DCCC1134/2024

DCCC1134/2024

A A B B DCCC 1134/2024 C [2025] HKDC 1646 C D D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E CRIMINAL CASE NO 1134 OF 2024 F F G ----------------------------- G HKSAR H H v I RAI RAJ MANI I ----------------------------- J J K Before: Deputy District Judge M Chow K Date: 3 October 2025 L L Present: Ms Mo Kwok Ping Alison, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR M Mr Sherry Anthony James, instructed by Morley Chow Seto, M assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant N N Offence: [1] – [3] Dealing with property known or believed to represent O proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代 O P 表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) P Q Q ----------------------------------------- R REASONS FOR SENTENCE R ----------------------------------------- S S T T U U V V  -2- A A B B 1. The Defendant pleaded guilty to 3 charges of dealing with C property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, C contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes D D Ordinance, Cap. 455. E E Charge 1 (Welab Bank Limited) F F G 2. The offence dates were from 17 April 2022 to 26 June 2022 . G H H 3. The amount involved was HK$5,655,793.87. I I Charge 2 (Ant Bank Limited) J J K 4. The offence dates were from 17 April 2022 to 10 May 2022. K L L 5. The amount involved was HK$1,199,806.00. M M Charge 3 (Mox Bank Limited) N N O 6. The offence date were from 14 February 2022 to 27 June 2022. O P P 7. The amount involved was HK$1,386,655.72. Q Q Summary of facts R R S 8. In March 2022, PW1 was duped by an imposter who claimed S to be a staff from the Department of Health and alleged that she has been T T U U V V  -3- A A B B to a shopping mall which was a subject of a quarantine order. PW1 denied C being there. C D D 9. A few days later, the imposter claimed that he was an official E from Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau and accused PW1 involved E in some money laundering activities. F F G 10. In order to clear her name, the imposters asked PW1 to G disclose all her assets in the banks and to open two new accounts and to H H activate the online banking services by using the passwords provided by I the imposter. I J J 11. PW1 was asked to transfer HK$60,671,500 into the said K accounts. K L L 12. Subsequently, PW1 lost contact with the imposters and M realized she has been cheated and reported the matter to the police. M N N 13. Investigation revealed that PW1’s fund were transferred to 14 O stooge accounts between April 2022 to May 2022 by the imposters. O P P 14. Some of the funds as stated in the 3 charges were remitted to Q three different banks of charge 1, 2 and 3. Q R R 15. The Defendant was arrested on 25 May 2023. Under caution, S he admitted for selling his 3 accounts to “Ar Lum” for HK$4,500. He was S introduced to “Ar Lum” by a friend. T T U U V V  -4- A A B B 16. The Defendant opened the 3 accounts in the following dates :- C C (a) Charge 1 and 2 on 17 April 2022; D D E (b) Charge 3 on 14 Febuary 2022. E F F 17. At all material time, the Defendant has dealt with the funds in G these 3 accounts as the e-statement showed that there were interbank G transfer between the accounts and he was still in control of these accounts. H H I Background of the Defendant I J J 18. The Defendant has a clear record. He is 43 years old. He is K divorced. In June 2023, he was unemployed; he previously worked as a K part-time cleaner. He was introduced to “Ar Lum” by his friend. L L M Sentence M N N 19. The maximum sentence for money laundering offence is one O of 14 years’ imprisonment. O P P 20. The defence accepted that there is no sentencing guideline for Q this type of offence, but is aware of those sentencing factors to be Q considered as stated in the case of HKSAR v Hse Yu Yi1 and HKSAR v A R R 2 male known as BOMA AMASO . S S 1 HKSAR v. HSU YU YI [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 T T 2 HKSAR v. A male known as BOMA AMASO [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 U U V V  -5- A A B B C 21. As stated in the case of Secretary of Justice v Siu Yun Yee3 C that immediate custodial sentence for offences of money laundering are D D required for a first time offender. Obviously, money laundering is a serious E offence. E F F 22. In the present case :- G G (1) The period covered for each charge is as follows:- H H I (i) Charge 1 – 10 weeks4; I J J (ii) Charge 2 - just under a month5; K K (iii) Charge 3 - 4.5 months6. L L M (2) The total amount being laundered is about HK$8.3 M million :- N N O (i) Charge 1 – HK$5.7 million; O P P (ii) Charge 2 – HK$1.2 million; Q Q R R 3 SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SIU YUN YEE [2017] 3 HKLRD 678 S 4 S Between 17th day of April 2022 and 26th day of June 2022, both dates inclusive 5 Between 17th day of April 2022 and 10th day of May 2022, both dates inclusive T T 6 Between 14th day of February 2022 and 27th day of June 2022, both dates inclusive U U V V  -6- A A B B (iii) Charge 3 – HK$1.4 million. C C 23. The Defendant received a total of HK$4,500 as reward for D D opening the 3 accounts. E E 24. The nature of the predicate offence was those of telephone F F deception. There was no evidence to suggest that the Defendant was G involved or had any knowledge about the predicate offence. G H H 25. The role of the Defendant apart from opening the account, he I also dealt with the funds in the 3 accounts as the e-statement showed that I there were interbank transfer between the accounts and he was in control J J of these accounts. K K 26. As said in the judgement of Hsu Yu Yi :- L L M “The capability of the offences lies in the assistance, support and M encouragment offered to the commission of an indictable offence.” N N O 27. It was held in the case Boma that one of the sentencing factors O was the “black money” being laundered. P P Q 28. In Secretary of Justice v Wan Kwok Keung 7 , the Court of Q Appeal held that :- R R S “The starting point is 3 years years or so where the “black money” S involved is between $1 million and 2 million, 4 years or so where T T 7 SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WAN KWOK KEUNG [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 U U V V  -7- A A B it is between $3 million and $6 million and could be over 5 years B where it is above 10 million.” C C 29. With all these information in mind, I am of the view that the D D starting point for the individual charges should be as follow:- E E Charge Starting Point After 1/3 Discount F F 1 4.5 years 3 years G 2 2 years 16 months G 3 2 years 16 months H H I Enhancement I J J 8 30. The Prosecution seeks an enhancement of the sentence on the K K ground that this specific offence was prevalent and the nature and extend L of the harm have caused to the community. L M M 31. The defence resists such an application. N N 32. In support of his argument, Mr Sherry relied on Archbold O O 2025 at para 5-500 that the power to enhance sentence is extraordinary and P is an exceptional measure “to be used sparingly”. He also emphasized that P the power of enhancement should be exercised with restraint. Q Q R 33. The defence also referred to s.27(11) that it is not required R “automatically” to enhance the sentence as the Court has a discretionary S S power not to do so. T T 8 According to s.27(2), Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455. U U V V  -8- A A B B C C 34. s.27(11) reads as follows :- D D E “When it passes a sentence on the person for the relevant E specified offence and may, if it thinks fit, pass a sentence on the person for that offence that is more severe than the sentence it F would, in the absence of such matter, have passed.” F G 35. The defence submitted that :- G H H “In deciding whether it will enhance the sentence, the Court should go back and look again at what has been alleged in the I I summary of facts, and how they related to the limited role played by the defendant as passive second layer account holder, (this J has been considered in the starting point) who could never have J foreseen the extent of the offending for which he is now going to be punished.” K K L 36. The fact that the Defendant was ignorant of the seriousness of L the consequences of committing the present offence is not a justification to M M decline the prosecution’s application. N N 37. The defence also said that the sentence has already built into O O it a deterrent element, even without enhancement. P P 38. However as said in the HKSAR v Wang Quanwen9 :- Q Q R “The whole purpose of enhancement is to create a sentence R which contains additional elements of punishment and deterrence.” S S T T 9 HKSAR v Wang Quanwen (CACC 263/2024, 27 March 2015) U U V V  -9- A A B B C 39. In HKSAR v Li Kin Keung10, McWalters JJ said :- C D D “27. Enhancement of sentence is a power that is exercised by a court in response to information furnished to it under section E 27(2)(a) – (e). The purpose of the enhancement power, in terms E of sentencing principle, is to deter. Use of the enhancement power can only be justified where the information furnished to F the court establishes a need for a sentence containing a greater F level of general deterrence…” G G 40. Guidelines to consider the enhancement application can be H H found in Tam Wai Pio11, which set out in clear terms: I I “(1) (a) the appropriate starting point having regard to the part J played by the defendant, and J (b) the sentence that the court would have imposed K taking into account the defendant's mitigation and K totality; L L (2) whether the specified offence was an organized crime within the meaning of section 2 of the Ordinance; M M (3) whether the crime calls for an enhancement of the sentence N under the terms of section 27(11) having regard to the N information supplied by the prosecution to the court under section 27(2)(a) to (e) or section 27(8) or the general nature of O the organized crime itself; O (4) if enhancement is called for, the percentage increase by way P P of enhancement of the sentence.” Q Q 41. According to HKSAR v Wong Fung Ming and Another12 that R in determining the enhancement, the Court has to regard to whether the R S 10 S HKSAR v. LI KIN KEUNG [2012] 4 HKLRD 135 11 HKSAR v. TAM WAI PIO [1998] 2 HKLRD 949 T T 12 HKSAR v. WONG FUNG MING AND ANOTHER (CACC 515/2021, 5 December 2002) U U V V  - 10 - A A B B nature of offence is prevalent at the time of sentence in order to deter others C from committing similar offences. As such, the purpose of imposing an C enhanced sentence is to serve a deterrent effect in order to send such a D D strong message to the public. E E 42. Otherwise, it will definitely send a wrong message to the F F public especially those masterminds hide behind the scenes and continue G to recruit others to open more bank accounts to launder black money. G H H 43. The defence does not dispute that the nature of the present I offence is prevalent. I J J 44. As stated in para 18 of the statement that anti-money K laundering regime in Hong Kong is hampered by the prevalence of stooges K for money laundering activities as follows :- L L M “(a) There is a negative impact to the reputation of Hong Kong M as a well-known international financial hub. N (b) Because of the multiple layers of “shields” concealing the N identity of the masterminds, making it difficult for the police to O identify the mastermind behind the scheme. O (c) The increasing number of stooge accounts encourage more P crimes to be committed as the mastermind could easily get away P from being arrested. Q Q (d) That allow the culprit to make use of their ill-gotten gains to extend their sphere to engage in a wider range of illegal activities. R R (e) People with less awareness of the consequences of selling their bank accounts are more likely to fall prey to the traps set S S up by the culprit to surrender their account for reward.” T T U U V V  - 11 - A A B B 45. According to the data presented by Chief Inspector Li’s C statement, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the present offence C remains prevalent. I accept the Prosecution’s application. I also consider D D that an enhancement rate of 1/3 is appropriate. E E 46. The formula of the sentences of the present case is as F F follows :- G G Charge Starting 1/3 discount 1/3 enhancement Total H point rate H 1 4.5 years 36 months 12 months 48 months I I J J 2 2 years 16 months 5 months13 21 months (after round down) (6 months K consecutively to K charge 1) L 3 2 years 16 months 5 months 21 months L (after round down) (6 months M consecutively to M charge 1) N TOTAL: 60 months N O Totality O P P 47. I ordered 6 months each from charge 2 and 3 (total 12 months) Q to run consecutively to charge 1. The total sentence is 60 months’ 14 Q R imprisonment. R S S 13 16 x 1/3 = 5.3 (round down to 5 months) T T 14 48 + 12 U U V V  - 12 - A A B B 48. Finally, I refuse to exercise my discretion as request by the C defence for further deduction of sentence for his clear record because it has C all been considered in the 1/3 discount package from the starting point. D D E Order E F F 49. The Defendant is ordered to serve a period of 60 months’ G imprisonment. G H H I I ( M Chow ) J Deputy District Judge 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