DCCC435/2025 HKSAR v. TSE YEE TING, JIMMY - LawHero
DCCC435/2025
區域法院（刑事）H.H. Judge G. Lam6/8/2025[2025] HKDC 1357
DCCC435/2025
由此
A A
B DCCC 435/2025 B
[2025] HKDC 1357
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO. 435 OF 2025 E
F
____________ F
G HKSAR G
v
H H
TSE Yee-ting, Jimmy
I ____________ I
J J
Before : H.H. Judge G. Lam
K Date : 7 August 2025 K
Present : Ms. Amanda Li, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR.
Mr. Johnny So instructed by M/s Mike So, Joseph
L L
Lau & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid,
for the defendant.
M M
Offence : Dealing with property known or believed to
represent proceeds of an indictable offence（處理
N 已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的 N
財產）
O O
P P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
R The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Money R
S laundering". In short, he lent his bank account to someone. S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
Summary of Facts
B B
C 2. The defendant was the holder of an account C
D (No.883000025477) with Airstar Bank, a virtual bank ("the Airstar D
E
Account"). A photograph of the defendant's Hong Kong Identity Card, 3 E
selfie photos of the defendant and the defendant's residential address were
F F
submitted to Airstar Bank in support of the online account opening
G G
application. The Airstar Account was opened on 18 December 2020.
H H
I I
Deception
J J
3. Between November 2020 and January 2021, PWs 1 to 5 were
K K
lured to a bogus online investment scheme "INGOTSEX". Wrongly
L L
believing that they could make some profits, PWs 1 to 5 injected funds into
M M
INGOTSEX by transferring money to several bank accounts (collectively
N N
"the 1st Layer Accounts"), which aggregated to a sum of $2,116,000. A sum
O O
of $1,852,800 was then transferred from the 1st Layer Accounts to the
P P
Airstar Account. When PWs 1 to 5 tried to withdraw their funds from the
Q websites of INGOTSEX, they could not do so. They went to the Police. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
Deposits and withdrawals
B B
C 4. Between 18 December 2020 and 9 February 2021, the Airstar C
D Account received a total of 416 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of D
E
$11,882,876. Of the 416 deposits, 21 were from the 1st Layer Accounts, E
which constituted 16.5% of the total sum of deposits in terms of monetary
F F
value. A total sum of $11,765,164 was withdrawn by 221 transactions.
G G
"Mirror patterns" of deposits and withdrawals were found.
H H
I I
Arrest
J J
5. The defendant was arrested on 17 February 2022. In his video
K K
recorded interview, he admitted, inter alia, that he is the person captured in
L L
the selfies submitted to Airstar Bank in connection with the opening of the
M M
Airstar Account. The photo of the Hong Kong Identity Card submitted to
N N
Airstar Bank was his own ID card. He claimed having no recollection if he
O O
had opened the Airstar Account. He was a decoration worker earning
P P
$15,000 per month.
Q Q
R 6. The defendant's income and tax records are not commensurate R
S
with the magnitude of the deposits received by the Airstar Account. S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
7. The defendant now admits that during the offence period, he,
B B
knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the total sum of
C C
$11,882,876 received by the Airstar Account, in whole or in part, directly or
D D
indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt with
E E
the said sum.
F F
G Mitigation & Sentence G
H H
8. The defendant is 44. He has 6 conviction records, none of
I I
which were related to "money laundering". Defence counsel Mr. So
J J
informed me that the defendant has a son (about 10 years old) with his
K K
ex-girlfriend. He married his wife in 2015. Prior to his arrest, he was living
L with another woman. He worked in the marble field earning about $25,000 L
M per month. In mitigation, Mr. So submitted that the defendant had no M
N knowledge of any predicate offence (i.e. the bogus investment scheme). He N
lent his bank account to someone and turned a blind eye to its operation.
O O
P P
9. The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant
Q Q
to section 27(2)(c) and (d) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance
R R
(Cap.455) on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm
S S
caused to the community. Mr. So did not object.
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
10. I bear in mind the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Xu
B B
Mai Qing CACC 464/2005, whereas Yeung JA (as he then was) held "Under
C C
section 27(11) of OSCO, what the prosecution has to prove is the prevalence
D D
of the offence, not the increase in the number of such offences1."
E E
F F
11. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 14 April
G 2025. I am satisfied that in 2021, deception-related money laundering cases G
H were prevalent in Hong Kong in terms of the number of cases as well as the H
I total value of monetary loss. I
J J
12. There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money
K K
laundering using bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" is still widespread
L L
and commonly being practised in Hong Kong today. What true criminals
M M
need are gullible scapegoats like the defendant in the present case who
N N
would take the blame for them when the law enforcement takes action. The
O O
court must send a clear message to the general public that people who play
P P
the role of "ML Stooge" will receive severe punishment, so that there is a
Q deterrent effect. When there are fewer or no willing "ML Stooges", the Q
R criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts would fail. R
S S
T T
1
Paragraph 16 on p.4 of the judgment.
U U
V V
由此
- 6 -
A A
13. This is a typical case of money laundering by way of a stooge
B B
bank account. The defendant claimed complete ignorance of the investment
C C
scam against PWs 1 to 5; however, such a scam would have been
D D
meaningless without his bank account. Assuming what the defendant said is
E E
true, given his role, the total sum which went through the Airstar Account
F F
and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will
G enhance the sentence by 25%. G
H H
14. The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1
I I
HKLRD 201 held :-
J J
Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly
K K
reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained
by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove
L L
the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may
M not be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are M
in fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black
N money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking, N
kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes,
O O
etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted
P
upward.2 P
Q Q
15. In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded
R R
myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010]
S S
5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have
T T
2
Paragraphs 12 and 13, pp 204-205.
U U
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
also borne in mind the amount of money involved, the duration of the
B B
offence, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as
C C
his personal circumstances.
D D
E E
16. In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P
F F
held :-
G G
Generally speaking, the sentence passed in a "money laundering" case is
primarily to reflect the amount of the "illicit/black money" involved.
H H
Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money" was actually not derived from
I an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of I
the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…3
J J
K K
17. I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i) except the $2.1
L L
million odd from PWs 1 to 5, the funds received by the Airstar Account
M M
were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) the defendant was involved in
N N
or had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of the
O O
Airstar Account, the defendant should have retained its ultimate control and
P paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis. P
Q Q
R
18. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that a total sum of R
$11.8 million odd went through the Airstar Account within a period of less
S S
T T
3
Paragraph 44, p 114.
U U
V V
由此
- 8 -
A A
than 2 months. By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing
B B
funds of unknown origins to pass through the Airstar Account, the defendant
C C
played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to
D D
access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.
E E
F F
19. I consider a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment appropriate
G and just4. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 40 months. G
H Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further H
I reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the sentence becomes 50 months. I
J J
20. I am aware of the "assistance to authority" issue raised by Mr.
K K
So. The defendant has given a non-prejudicial statement to the Police;
L L
however, the information provided by him was considered to be of no
M M
practical use. I am prepared to grant a nominal discount of 1 month to
N N
reflect the defendant's willingness to assist the Police. I sentence him to 49
O O
months' imprisonment.
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T 4
According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point could be over 5 years where the "black T
money" is above $10 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)
U U
V V
由此
- 9 -
A A
Overall sentence
B B
C 21. Moments ago, I have just sentenced the defendant to 44 C
D months' imprisonment in DCCC 348/2024. He committed the present D
E
"money laundering" offence almost 2 years before he committed the E
"Robbery" offence in DCCC 348/2024. Both cases have nothing in
F F
common and are separate and distinct. Notwithstanding the totality
G G
principle, I order 28 months in the present case to run consecutive to the
H H
sentence in DCCC 348/2024. In other words, the total prison term for both
I I
cases is 72 months.
J J
K K
L L
(G. Lam)
M District Judge M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
A A
B DCCC 435/2025 B
[2025] HKDC 1357
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO. 435 OF 2025 E
F
____________ F
G HKSAR G
v
H H
TSE Yee-ting, Jimmy
I ____________ I
J J
Before : H.H. Judge G. Lam
K Date : 7 August 2025 K
Present : Ms. Amanda Li, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR.
Mr. Johnny So instructed by M/s Mike So, Joseph
L L
Lau & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid,
for the defendant.
M M
Offence : Dealing with property known or believed to
represent proceeds of an indictable offence（處理
N 已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的 N
財產）
O O
P P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
R The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Money R
S laundering". In short, he lent his bank account to someone. S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
Summary of Facts
B B
C 2. The defendant was the holder of an account C
D (No.883000025477) with Airstar Bank, a virtual bank ("the Airstar D
E
Account"). A photograph of the defendant's Hong Kong Identity Card, 3 E
selfie photos of the defendant and the defendant's residential address were
F F
submitted to Airstar Bank in support of the online account opening
G G
application. The Airstar Account was opened on 18 December 2020.
H H
I I
Deception
J J
3. Between November 2020 and January 2021, PWs 1 to 5 were
K K
lured to a bogus online investment scheme "INGOTSEX". Wrongly
L L
believing that they could make some profits, PWs 1 to 5 injected funds into
M M
INGOTSEX by transferring money to several bank accounts (collectively
N N
"the 1st Layer Accounts"), which aggregated to a sum of $2,116,000. A sum
O O
of $1,852,800 was then transferred from the 1st Layer Accounts to the
P P
Airstar Account. When PWs 1 to 5 tried to withdraw their funds from the
Q websites of INGOTSEX, they could not do so. They went to the Police. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
Deposits and withdrawals
B B
C 4. Between 18 December 2020 and 9 February 2021, the Airstar C
D Account received a total of 416 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of D
E
$11,882,876. Of the 416 deposits, 21 were from the 1st Layer Accounts, E
which constituted 16.5% of the total sum of deposits in terms of monetary
F F
value. A total sum of $11,765,164 was withdrawn by 221 transactions.
G G
"Mirror patterns" of deposits and withdrawals were found.
H H
I I
Arrest
J J
5. The defendant was arrested on 17 February 2022. In his video
K K
recorded interview, he admitted, inter alia, that he is the person captured in
L L
the selfies submitted to Airstar Bank in connection with the opening of the
M M
Airstar Account. The photo of the Hong Kong Identity Card submitted to
N N
Airstar Bank was his own ID card. He claimed having no recollection if he
O O
had opened the Airstar Account. He was a decoration worker earning
P P
$15,000 per month.
Q Q
R 6. The defendant's income and tax records are not commensurate R
S
with the magnitude of the deposits received by the Airstar Account. S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
7. The defendant now admits that during the offence period, he,
B B
knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the total sum of
C C
$11,882,876 received by the Airstar Account, in whole or in part, directly or
D D
indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt with
E E
the said sum.
F F
G Mitigation & Sentence G
H H
8. The defendant is 44. He has 6 conviction records, none of
I I
which were related to "money laundering". Defence counsel Mr. So
J J
informed me that the defendant has a son (about 10 years old) with his
K K
ex-girlfriend. He married his wife in 2015. Prior to his arrest, he was living
L with another woman. He worked in the marble field earning about $25,000 L
M per month. In mitigation, Mr. So submitted that the defendant had no M
N knowledge of any predicate offence (i.e. the bogus investment scheme). He N
lent his bank account to someone and turned a blind eye to its operation.
O O
P P
9. The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant
Q Q
to section 27(2)(c) and (d) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance
R R
(Cap.455) on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm
S S
caused to the community. Mr. So did not object.
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
10. I bear in mind the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Xu
B B
Mai Qing CACC 464/2005, whereas Yeung JA (as he then was) held "Under
C C
section 27(11) of OSCO, what the prosecution has to prove is the prevalence
D D
of the offence, not the increase in the number of such offences1."
E E
F F
11. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 14 April
G 2025. I am satisfied that in 2021, deception-related money laundering cases G
H were prevalent in Hong Kong in terms of the number of cases as well as the H
I total value of monetary loss. I
J J
12. There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money
K K
laundering using bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" is still widespread
L L
and commonly being practised in Hong Kong today. What true criminals
M M
need are gullible scapegoats like the defendant in the present case who
N N
would take the blame for them when the law enforcement takes action. The
O O
court must send a clear message to the general public that people who play
P P
the role of "ML Stooge" will receive severe punishment, so that there is a
Q deterrent effect. When there are fewer or no willing "ML Stooges", the Q
R criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts would fail. R
S S
T T
1
Paragraph 16 on p.4 of the judgment.
U U
V V
由此
- 6 -
A A
13. This is a typical case of money laundering by way of a stooge
B B
bank account. The defendant claimed complete ignorance of the investment
C C
scam against PWs 1 to 5; however, such a scam would have been
D D
meaningless without his bank account. Assuming what the defendant said is
E E
true, given his role, the total sum which went through the Airstar Account
F F
and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will
G enhance the sentence by 25%. G
H H
14. The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1
I I
HKLRD 201 held :-
J J
Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly
K K
reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained
by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove
L L
the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may
M not be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are M
in fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black
N money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking, N
kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes,
O O
etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted
P
upward.2 P
Q Q
15. In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded
R R
myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010]
S S
5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have
T T
2
Paragraphs 12 and 13, pp 204-205.
U U
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
also borne in mind the amount of money involved, the duration of the
B B
offence, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as
C C
his personal circumstances.
D D
E E
16. In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P
F F
held :-
G G
Generally speaking, the sentence passed in a "money laundering" case is
primarily to reflect the amount of the "illicit/black money" involved.
H H
Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money" was actually not derived from
I an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of I
the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…3
J J
K K
17. I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i) except the $2.1
L L
million odd from PWs 1 to 5, the funds received by the Airstar Account
M M
were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) the defendant was involved in
N N
or had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of the
O O
Airstar Account, the defendant should have retained its ultimate control and
P paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis. P
Q Q
R
18. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that a total sum of R
$11.8 million odd went through the Airstar Account within a period of less
S S
T T
3
Paragraph 44, p 114.
U U
V V
由此
- 8 -
A A
than 2 months. By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing
B B
funds of unknown origins to pass through the Airstar Account, the defendant
C C
played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to
D D
access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.
E E
F F
19. I consider a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment appropriate
G and just4. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 40 months. G
H Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further H
I reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the sentence becomes 50 months. I
J J
20. I am aware of the "assistance to authority" issue raised by Mr.
K K
So. The defendant has given a non-prejudicial statement to the Police;
L L
however, the information provided by him was considered to be of no
M M
practical use. I am prepared to grant a nominal discount of 1 month to
N N
reflect the defendant's willingness to assist the Police. I sentence him to 49
O O
months' imprisonment.
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T 4
According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point could be over 5 years where the "black T
money" is above $10 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)
U U
V V
由此
- 9 -
A A
Overall sentence
B B
C 21. Moments ago, I have just sentenced the defendant to 44 C
D months' imprisonment in DCCC 348/2024. He committed the present D
E
"money laundering" offence almost 2 years before he committed the E
"Robbery" offence in DCCC 348/2024. Both cases have nothing in
F F
common and are separate and distinct. Notwithstanding the totality
G G
principle, I order 28 months in the present case to run consecutive to the
H H
sentence in DCCC 348/2024. In other words, the total prison term for both
I I
cases is 72 months.
J J
K K
L L
(G. Lam)
M District Judge M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V