 826,000 to Funson’s G
Hong Kong ICBC account.
H H
I 7. On 30 April 2018, the email scam was discovered, where none I
of the above emails were sent by the CEO, and all documents attached to
J J
the said emails were forgeries. The Company suffered a total loss of USD
K 3,130,555.10 and reported to the Hong Kong police. K
L L
8. Funson was incorporated on 15 March 2017, and was
M dissolved on 5 June 2020. D1 became and was at all material times the M
director and shareholder since 1 November 2017. The police did not find
N N
any trace of Funson and its secretarial company at their respective
O registered address. Funson had never filed any tax return, and had only O
paid the Business Registration fee for 2017.
P P
Q 9. On 26 January 2018, D1 opened a USD current account for Q
Funson (“Funson’s account”), with D1 being the sole signatory. The
R R
telephone number and email address provided for the said purpose
S belonged to D1. D1 was also the shareholder and director of 2 other S
companies.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
10. USD 331 and USD 825,946 were transferred by Interlinks
C International Limited (“Interlink”) and the Company to Funson’s account C
on 25 and 30 April 2018 respectively. On 30 April 2018, USD 245,740
D D
(less charges) were transferred from Funson’s account to Interlinks.
E E
11. D1 had only filed tax return for the year 2018/2019, reporting
F F
being employed by Adecco Personnel Limited with yearly salary of
G HK$139,794. G
H H
12. D1 was arrested on 15 May 2019. Whatsapp messages on her
I phone disclosed that between 3 November 2017 to 15 February 2018, she I
had reported to and sought instructions from D2 in respect of the opening
J J
of Funson’s and other companies’ bank accounts.
K K
13. Whatsapp messages inside D2’s mobile phone disclosed the
L L
instructions he had given to D1 for opening bank accounts for companies
M including Funson. D2 instructed or gave assistance to 15 other people to M
open bank accounts, one of which was D1’s sister who had received
N N
instructions from D2 to open bank accounts for 3 companies.
O O
14. Whatsapp messages between D2 and D3 from 30 October
P P
2017 to 25 May 2018 revealed that D3 gave instructions to D2 to arrange
Q opening of multiple company accounts through D1 and her sister. D3 was Q
responsible for preparing company documents including the share transfer,
R R
and D2 was responsible for making arrangements for the account opening,
S and bringing the directors of the companies including D1 and her sister to S
the bank for account opening procedure.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
15. In the VRI, D1 admitted that D2 offered her a job for opening
C company bank accounts. She met D2 in November 2017, whereupon she C
was instructed to use the company documents provided to her to open
D D
company bank accounts for Funson and other companies at Dah Sing Bank
E (“DSB”). She was also briefed by D2 on the answers to provide to the E
bank upon being asked in relation to account opening, and was instructed
F F
to familiarize herself with the company information prior to account
G opening. On 26 January 2018, she attended DSB and applied for opening G
of Funson’s bank account. She also stated that she had passed the bank
H H
documents and bank cards to D2 after completion of the account opening
I procedure. She only knew that those were accounts for company business, I
but she had no knowledge about the business operation. As she was
J J
heavily in debt and wanted to earn quick money, she did not consider much
K before deciding to take on the job. K
L L
D1’s Antecedent and Mitigation
M M
16. D1 is 26 years old and has a clear record. She was 20 years
N N
old when she committed the offence. She resides with her parents and
O sibling. She had attended but had yet to finish Associate Degree in O
Creative Media. She works part time as puppy walker for an NGO which
P P
trains dogs for the visually impaired. She donates regularly to an animal
Q welfare charity. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Legal Principles on Sentencing
C C
17. In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal
D D
indicated factors which should be taken into account when sentencing
E money laundering charges: E
F F
(a) the nature of the predicate offence, if known, and the
G penalty available for the predicate offence; G
H H
(b) the state of knowledge of the offender: the question of
I knowledge of the offender as to the nature of the I
predicate offence is relevant in that the person who
J J
knows the nature of the predicate offence is more
K culpable than the person who does not; K
L L
(c) An international dimension will always be a significant
M aggravating feature; M
N N
(d) The sophistication of the offence, including the degree
O of planning and whether deceit is practised to achieve O
the objective;
P P
Q (e) offence is committed by or on behalf of an organized Q
criminal syndicate is an aggravating fact;
R R
S (f) whether there is one transaction or many and the length S
of time over which the offence was committed;
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
(g) it will be an aggravating feature where the offender
C continues to launder funds after he has discovered that C
the funds are the proceeds of an offence or after he has
D D
discovered the nature of an offence which is serious;
E and E
F F
(h) the role of the offender and the acts performed by him.
G G
Sentencing Considerations
H H
I 18. I agree with the Defence that there is no evidence that D1 I
knew anything about the predicate offence, and that D1 was merely
J J
executing orders. The presence and nature of the predicate offence, ie
K email scam, must, however, be considered. The Company suffered a total K
loss of USD 3,130,555.10, although D1 is only convicted of dealing with
L L
USD 825,946, which was deposited into Funson’s account on 30 April
M 2018, for which around USD 245,740 was transferred out from the Funson M
account on the same day. Defence submits that the balance of the amount
N N
deposited remained in the Funson account, and that Funson was able to
O recover the said balance. I take into account such matters, but the potential O
loss cannot be completely disregarded.
P P
Q 19. The Company was a company from Denmark, and the Q
amounts deceived from the Company were sent upon request of the
R R
fraudsters by 5 remittances to the bank accounts of 3 Hong Kong banks
S concerning 4 different companies, including that of Funson. There is S
definitely the presence of an international element, which according to
T T
Boma, is a significant aggravating factor.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 20. The offence was sophisticated. It was part of a bigger scheme C
involving not just D1, but also D1’s sister and others (Lala and 2 males),
D D
as shown in the evidence of D1, and also the whatsapp messages between
E D1 and D2, and those between D2 and D3, although D2 and D3 were E
acquitted for reasons other than their involvement in the arrangements for
F F
opening the company accounts.
G G
21. A lot of planning must have been involved in recruiting of D1,
H H
D1’s sister and others. D1 was shown to have been the director and
I shareholder of 3 companies including Funson, and had made the I
application for opening of company accounts for those companies, whereas
J J
the evidence also shows D1’s sister as having opened multiple company
K accounts. Share transfer documents were prepared at least in relation to K
D1 to enable her to become director and shareholder and to make the
L L
account opening applications, and company documents were provided by
M D3 to D2 and passed on to D1 for studying before going to the bank. D2 M
had the role of briefing D1 on the answers she should give to the bank
N N
staff’s questions. Even though D2 and D3 were acquitted, their
O involvement was planned by the fraudsters. There is without a doubt a O
criminal syndicate operating the scheme which involved D1.
P P
Q 22. There were only 1 deposit and 1 transfer out of the Funson Q
account. But the charge spans a period of 6 months being the duration of
R R
the conspiracy. During this period, apart from going to the bank to open
S firstly a personal account which upon submission by her of further S
documents and making clarifications as requested by the bank, became the
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
company account of Funson. The evidence in Court also indicates that she
C had taken a liaison role between the bank and D2 to pass on messages. C
D D
23. The Defence cited the authorities of Secretary for Justice v
E Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 and HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] E
5 HKLRD 545. In Hsu Yu Yi, the appellant had personally dealt with a
F F
deposit of approximately $2.5 million, although the charge involved $25.8
G million. There was an international element. The Court of Appeal made G
reference to the amounts involved in earlier cases of money laundering,
H H
and compared those with the $2.5 million personally dealt with by the
I appellant. The sentence was reduced to 3 years and 5 months’ I
imprisonment after deducting one month for admission of the facts during
J J
the trial. I consider that the present case is more serious, as it involves a
K larger amount as compared with the $2.5 million of Hsu Yu Yi. K
L L
24. For the case of Wan Kwok Keung, the respondent pleaded
M guilty to money laundering charge which involved depositing football bets M
he had received from clients into bank accounts. There were 2,222
N N
withdrawals and 1,696 deposits for a total amount of about $14 million
O within a period of 7 years. The laundering operation was however simple O
and without a syndicate. It was held that the starting point should not be
P P
less than 4 years.
Q Q
25. I consider that despite the amount of money being
R R
substantially less, and the duration much shorter, than those in Wan Kwok
S Keung, the present case has an international element, involving more S
parties, and is a more sophisticated crime requiring lots of planning. I am
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
therefore of the view that the present case is in nature more serious than
C Wan Kwok Keung. C
D D
26. I have considered the above factors, the guilty plea and clear
E record of D1, as well as all mitigating factors. I find that for the very large E
amount of money involved (around HK$6,600,000), as well as the scale
F F
and degree of planning and the presence of the international element
G aggravating feature, the starting point of 51 months’ imprisonment is G
appropriate.
H H
I Giving Evidence for the Prosecution I
J J
27. D1 had been called as a witness for the Prosecution in the trial
K of D2 and D3. Despite the acquittal of D2 and D3, D1’s evidence had been K
accepted by the Court. In considering the degree of discount to be given
L L
to D1 for her assistance to the Prosecution, I have considered Z v HKSAR
M (2007) 10 HKCFAR 18, the importance of her evidence in the trial, and M
that the Court had accepted her evidence. The Court will allow a 50%
N N
discount in sentence, which already includes the 30% discount for her
O guilty plea. O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Delay
C C
28. Defence submits that there has been a substantial delay since
D D
D1’s arrest to her plea of guilty. The important parts of the Chronologies
E presented by the Prosecution and Defence in the Written Mitigation E
includes:
F F
G (a) D1 was arrested on 15 May 2019; G
H H
(b) Covering report to Department of Justice on 21 May
I 2021; I
J (c) Legal advice from Department of Justice on 9 June J
2022;
K K
L (d) Charge dated on 18 August 2022; L
M M
(e) The first mention date in District Court was held on 27
N October 2022; N
O O
(f) D1 indicated guilty plea and intention to provide
P assistance by writing to the Prosecution on 16 P
November 2022;
Q Q
R (g) On 28 February 2023, D1 indicated her guilty plea in R
Court, and plea and sentence for D1 and trial for D2 and
S S
D3 were fixed for 24 January 2024;
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
(h) D1 thereafter gave 2 NPS on 28 April 2023 and 18
C January 2024; C
D D
(i) D1 pleaded guilty on 24 January 2024. Adjournment
E application made by Prosecution was granted; E
F (j) Translation and certification of 7,000 pages of F
WhatsApp records and bankers’ Affirmation ready in
G G
end of January 2024 ongoing contact with Danish
H witness; H
I I
(k) Case was heard for mention, and the trial of D2 and D3
J was refixed to 17 March 2025; and J
K K
(l) D1 was convicted upon pleading guilty to the Charge
L and admitting the Summary of Facts. The trial against L
D2 and D3 commenced, whereby D1 testified against
M M
D2 and D3.
N N
O
29. Defence submitted the authority of Chiu Chi Wing, CACC O
243/2012 on delay as mitigation. Seven factors were identified, even
P P
though they are not considered exhaustive or inflexible. The factors
Q relevant to the present case are: Q
R R
(a) Delay is not of itself a mitigating factor;
S S
(b) delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it has
T T
been caused by difficulties in detecting, investigating
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
or proving the offences committed by the offender, and
C the period of the delay is reasonable in the C
circumstances;
D D
E (c) delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it E
results from the normal operation of the criminal justice
F F
system, including delay as a result of the offender or a
G co-offender exercising his or her rights; G
H H
(d) delay may be conducive to the emergence of mitigating
I factors; for example, if, during the period of delay, the I
offender has made progress towards rehabilitation or
J J
other circumstances favourable to him or her having
K emerged; K
L L
(e) delay (not of the kind described in the paragraphs above)
M will ordinarily be a mitigating factor if the delay has M
resulted in significant stress for the offender or left him
N N
or her, to a significant degree, in ‘uncertain suspense’;
O and O
P P
(f) delay caused by dilatory or neglectful conduct by the
Q State, prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies Q
may result in a discount of the sentence that would
R R
otherwise be imposed on the offender, if the court
S thinks it is an appropriate means of marking its S
disapproval of the conduct in question.
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
30. Defence submits in the supplemental mitigation that from
C D1’s arrest to formal plea, it took 6 years, whereas in the first mitigation C
submitted, it was stated to be 4.5 years. It is believed that the discrepancy
D D
results from whether one counts the period until the first trial date when
E D1 pleaded guilty, or the refixed trial date when D1 pleaded guilty and was E
convicted. The Court believes that even considering the time from the first
F F
trial date until the refixed trial date in deciding whether there has been any
G delay, it is a result of the combination of the other Defendants exercising G
their right to contest the case, and the decision of D1 to testify against them.
H H
The refixing was due to the voluminous volume of documents required to
I be translated and certified, as well as the need for D1 to provide another I
much more detailed NPS, in light of the WhatsApp messages. These
J J
messages were only made available in December 2023 after the forensics
K division of the police made inspection of the mobile phones. K
L L
31. The Court also notes that D3 being the last Defendant to fall
M into the net, was arrested on 30 June 2020, over 1 year after D1 was arrested. M
The first mention date in District Court was 27 October 2022, roughly 2
N N
years and 4 months after D3 was arrested, which for a case with a predicate
O offence of email scam, although it did not involve a large number of O
remittances, is not unreasonable bearing in mind that investigation would
P P
have to be conducted with the overseas victim of different time zone, bank
Q documents would have to be obtained from 3 different banks on multiple Q
bank accounts, and that the case had to go through mention dates in the
R R
Magistracy before reaching the District Court. I find that there had not
S been any dilatory or neglectful conduct on the part of the authorities and S
the Prosecution to justify deduction in sentence. The time spent reflects
T T
the workings of a normal criminal justice system. I am also of the view
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
that whether the charge against D1 remained the same from start to finish,
C and whether D1 had made admissions in the VRI do not assist the claim C
for delay in this case.
D D
E 32. I am also of the view that the comparison of the duration of E
delay for other cases with vastly different backgrounds with the duration
F F
from arrest to plea in the present case is unhelpful for obviously reasons,
G as each case depends on its own facts. The period as stated is also merely G
one of the factors to be considered. For the above reasons, I find that there
H H
had not been any delay in this case.
I I
33. Assuming I was wrong about the lack of delay, the Court has
J J
been unable to find any rehabilitation progress of D1 on top of what had
K already been advanced in her mitigation of her obtaining a part time job. K
Therefore there is no ground for an additional discount for delay on this
L L
ground.
M M
34. I also find that there is no suggestion of substantial stress, or
N N
that D1 had been left in a state of ‘uncertain suspense’. Any Defendant
O facing punishment would face some degree of uncertainty, but that is not O
to say that every Defendant should be allowed a discount. The uncertainty
P P
D1 faced was whether her evidence would be accepted as useful by the
Q Court, and the sentence that would be imposed; and that more time is Q
needed before she would be sentenced pending her evidence against the
R R
co-accuseds. As D1 would have been given a discount in sentence for her
S assistance to the authorities, to make a further discount under this ground S
would cause an overlap. I am of the view that the meaning of ‘uncertain
T T
suspense’ does not cover the present situation of D1.
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
C 35. The legal principles stated in HKSAR v Lam Ka Sin [2021] C
HKCA 180 as cited by the Defence is accepted by the Court as correct. In
D D
that case, it had been confirmed that persons convicted of money
E laundering, even if they are first offenders, should be sentenced to a term E
of immediate imprisonment. There is no tariff for this type of case.
F F
G 36. It has also been stated that rehabilitation should be considered, G
and the offender must have shown that he has dissociated himself from his
H H
past wrongful conduct, and has committed himself to the future respect of
I the law. While this may appear vague, this Court is of the view that I
guidance should be sought from the facts of Lam Ka Sin. Care must be
J J
taken not to overemphasize rehabilitation without considering at the same
K time the sentencing object of deterrence which is important for this type of K
case.
L L
M 37. I find that the present case is however different in material M
respects from the case of Lam Ka Sin. In Lam Ka Sin, the appellant was
N N
forced to process a cheque through her bank account by someone who
O escorted her to the bank and waited outside while she dealt with the cheque. O
There was a fault on the face of the cheque and the transaction did not go
P P
through. She withdrew from the arrangement. It was a single transaction
Q that did not go through. In the present case, D1 not only did as requested Q
by reading the company documents and making the application to open
R R
bank account, she also handled the follow up and liaison matters with the
S bank. The conspiracy also lasted 6 months. S
T T
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
38. The appellant in Lam Ka Sin was 20 years old and from her
C psychological profile, vulnerable to influence of others. D1 in the present C
case was 20 years old at the time of offence, but there is no suggestion of
D D
her being vulnerable to influence. Her evidence indicated that she wanted
E to earn quick money due to her heavy debts, and she was given a free choice E
of whether to take the job. The impression given by her in the witness box
F F
does not suggest anyone who is vulnerable.
G G
39. Also in Leung Ka Sin, when considering the element of
H H
compassion in sentencing, came the fact that the birth of the appellant’s
I child 2.5 years after the offence and the departure of her boyfriend caused I
the appellant to make substantial change of her lifestyle. Even though D1
J J
in the present case had found a job that is legal, it is far from the degree of
K substantial change of lifestyle envisaged by the authority. K
L L
40. Based on the above analysis, there is no justification for the
M Court to reduce the sentence of D1 for delay, or to order suspended M
sentence or CSO due to exceptional circumstances.
N N
O Sentence O
P P
41. As I have adopted a starting point of 51 months’
Q imprisonment, by applying 50% sentencing discount, D1 is sentenced to Q
25 months and 15 days’ imprisonment.
R R
S S
( Peony Wong )
T T
Deputy District Judge
U U
V V