區域法院（刑事）H.H. Judge G. Lam19/10/2025[2025] HKDC 1807
DCCC1324/2024
由此
A A
B DCCC 1324/2024 B
[2025] HKDC 1807
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1324 OF 2024 E
F
____________ F
G HKSAR G
v
H H
TSE Chi-lung
I ____________ I
J J
Before : H.H. Judge G. Lam
K Date : 20 October 2025 K
Present : Mr. Hanz Yong, PP, of the Department of Justice,
for HKSAR.
L L
Ms. Ophelia Yap instructed by M/s Cedric & Co.,
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
M M
defendant.
Offence : Dealing with property known or believed to
N 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
O 財產） O
P P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
R R
The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Money
S S
laundering". In short, he lent his bank account to someone.
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
Summary of Facts
B B
C 2. On 15 October 2020, the defendant opened an integrated bank C
D account (No.661-430272-833) with HSBC (the "Account"). He was its sole D
E
signatory. In the opening mandate, he claimed to be a police officer earning E
HK$30,000 to HK$39,000 per month.
F F
G G
Deception
H H
I 3. In late October 2020, an 82-year-old man ("the Victim") was I
J
deceived in an investment fraud. Between 28 October and 15 December J
2020, he deposited a total sum of HK$7,530,310 into 9 bank accounts. Of
K K
those deposits made by the Victim, a sum of US$100,000 was made (by
L L
transfer) to the Account on 4 November 2020; and another sum of
M M
US$100,000 on 12 November 2020.
N N
O O
4. Upon receiving each sum of US$100,000, the same amount
P P
was immediately transferred to the HKD savings sub-account of the
Q Account (in the sums of HK$810,955.64 and HK$780,848.34 respectively). Q
R The 2 sums in Hong Kong currency were then either transferred out of the R
S
Account or withdrawn in cash. S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
Deposits and withdrawals
B B
C 5. Between 23 October and 30 November 2020, the Account C
D received an aggregated sum of HK$6,966,955.67 in deposits. D
E
Simultaneously, withdrawals from the Account amounted to an aggregated E
sum of HK$6,966,955.78. The closing balance on 13 November 2020 was
F F
HK$0.11. Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals,
G G
the Police found a "mirror pattern" in those transactions, which is a typical
H H
indicator of money laundering.
I I
J J
Arrest
K K
6. The defendant was arrested on 11 February 2022. In his video
L L
recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he has been a cleaner since
M M
September 2021, earning HK$11,000 per month. He admitted the Account
N N
belonging to him, but alleged having lost his bank card in 2021. He did not
O O
report his loss.
P P
Q 7. The defendant's income and tax records are not commensurate Q
R with the magnitude of the deposits received by the Account. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
8. 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
HK$6,966,955.78 withdrawn from the Account, in whole or in part, directly
D D
or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt
E E
with the said sum.
F F
G Mitigation & Sentence G
H H
9. The defendant is 49 and has 2 conviction records, none related
I I
to "money laundering". Defence counsel Ms. Yap informed me that the
J J
defendant is married with a daughter (aged 10). He has worked as a cleaner
K K
for over 10 years. The defendant was diagnosed with schizoaffective
L disorder and depression in 2016. In mitigation, Ms. Yap submitted that L
M without realizing the seriousness of his act, the defendant accepted $1,000 M
N as a reward for opening the Account. He is truly remorseful. N
O O
10. The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant
P P
to section 27(2)(c) and (d) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance
Q Q
(Cap.455) on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm
R R
caused to the community. Ms. Yap did not object.
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
11. 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
12. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 22 September
G 2025. I am satisfied that in 2020, 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
13. 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
14. 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 the Victim; 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 Account and the
F F
overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance
G the sentence by 25%. G
H H
I 15. The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 I
J
HKLRD 201 held :- J
Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly
K K
reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained
L by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove L
the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may
M M
not be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are
in fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black
N N
money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking,
O kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes, O
etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted
P upward.2 P
Q Q
R
16. In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded R
myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010]
S S
T T
2
Paragraphs 12 and 13, pp 204-205.
U U
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have
B B
also borne in mind the amount of money involved, the duration of the
C C
offence, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as
D D
his personal circumstances.
E E
F F
17. In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P
G held :- G
H Generally speaking, the sentence passed in a "money laundering" case is H
primarily to reflect the amount of the "illicit/black money" involved.
I I
Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money" was actually not derived from
J an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of J
the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…3
K K
L L
18. I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i) except the 2
M M
sums of US$100,000 from the Victim, the funds received by the Account
N were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) the defendant was involved in N
O or had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of the O
P
Account, the defendant should have retained its ultimate control and paid P
attention to its transactions on a regular basis.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
3
Paragraph 44, p 114.
U U
V V
由此
- 8 -
A A
19. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that a total sum of
B B
HK$6.96 million odd went through the Account within a period of 1 month.
C C
By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of
D D
unknown origins to pass through the Account, the defendant played a
E E
pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access
F F
their illegal funds without revealing their identities.
G G
H 20. I consider a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment appropriate H
I and just4. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 32 months. I
J
Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further J
reduction. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 40
K K
months' imprisonment.
L L
M M
N N
(G. Lam)
O O
District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
4
According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point is 4 years or so where the "black
T money" involved is between $3 million and $6 million. The starting point could be over 5 years T
where the "black money" is above $10 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)
U U
V V
由此
A A
B DCCC 1324/2024 B
[2025] HKDC 1807
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1324 OF 2024 E
F
____________ F
G HKSAR G
v
H H
TSE Chi-lung
I ____________ I
J J
Before : H.H. Judge G. Lam
K Date : 20 October 2025 K
Present : Mr. Hanz Yong, PP, of the Department of Justice,
for HKSAR.
L L
Ms. Ophelia Yap instructed by M/s Cedric & Co.,
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
M M
defendant.
Offence : Dealing with property known or believed to
N 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
O 財產） O
P P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
R R
The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Money
S S
laundering". In short, he lent his bank account to someone.
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
Summary of Facts
B B
C 2. On 15 October 2020, the defendant opened an integrated bank C
D account (No.661-430272-833) with HSBC (the "Account"). He was its sole D
E
signatory. In the opening mandate, he claimed to be a police officer earning E
HK$30,000 to HK$39,000 per month.
F F
G G
Deception
H H
I 3. In late October 2020, an 82-year-old man ("the Victim") was I
J
deceived in an investment fraud. Between 28 October and 15 December J
2020, he deposited a total sum of HK$7,530,310 into 9 bank accounts. Of
K K
those deposits made by the Victim, a sum of US$100,000 was made (by
L L
transfer) to the Account on 4 November 2020; and another sum of
M M
US$100,000 on 12 November 2020.
N N
O O
4. Upon receiving each sum of US$100,000, the same amount
P P
was immediately transferred to the HKD savings sub-account of the
Q Account (in the sums of HK$810,955.64 and HK$780,848.34 respectively). Q
R The 2 sums in Hong Kong currency were then either transferred out of the R
S
Account or withdrawn in cash. S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
Deposits and withdrawals
B B
C 5. Between 23 October and 30 November 2020, the Account C
D received an aggregated sum of HK$6,966,955.67 in deposits. D
E
Simultaneously, withdrawals from the Account amounted to an aggregated E
sum of HK$6,966,955.78. The closing balance on 13 November 2020 was
F F
HK$0.11. Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals,
G G
the Police found a "mirror pattern" in those transactions, which is a typical
H H
indicator of money laundering.
I I
J J
Arrest
K K
6. The defendant was arrested on 11 February 2022. In his video
L L
recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he has been a cleaner since
M M
September 2021, earning HK$11,000 per month. He admitted the Account
N N
belonging to him, but alleged having lost his bank card in 2021. He did not
O O
report his loss.
P P
Q 7. The defendant's income and tax records are not commensurate Q
R with the magnitude of the deposits received by the Account. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
8. 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
HK$6,966,955.78 withdrawn from the Account, in whole or in part, directly
D D
or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt
E E
with the said sum.
F F
G Mitigation & Sentence G
H H
9. The defendant is 49 and has 2 conviction records, none related
I I
to "money laundering". Defence counsel Ms. Yap informed me that the
J J
defendant is married with a daughter (aged 10). He has worked as a cleaner
K K
for over 10 years. The defendant was diagnosed with schizoaffective
L disorder and depression in 2016. In mitigation, Ms. Yap submitted that L
M without realizing the seriousness of his act, the defendant accepted $1,000 M
N as a reward for opening the Account. He is truly remorseful. N
O O
10. The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant
P P
to section 27(2)(c) and (d) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance
Q Q
(Cap.455) on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm
R R
caused to the community. Ms. Yap did not object.
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
11. 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
12. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 22 September
G 2025. I am satisfied that in 2020, 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
13. 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
14. 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 the Victim; 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 Account and the
F F
overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance
G the sentence by 25%. G
H H
I 15. The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 I
J
HKLRD 201 held :- J
Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly
K K
reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained
L by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove L
the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may
M M
not be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are
in fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black
N N
money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking,
O kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes, O
etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted
P upward.2 P
Q Q
R
16. In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded R
myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010]
S S
T T
2
Paragraphs 12 and 13, pp 204-205.
U U
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have
B B
also borne in mind the amount of money involved, the duration of the
C C
offence, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as
D D
his personal circumstances.
E E
F F
17. In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P
G held :- G
H Generally speaking, the sentence passed in a "money laundering" case is H
primarily to reflect the amount of the "illicit/black money" involved.
I I
Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money" was actually not derived from
J an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of J
the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…3
K K
L L
18. I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i) except the 2
M M
sums of US$100,000 from the Victim, the funds received by the Account
N were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) the defendant was involved in N
O or had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of the O
P
Account, the defendant should have retained its ultimate control and paid P
attention to its transactions on a regular basis.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
3
Paragraph 44, p 114.
U U
V V
由此
- 8 -
A A
19. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that a total sum of
B B
HK$6.96 million odd went through the Account within a period of 1 month.
C C
By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of
D D
unknown origins to pass through the Account, the defendant played a
E E
pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access
F F
their illegal funds without revealing their identities.
G G
H 20. I consider a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment appropriate H
I and just4. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 32 months. I
J
Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further J
reduction. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 40
K K
months' imprisonment.
L L
M M
N N
(G. Lam)
O O
District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
4
According to Wan Kwok Keung (supra), the starting point is 4 years or so where the "black
T money" involved is between $3 million and $6 million. The starting point could be over 5 years T
where the "black money" is above $10 million. (See paragraph 15 of the judgment)
U U
V V