區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Casewell17/9/2025[2025] HKDC 1603
DCCC1064/2024
DCCC 1064/2024
[2025] HKDC 1603
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1064 OF 2024
------------------
HKSAR
v
CHAN MANG HO
------------------
Before: Deputy District Judge Casewell
Date: 18 September 2025
Present: Mr Ryan Wong, Public Prosecutor of the Department of Justice,
for HKSAR
Mr Terry Kan, instructed by Eli K.K. Tsui & Co, assigned by
DLA, for the defendant
Offences: [1] and [2] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
proceeds of an indictable offence（ 處理已知道或相信為代表從可公
訴罪行的得益的財產 ）
-------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
-------------------------------------
1. The defendant, Mr Chan, has entered pleas of guilty on two charges
today. Both the charges deal with the offence of dealing with property known or
believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence which is contrary to
Section 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.
- 2 -
2. As far as the details of those charges are concerned, they both relate to
bank accounts held by the defendant and the 1st charge the overall total of money
involved or “black money” as it is referred to is $3,899,938 and that money was in
the accounts between the dates of 7 April 2021 and 25 August 2022.
3. As far as the 2nd charge is concerned, the overall figure is $2,788,869
with that money passing through that account between 26 September 2022 and 29
September 2023 meaning there is an overall period of time in respect of the both
accounts of between 7 April 2021 and 29 September 2023. The overall global total
of monies involved is $6,688,807.
4. The facts that the defendant has agreed to are straightforward. He
admits that he is the account holder of both accounts which in the facts are described
as “Account A” and “Account B”. He was the sole signatory of both those accounts
“A” and “B”.
5. During the financial years when the money was passing through that
account, that is between 2018 and 2022, there would have been no tax records of the
defendant in those financial years and he was reported to be employed as a Personal
Trainer earning $3,165 for the financial year of 2020/2021 and a Chef and Delivery
Assistant earning $4,563 for the financial year of 2022/2023.
6. The facts set out an analysis of the details of Account A and Account
B between the relevant dates show a large number of transactions of money entering
and leaving those accounts consistent with what is described as a “mirroring pattern”
and consistent with a finding that the monies were in fact be used for the purpose of
money laundering and on that basis I found that the charges are proved against the
defendant.
- 3 -
7. The defendant did provide a record of interview and a statement under
caution in which he admitted those accounts “A” and “B” were solely used by him.
He had never lent, he said, the accounts to others. The accounts were used mainly
for the transfer of money to an online gambling platform for a friend.
8. The defendant’s personal record shows him to be at the time when the
antecedent statement was compiled he was 37 years of age. He has a number of
previous convictions, none of them are similar and none of them are relevant to
sentence in respect of the case today.
9. The defendant worked as a Personal Trainer and in Logistics and on a
seafood stall.
10. As far as the mitigation advanced by him, based on his personal details
he is said to be 37 years old, parents aged 71 and 69, both retired. Education up to
Form 3 level. The main mitigation put in submission for this defendant is his plea
of guilty. He said he did not know the source of the black money and there is no
evidence of any international element involved in the case.
11. It said the defendant played a minor role in the present case. He is
what described as “stooge” or “money mule” and did not on the face of it receive
any remuneration. He is said to be remorseful. He asks for the court to give him
a chance, promises not to reoffend, wishes to serve his sentence as soon as possible
so that he can take care of his parents.
12. Another factor in sentencing today is that the fact that the prosecution
are applying for an enhancement of this sentence. That enhancement has been
made under Section 27(2) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.
Notice of intention to furnish information was filed on 30 August 2024 and served
on the defendant on 3 September 2024. The prosecution has in pursuit of that
furnished a witness statement of a Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam of the Hong Kong
- 4 -
Police Force containing information relating both to the prevalence of the offence
and the nature and extent of harm caused to the community by recent occurrence of
the specified offence. It deals with what is described as “stooge” accounts and the
defendant’s use of Account A and B fall into the category of “stooge account”.
13. It is my understanding from the mitigation of the defendant that he does
not oppose the enhancement of sentence. Clearly, their grounds are made out in
the course of Chief Inspector Li’s statement that would justify the court in an
enhancement of his sentence and I find that to be the case here.
14. I am dealing with the principles that are to be applied for money
laundering. There are a number of cases that I am referred to. These generally
are the cases that are considered to set out the principles of money laundering. The
cases themselves are HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and the case of
HKSAR v Boma which is at [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. The general overall effect is that
there is no sentencing guideline for this particular offence. The main sentencing
factor for the court is the amount of what is described as “black money” involved in
the individual cases. The court must also consider as sentencing factors:
- Where the defendant knew what the predicate provisional offence was from
which the money was being laundering;
- Whether there is an international element;
- Whether the offence involves the elaborate steps, schemes or fraudulent
measures;
- Whether there is a criminal syndicate;
- The number of transactions and the length of time during which the offences
were committed;
- Whether the defendant continued to launder money after knowing the nature
of the predicate offence; and
- The role and remuneration of the defendant.
- 5 -
15. In this case, there is not said to be or found to be any international
element on the basis of the facts that have been agreed. The total sum involved is
$6,688,807 in the two charges and the length of time over which the offences were
committed was something in the region of two years. These appear to be the main
factors to take into account in determining the level of sentence.
16. Although there are no guidelines as to the length of sentence to be
imposed, the case that I have already referred to, HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi, contains a
review of previous sentencing and that review shows that the sentencing starting
point for money laundering cases is 3 years or so where the black money involved
is said to be between $1 million and $2 million, 4 years or so where it is between $3
million and $6 million and it could be over 5 years where it is above $10 million.
As I said, this is not a guideline but is simply a review of earlier cases. On this
basis, the overall starting point before enhancement of sentence for this defendant
would lie in the range of somewhere around about 4 years’ imprisonment.
17. Now I bear in mind the defendant is still relatively young, he has no
similar convictions so he can, as it were, start his life again after he completes the
prison sentence for being involved for this matter and it would appear aside from the
question of enhancement of sentence the overall starting point to be considered in a
case such as this would be around about 4 years’ imprisonment.
18. There are two charges and I must necessarily pass the correct sentence
on each charge and then deal with the question of overall totality by ordering the
sentences to be run consecutively or concurrently in whole or in part. The offences
are obviously in respect of two different accounts and can be served consecutively
if necessary. I will simply deal with the starting points of sentence and then the
question of enhancement afterwards.
19. Now the level of sentence on the 1st charge, and with regards to the
factors I have already set out should be a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.
- 6 -
After deduction for the defendant’s plea of guilty, he is entitled to a one-third
discount, that would lead to a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment.
20. I must deal with the question of enhancement at this stage in respect of
the 1st charge. The defendant does not challenge the fact that enhancement is
appropriate. I consider a 25 per cent enhancement to be the proper level of
enhancement in this case. That would lead to an overall sentence on the 1st charge
of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment or 30 months.
21. On the 2nd charge, I consider the starting point for sentence to be one of
2½ years’ imprisonment or 30 months’ imprisonment. That would be reduced to
20 months’ imprisonment after the defendant’s plea of guilty, and again, a further
enhancement of 25 per cent of that figure would lead to a sentence of 25 months’
imprisonment.
22. To take the question of the overall totality of sentence, I consider the
overall total sentence on both charges should be a sentence of 40 months’
imprisonment. I will achieve that by ordering that 10 months of charge 2 be served
consecutively to charge 1, leading to an overall sentence of 40 months’
imprisonment.
(Casewell)
Deputy District Judge
DCCC 1064/2024
[2025] HKDC 1603
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1064 OF 2024
------------------
HKSAR
v
CHAN MANG HO
------------------
Before: Deputy District Judge Casewell
Date: 18 September 2025
Present: Mr Ryan Wong, Public Prosecutor of the Department of Justice,
for HKSAR
Mr Terry Kan, instructed by Eli K.K. Tsui & Co, assigned by
DLA, for the defendant
Offences: [1] and [2] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
proceeds of an indictable offence（ 處理已知道或相信為代表從可公
訴罪行的得益的財產 ）
-------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
-------------------------------------
1. The defendant, Mr Chan, has entered pleas of guilty on two charges
today. Both the charges deal with the offence of dealing with property known or
believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence which is contrary to
Section 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.
- 2 -
2. As far as the details of those charges are concerned, they both relate to
bank accounts held by the defendant and the 1st charge the overall total of money
involved or “black money” as it is referred to is $3,899,938 and that money was in
the accounts between the dates of 7 April 2021 and 25 August 2022.
3. As far as the 2nd charge is concerned, the overall figure is $2,788,869
with that money passing through that account between 26 September 2022 and 29
September 2023 meaning there is an overall period of time in respect of the both
accounts of between 7 April 2021 and 29 September 2023. The overall global total
of monies involved is $6,688,807.
4. The facts that the defendant has agreed to are straightforward. He
admits that he is the account holder of both accounts which in the facts are described
as “Account A” and “Account B”. He was the sole signatory of both those accounts
“A” and “B”.
5. During the financial years when the money was passing through that
account, that is between 2018 and 2022, there would have been no tax records of the
defendant in those financial years and he was reported to be employed as a Personal
Trainer earning $3,165 for the financial year of 2020/2021 and a Chef and Delivery
Assistant earning $4,563 for the financial year of 2022/2023.
6. The facts set out an analysis of the details of Account A and Account
B between the relevant dates show a large number of transactions of money entering
and leaving those accounts consistent with what is described as a “mirroring pattern”
and consistent with a finding that the monies were in fact be used for the purpose of
money laundering and on that basis I found that the charges are proved against the
defendant.
- 3 -
7. The defendant did provide a record of interview and a statement under
caution in which he admitted those accounts “A” and “B” were solely used by him.
He had never lent, he said, the accounts to others. The accounts were used mainly
for the transfer of money to an online gambling platform for a friend.
8. The defendant’s personal record shows him to be at the time when the
antecedent statement was compiled he was 37 years of age. He has a number of
previous convictions, none of them are similar and none of them are relevant to
sentence in respect of the case today.
9. The defendant worked as a Personal Trainer and in Logistics and on a
seafood stall.
10. As far as the mitigation advanced by him, based on his personal details
he is said to be 37 years old, parents aged 71 and 69, both retired. Education up to
Form 3 level. The main mitigation put in submission for this defendant is his plea
of guilty. He said he did not know the source of the black money and there is no
evidence of any international element involved in the case.
11. It said the defendant played a minor role in the present case. He is
what described as “stooge” or “money mule” and did not on the face of it receive
any remuneration. He is said to be remorseful. He asks for the court to give him
a chance, promises not to reoffend, wishes to serve his sentence as soon as possible
so that he can take care of his parents.
12. Another factor in sentencing today is that the fact that the prosecution
are applying for an enhancement of this sentence. That enhancement has been
made under Section 27(2) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.
Notice of intention to furnish information was filed on 30 August 2024 and served
on the defendant on 3 September 2024. The prosecution has in pursuit of that
furnished a witness statement of a Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam of the Hong Kong
- 4 -
Police Force containing information relating both to the prevalence of the offence
and the nature and extent of harm caused to the community by recent occurrence of
the specified offence. It deals with what is described as “stooge” accounts and the
defendant’s use of Account A and B fall into the category of “stooge account”.
13. It is my understanding from the mitigation of the defendant that he does
not oppose the enhancement of sentence. Clearly, their grounds are made out in
the course of Chief Inspector Li’s statement that would justify the court in an
enhancement of his sentence and I find that to be the case here.
14. I am dealing with the principles that are to be applied for money
laundering. There are a number of cases that I am referred to. These generally
are the cases that are considered to set out the principles of money laundering. The
cases themselves are HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and the case of
HKSAR v Boma which is at [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. The general overall effect is that
there is no sentencing guideline for this particular offence. The main sentencing
factor for the court is the amount of what is described as “black money” involved in
the individual cases. The court must also consider as sentencing factors:
- Where the defendant knew what the predicate provisional offence was from
which the money was being laundering;
- Whether there is an international element;
- Whether the offence involves the elaborate steps, schemes or fraudulent
measures;
- Whether there is a criminal syndicate;
- The number of transactions and the length of time during which the offences
were committed;
- Whether the defendant continued to launder money after knowing the nature
of the predicate offence; and
- The role and remuneration of the defendant.
- 5 -
15. In this case, there is not said to be or found to be any international
element on the basis of the facts that have been agreed. The total sum involved is
$6,688,807 in the two charges and the length of time over which the offences were
committed was something in the region of two years. These appear to be the main
factors to take into account in determining the level of sentence.
16. Although there are no guidelines as to the length of sentence to be
imposed, the case that I have already referred to, HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi, contains a
review of previous sentencing and that review shows that the sentencing starting
point for money laundering cases is 3 years or so where the black money involved
is said to be between $1 million and $2 million, 4 years or so where it is between $3
million and $6 million and it could be over 5 years where it is above $10 million.
As I said, this is not a guideline but is simply a review of earlier cases. On this
basis, the overall starting point before enhancement of sentence for this defendant
would lie in the range of somewhere around about 4 years’ imprisonment.
17. Now I bear in mind the defendant is still relatively young, he has no
similar convictions so he can, as it were, start his life again after he completes the
prison sentence for being involved for this matter and it would appear aside from the
question of enhancement of sentence the overall starting point to be considered in a
case such as this would be around about 4 years’ imprisonment.
18. There are two charges and I must necessarily pass the correct sentence
on each charge and then deal with the question of overall totality by ordering the
sentences to be run consecutively or concurrently in whole or in part. The offences
are obviously in respect of two different accounts and can be served consecutively
if necessary. I will simply deal with the starting points of sentence and then the
question of enhancement afterwards.
19. Now the level of sentence on the 1st charge, and with regards to the
factors I have already set out should be a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.
- 6 -
After deduction for the defendant’s plea of guilty, he is entitled to a one-third
discount, that would lead to a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment.
20. I must deal with the question of enhancement at this stage in respect of
the 1st charge. The defendant does not challenge the fact that enhancement is
appropriate. I consider a 25 per cent enhancement to be the proper level of
enhancement in this case. That would lead to an overall sentence on the 1st charge
of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment or 30 months.
21. On the 2nd charge, I consider the starting point for sentence to be one of
2½ years’ imprisonment or 30 months’ imprisonment. That would be reduced to
20 months’ imprisonment after the defendant’s plea of guilty, and again, a further
enhancement of 25 per cent of that figure would lead to a sentence of 25 months’
imprisonment.
22. To take the question of the overall totality of sentence, I consider the
overall total sentence on both charges should be a sentence of 40 months’
imprisonment. I will achieve that by ordering that 10 months of charge 2 be served
consecutively to charge 1, leading to an overall sentence of 40 months’
imprisonment.
(Casewell)
Deputy District Judge