區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge May Chung19/10/2025[2025] HKDC 1691
DCCC191/2023
A A
B DCCC 191/2023 B
[2025] HKDC 1691
C C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 191 OF 2023
F F
G ---------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
MOHAMMAD Liaqat
I I
----------------------
J J
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge May Chung
L Date: 20 Oct 2025 L
Present: Mr Jeevan Hingorani, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR
M M
Mr Wayne Walsh S.C. leading Mr Fergus Tam, instructed by Messrs
Mohnani & Associates, for the Defendant
N N
Offences: [1] & [2] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
O proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代表從可公 O
訴罪行的得益的財產)
P P
Q Q
--------------------------------------
R REASONS FOR VERDICT R
--------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
2
A A
B The charges and gist of the case B
C C
1. The Defendant (“D”) pleaded not guilty to two counts of “Dealing
D D
with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”,
E
contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, E
Cap. 455.
F F
G
2. The prosecution case is that between January 2016 and October 2018, G
D, having reasonable grounds to believe1 that the sums in two bank accounts
H H
(being, in charge 1, HK$10,308,458 in an HSBC bank account in D’s name (“D’s
I
HSBC Account”); and, in charge 2, HK$661,317.50 in a Hang Seng Bank account I
in D’s name (“D’s HS Account”)) in whole or in part represented the proceeds of
J J
an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.
K K
3. The prosecution submits that from the IRD records of D and also from
L L
three video-recorded interviews (“the 3 VRIs”) given voluntarily by D (P31 being
M the transcript of the 1st VRI, P33 being the transcript of the 2nd VRI and P35 being M
the transcript of the 3rd VRI), D only worked for Top Smart International Trading
N N
Limited (“Top Smart”) between fiscal years 2011/12 and 2017/18, and had a
O modest income. However, D’s HSBC Account records shows that the account was O
used as a money repository rather than a genuine personal bank account (i.e., there
P P
were numerous bank transactions, large in number and amounts between various
Q accounts (including D’s HSBC Account and Top Smart’s bank account), and sums Q
deposited into D’s HSBC account would be withdrawn / transferred away almost
R R
immediately); the account showed mirror pattern transactions in the offence period.
S As to D’s HS Account, the deposits and withdrawals fluctuated greatly in the S
offence period (the total deposits in 2016, 2017 and 2018 were $263,000, $63,106
T T
1
The prosecution at the outset confirmed it is only relying on the “reasonable grounds to believe” limb.
U U
V V
3
A A
B and $1,009,011, respectively); this account also showed mirror pattern B
transactions. The prosecution asserts that D had reasonable grounds to believe
C C
these funds represented the proceeds of an indictable offence and he still dealt with
D them. D
E E
4. D’s case is that all the sums deposited and withdrew were for
F legitimate purposes, e.g., for mobile phone business conducted on behalf of Top F
Smart or other entities, payments for his wife’s cake business, expenses related to
G G
the Pakistan Islamic Welfare Union (“the Union”) (of which he was chairman), for
H everyday purposes and expenses, etc. H
I I
5. The documents in the prosecution case were not in dispute and
J produced by agreement.2 It was admitted pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal J
Procedures Ordinance, Cap 221 that D gave the 3 VRIs voluntarily, that he was
K K
arrested on 9 June 2022, and that he has a clear record (P1 and P1A).
L L
The prosecution case
M M
N 6. The prosecution only called the investigation officer (WSGT 7508) N
(“PW1”) to give evidence.3
O O
P 7. PW1’s evidence was that she took over the case on 6 March 2019, and P
thereafter used bank statements and vouchers etc to construct tables regarding fund
Q Q
flow (being P3-5 for D’s HSBC account; P6-8 for D’s HS Account). PW1 also
R conducted the 3 VRIs with D. During cross-examination, she was asked about the R
details of the fund flow tables and D’s answers and attitude during the 3 VRIs;
S S
PW1 confirmed that D was cooperative during the interviews. PW1 admitted that
T T
2
See the Bundle of Documentary Exhibits.
U U
V V
4
A A
B during the 3 VRIs when D was asked about the various transactions in the two B
bank accounts, the police had not obtained information about most of the
C C
counterparties of the transactions (and could not provide such information to D);
D the police had not asked the bank for the information, nor checked any CCTV D
footage with regard to ATM withdrawals/deposits, nor had any search warrant
E E
been executed in relation to Top Smart. PW1 left the team in charge of this case in
F January 2021 and did not know if there had been any follow-up work done by F
others in relation to the case (including obtaining the information of the
G G
4
counterparties of the transactions) after her departure .
H H
The defence case
I I
J 8. After the prosecution closed its case, the defence made midway J
submissions. I considered the evidence presented by the prosecution and the
K K
submissions of parties, and ruled that there was a case to answer on both charges.
L D elected to give evidence and called Mr Waheed Abdul to testify as a defence L
witness.
M M
N 9. D gave evidence that he had arrived in Hong Kong from Pakistan in N
1995 when he married his wife (who is from Hong Kong). He had worked in the
O O
travel agency field, the auto industry, and later joined Top Smart in 2010. He
P joined the Union (which served the Pakistani and local communities, and held P
religious and cultural activities, with some activities funded by the Hong Kong
Q Q
Government) in around 2002, and he became the chairman in around 2012. D has
R received certificates, awards and recognition (including from the Chief Executive R
and the police) for his service and contribution to the community.5
S S
3
The prosecution did not rely on any expert evidence.
T 4
From the evidence presented by the prosecution, it seems no further investigation work was done for the case after T
PW1’s departure from the team in 2021.
5
See defence exhibits D1(1)-(17).
U U
V V
5
A A
B B
10. As to his work for Top Smart, D in essence gave evidence that the
C C
company (owned by Mr Mian) purchased second-hand mobile phones from
D overseas or local/Mainland companies and sold them to purchasers (some local, D
some overseas). D was involved in the purchasing part of the business but not in
E E
the selling of the phones. The business was very cash-heavy, and he would need to
F bring cash on behalf of the company to pay for the purchases – sometimes it would F
be cash from the office, and sometimes it would be money transferred into D’s
G G
account (via the ATM machine, by cash deposit, etc) to be withdrawn by him to
H make the payments. D was only told by Mr Mian that money would be / had been H
deposited for a certain purchase; the funds might come from bank accounts other
I I
than Top Smart’s (including the bank accounts of buyers of phones from Top
J Smart), but they were all arranged by Mr Mian. When asked why Mr Mian did not J
transfer the money directly to the seller, D stated that his team had to check the
K K
quality of the phones (and some phones in the batch might be rejected) before
L payment, so the amount that needed to be paid could not be finalised until after that L
had been done.
M M
N 11. As to the method of withdrawal of cash by D to pay for the phone N
purchases, D said that he sometimes did so at an ATM machine (with limit of
O O
$20,000 per transaction, $80,000 daily); if the amount was large, then he would go
P to the bank counter. P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
6
A A
B B
12. D also added that as some of the funds were from the buyers of
C C
phones, the amount deposited into his account might not match the amount for the
D next purchase. If he did not use up all the money transferred into his account for a D
certain purchase, he would sometimes use it for another assignment or transfer it
E E
back to Top Smart, or withdraw it and pay Mr Mian / Top Smart back in cash – all
F based on Mr Mian’s instructions. F
G G
13. There was a paper trail for all of these purchases/transactions, but the
H paperwork was kept by Top Smart (and D had left the company in early 2020). By H
the time of the 3 VRIs, D was no longer an employee of Top Smart and did not
I I
6
have access to such paperwork .
J J
14. D worked at Top Smart from 2010 to 2020; his salary was paid by
K K
transfers into his account or by cash, or by cash deposit into D’s account. As
L business was not as good since 2018, Mr Mian did not pay D regularly but in lump L
sums of $50,000 or $100,000 irregularly. Up until now, some salary is still owed.
M M
N 15. D also worked with Mr Waheed Abdul, the owner of Galaxy N
Wireless. The company was also in the second-hand mobile phone business
O O
(purchasing phones from countries like the US, France, etc). Sometimes Mr
P Waheed Abdul needed to make “TT” transfers to pay the suppliers, and D would P
help him do so. (Mr Waheed Abdul originally said he would pay D for that service,
Q Q
but in the end he did not pay D; D was willing to do so anyway because they were
R family friends belonging to the same hometown in Pakistan.) As to the money for R
these “TT” transfers, Mr Waheed Abdul would sometimes deposit money into D’s
S S
account, and would sometimes pay D in cash. The money was deposited on Mr
T T
6
As already stated above, the police did not execute any search warrant in relation to Top Smart.
U U
V V
7
A A
B Waheed Abdul’s instructions but were from different parties. Once there was B
enough money to send a “TT”, Mr Waheed Abdul would inform D, and D would
C C
send the money for the mobile phone order.
D D
16. D was asked to give interviews to the police under caution 3 times for
E E
this case. He cooperated every time. However, there was insufficient information
F provided by the police for the transactions (which happened some time ago) and he F
found it difficult during the interviews to give any details with the limited
G G
information provided by the police on the transactions. Subsequently, D himself
H went to the ATM machine to punch in the account number of the counterparty for H
each transaction (i.e., the depositor / receiver of money from D’s HS Account /
I I
HSBC Account) and was able to find out the partial names of most of these parties
J (the machine would display the name with some letters represented by asterisks, J
unless the account holder had blocked the information). The counterparty names in
K K
red on D8(64)-(91) were added to the fund flow tables (originally prepared by
L PW1) by the defence to show the information obtained by D using this method. L
From this additional counterparty information, D was able to explain the purpose
M M
of / reason for a large number of the transactions in his two accounts (which he had
N been unable to without the information during the interviews). N
O O
17. Mr Waheed Abdul gave evidence that he was the owner of Galaxy
P Wireless. He had known D for many years, and they were from the same P
hometown in Pakistan (Gujranwala). Mr Waheed Abdul had contracts with
Q Q
Chinese companies; he was the middleman helping these companies to place
R orders for second-hand phones with suppliers; these Chinese companies would pay R
the suppliers directly and no money would go through Mr Waheed Abdul’s
S S
account. However, Mr Waheed Abdul wanted to do a side business without letting
T the Chinese companies know. As such, he had asked D to help him send “TT” T
U U
V V
8
A A
B transfers to suppliers to purchase phones. Mr Waheed Abdul explained that he did B
not open a bank account for Galaxy Wireless to make the transfers because he
C C
wanted to keep this side business a secret from the Chinese companies; he also did
D not use his personal account for the same reason. D’s role had only been to arrange D
for transfer of funds to suppliers overseas, and the phones would be sent to Mr
E E
Waheed Abdul directly. D had only acted on Mr Waheed Abdul’s instructions on
F where to send the money. F
G G
18. D’s evidence (and the evidence from Mr Waheed Abdul, PW1 and
H documentary evidence) in relation to the transactions in D’s HSBC Account and H
D’s HS Account are accurately summarised in Part G and Part H, respectively, of
I I
D’s Closing Submissions dated 30 May 2025 (“D’s Closing”) and I do not intend
J to repeat the same here. J
K K
Directions
L L
19. The prosecution has the burden to prove for each charge the requisite
M M
elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. D has no burden of proof.
N N
20. I bear in mind D has no criminal conviction record when considering
O O
his credibility and propensity.
P P
21. There are two counts against D. I must consider each independently.
Q Q
R 22. D’s 3 VRIs under caution were admitted as evidence. They are mixed R
statements and consistent with D’s evidence in the box (save D was able to provide
S S
more information when he testified). The real issue thus becomes whether the court
T T
U U
V V
9
A A
B accepts D’s evidence. (HKSAR v Lo Wai Ming [2007] 3 HKLRD 191; R v Vu B
Trong Minh [1994] 1 HKC 161; HKSAR v Woo King Chi [2008] 3 HKLRD 326)
C C
D 23. In this case, the prosecution submits that the Court can draw the D
irresistible inference that D committed the offence in the two charges. I remind
E E
myself that if I am to draw an inference, the inference must be drawn from facts
F proved and that the inference must be the only reasonable inference to be drawn F
from the proved facts.
G G
H Legal principles H
I I
24. Section 25(1) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.
J 455 provides that: “Subject to section 25A, a person commits an offence if, J
knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that any property in whole or in
K K
part directly or indirectly represents any person’s proceeds of an indictable
L offence, he deals with that property.” L
M M
25. The prosecution confirmed that it is not relying on the “knowing”
N limb. N
O O
26. For the “reasonable grounds” limb, it is not necessary for the
P prosecution to prove, as an element of the offence, that the property dealt with by P
the defendant in fact represents the proceeds of an indictable offence: HKSAR v
Q Q
Yeung Ka Sing Carson (2016) 19 HKCFAR 279 at [28], [90].
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
10
A A
B B
27. The test for “having reasonable grounds to believe” as reformulated in
C C
HKSAR v Harjani Haresh Murlidhar (2019) 22 HKCFAR 446 at [26] is as
D follows: D
E (1) What facts or circumstances, including those personal to the E
defendant, were known to the defendant that may have affected
F F
his/her belief as to whether the property was the proceeds of
G crime (“tainted”)? G
H (2) Would any reasonable person who shared the defendant’s H
knowledge be bound to believe that the property was tainted?
I I
(3) If the answer to question (2) is “yes” the defendant is guilty. If
J J
it is “no” the defendant is not guilty.
K K
28. It is not the law that a defendant is entitled to be acquitted on the
L L
ground that he/she believed or may have believed that the property was not tainted.
M The court needs to apply the test of “reasonable grounds to believe” from the M
viewpoint of the defendant, having regard to all the facts and circumstances known
N N
to him/her. The defendant’s belief is relevant to the extent that it reveals facts and
O circumstances upon which the belief is based. However, the actual question to be O
answered is: on an objective basis, do these facts and circumstances (known to the
P P
defendant which may have affected his/her belief) establish “reasonable grounds to
Q believe” that the property is tainted.7 Q
R R
S S
T T
7
Harjani at [56].
U U
V V
11
A A
B Analysis and findings B
C C
29. Most of the prosecution case (as shown by documentary evidence)
D was not disputed by the defence. PW1’s evidence was not seriously challenged by D
the defence – cross-examination centred on taking PW1 through the fund flow
E E
tables she had put together and the various transactions contained therein. I am of
F the view that PW1 gave evidence to the best of her recollection, but she left the F
team in charge of this case and the investigation early on, and I agree with the
G G
defence submission that: “PW1’s ability to address certain issues was hampered by
H the way in which the investigation was conducted and the way in which her H
investigation was ended early.”8
I I
J 30. As to the defence evidence, I am of the view that D and Mr Waheed J
Abdul were honest witnesses who gave evidence to the best of their recollection
K K
regarding the events/transactions relevant to the case. Their evidence was
L consistent in material aspects on matters of which they both had knowledge. 9 The L
defence is able to provide documentary evidence in support of D’s evidence
M M
(including tax returns). As I have stated above, D is of clear record and his
N credibility and propensity have to be assessed in that light. D has provided N
numerous documents which show his positive good character – the evidence
O O
regarding his background (including the certificates/commendations awarded to
P him by the police and different government departments) is summarised accurately P
in para 29 of D’s Closing.
Q Q
R R
S S
T 8
Para 63 of D’s Closing. T
9
I accept the submission at para 22 et seq of D’s Closing that the court should take into account the passage of time
between the offence date and trial, and the effect of such on the memories of defence witnesses.
U U
V V
12
A A
B 31. On the evidence which is accepted by the court, the following facts / B
circumstances were known to D which may have affected his belief regarding
C C
whether the subject property in Charge 1 was tainted:
D D
(1) D’s background , including his involvement in the Union and
10
E E
his experience in the second-hand mobile phone business (in
F
particular, that it is cash-intensive, involving a lot of deposits F
and withdrawals (payments in and out) to conduct the
G G
business);
H H
(2) The transactions in D’s HSBC Account were mainly related to
I the second-hand mobile phone businesses of Top Smart and I
Galaxy Wireless;
J J
(3) D’s knowledge regarding the character of Top Smart’s boss, Mr
K K
11
Mian;
L L
(4) D’s knowledge regarding the business of Top Smart;12
M M
(5) Some of the deposits into the HSBC Account were salary from
N N
Top Smart, as reflected in tax returns;13
O O
(6) D’s knowledge of the business of Galaxy Wireless and of the
P character of Mr Waheed Abdul and their personal P
relationship;14
Q Q
R R
S S
10
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in paras 27-29 of D’s Closing.
11
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in para 34 of D’s Closing.
T 12
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in paras 35 and 36 of D’s Closing. T
13
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in paras 37 and 38 of D’s Closing.
14
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in paras 28(6), 41, 43-45 of D’s Closing.
U U
V V
13
A A
B (7) D’s knowledge regarding the $500,000 transaction involving B
Amandeep Kaur15 (being the cause triggering the investigation
C C
in this case);
D D
(8) D’s knowledge regarding the transactions in his HSBC Account
E E
as explained by him and accepted by the court.16
F F
32. On the evidence which is accepted by the court, the following facts /
G G
circumstances were known to D which may have affected his belief regarding
H
whether the subject property in Charge 2 was tainted: H
I (1) D’s background, as set out above in para 31; I
J (2) D’s use of his HS Account mostly for everyday purposes and J
expenses;
K K
L (3) D’s use of his HS Account once in a while for purposes related L
to Top Smart (and his relevant knowledge regarding Mr Mian
M M
and Top Smart, as set out above in para 31);
N N
(4) D’s knowledge of his wife’s cake business and that she would
O sometimes ask customers to deposit payment for such into D’s O
HS Account;17
P P
(5) D’s knowledge regarding the transactions in his HS Account as
Q Q
18
explained by him and accepted by the court.
R R
S S
15
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in para 75 of D’s Closing. There is no evidence in this case that
these funds were tainted / illegal.
T 16
See Part G of D’s Closing. T
17
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in para 54 of D’s Closing.
18
See Part H of D’s Closing.
U U
V V
14
A A
B 33. The question the court has to answer is: Would any reasonable person B
who shared D’s knowledge be bound to believe that the property for each charge
C C
was tainted?
D D
34. Given the evidence accepted by the court (including the evidence of D
E E
and the evidence of Mr Waheed Abdul), I am of the view that P has not proved that
F any reasonable person who shared D’s knowledge of the relevant facts and F
circumstances would be bound to believe that the property of either of the charges
G G
was tainted. I am of the view that a reasonable person would have the same beliefs
H and views as D in the circumstances – that the sums are for legitimate purposes and H
not tainted.
I I
J 35. Thus, for both charges, the answer is “no” to the question in para 33 J
above.
K K
L 36. In the premises, D is found not guilty of Charges 1 and 2. L
M M
N N
O O
( May Chung )
P Deputy District Judge P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B DCCC 191/2023 B
[2025] HKDC 1691
C C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 191 OF 2023
F F
G ---------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
MOHAMMAD Liaqat
I I
----------------------
J J
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge May Chung
L Date: 20 Oct 2025 L
Present: Mr Jeevan Hingorani, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR
M M
Mr Wayne Walsh S.C. leading Mr Fergus Tam, instructed by Messrs
Mohnani & Associates, for the Defendant
N N
Offences: [1] & [2] Dealing with property known or believed to represent
O proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代表從可公 O
訴罪行的得益的財產)
P P
Q Q
--------------------------------------
R REASONS FOR VERDICT R
--------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
2
A A
B The charges and gist of the case B
C C
1. The Defendant (“D”) pleaded not guilty to two counts of “Dealing
D D
with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”,
E
contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, E
Cap. 455.
F F
G
2. The prosecution case is that between January 2016 and October 2018, G
D, having reasonable grounds to believe1 that the sums in two bank accounts
H H
(being, in charge 1, HK$10,308,458 in an HSBC bank account in D’s name (“D’s
I
HSBC Account”); and, in charge 2, HK$661,317.50 in a Hang Seng Bank account I
in D’s name (“D’s HS Account”)) in whole or in part represented the proceeds of
J J
an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.
K K
3. The prosecution submits that from the IRD records of D and also from
L L
three video-recorded interviews (“the 3 VRIs”) given voluntarily by D (P31 being
M the transcript of the 1st VRI, P33 being the transcript of the 2nd VRI and P35 being M
the transcript of the 3rd VRI), D only worked for Top Smart International Trading
N N
Limited (“Top Smart”) between fiscal years 2011/12 and 2017/18, and had a
O modest income. However, D’s HSBC Account records shows that the account was O
used as a money repository rather than a genuine personal bank account (i.e., there
P P
were numerous bank transactions, large in number and amounts between various
Q accounts (including D’s HSBC Account and Top Smart’s bank account), and sums Q
deposited into D’s HSBC account would be withdrawn / transferred away almost
R R
immediately); the account showed mirror pattern transactions in the offence period.
S As to D’s HS Account, the deposits and withdrawals fluctuated greatly in the S
offence period (the total deposits in 2016, 2017 and 2018 were $263,000, $63,106
T T
1
The prosecution at the outset confirmed it is only relying on the “reasonable grounds to believe” limb.
U U
V V
3
A A
B and $1,009,011, respectively); this account also showed mirror pattern B
transactions. The prosecution asserts that D had reasonable grounds to believe
C C
these funds represented the proceeds of an indictable offence and he still dealt with
D them. D
E E
4. D’s case is that all the sums deposited and withdrew were for
F legitimate purposes, e.g., for mobile phone business conducted on behalf of Top F
Smart or other entities, payments for his wife’s cake business, expenses related to
G G
the Pakistan Islamic Welfare Union (“the Union”) (of which he was chairman), for
H everyday purposes and expenses, etc. H
I I
5. The documents in the prosecution case were not in dispute and
J produced by agreement.2 It was admitted pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal J
Procedures Ordinance, Cap 221 that D gave the 3 VRIs voluntarily, that he was
K K
arrested on 9 June 2022, and that he has a clear record (P1 and P1A).
L L
The prosecution case
M M
N 6. The prosecution only called the investigation officer (WSGT 7508) N
(“PW1”) to give evidence.3
O O
P 7. PW1’s evidence was that she took over the case on 6 March 2019, and P
thereafter used bank statements and vouchers etc to construct tables regarding fund
Q Q
flow (being P3-5 for D’s HSBC account; P6-8 for D’s HS Account). PW1 also
R conducted the 3 VRIs with D. During cross-examination, she was asked about the R
details of the fund flow tables and D’s answers and attitude during the 3 VRIs;
S S
PW1 confirmed that D was cooperative during the interviews. PW1 admitted that
T T
2
See the Bundle of Documentary Exhibits.
U U
V V
4
A A
B during the 3 VRIs when D was asked about the various transactions in the two B
bank accounts, the police had not obtained information about most of the
C C
counterparties of the transactions (and could not provide such information to D);
D the police had not asked the bank for the information, nor checked any CCTV D
footage with regard to ATM withdrawals/deposits, nor had any search warrant
E E
been executed in relation to Top Smart. PW1 left the team in charge of this case in
F January 2021 and did not know if there had been any follow-up work done by F
others in relation to the case (including obtaining the information of the
G G
4
counterparties of the transactions) after her departure .
H H
The defence case
I I
J 8. After the prosecution closed its case, the defence made midway J
submissions. I considered the evidence presented by the prosecution and the
K K
submissions of parties, and ruled that there was a case to answer on both charges.
L D elected to give evidence and called Mr Waheed Abdul to testify as a defence L
witness.
M M
N 9. D gave evidence that he had arrived in Hong Kong from Pakistan in N
1995 when he married his wife (who is from Hong Kong). He had worked in the
O O
travel agency field, the auto industry, and later joined Top Smart in 2010. He
P joined the Union (which served the Pakistani and local communities, and held P
religious and cultural activities, with some activities funded by the Hong Kong
Q Q
Government) in around 2002, and he became the chairman in around 2012. D has
R received certificates, awards and recognition (including from the Chief Executive R
and the police) for his service and contribution to the community.5
S S
3
The prosecution did not rely on any expert evidence.
T 4
From the evidence presented by the prosecution, it seems no further investigation work was done for the case after T
PW1’s departure from the team in 2021.
5
See defence exhibits D1(1)-(17).
U U
V V
5
A A
B B
10. As to his work for Top Smart, D in essence gave evidence that the
C C
company (owned by Mr Mian) purchased second-hand mobile phones from
D overseas or local/Mainland companies and sold them to purchasers (some local, D
some overseas). D was involved in the purchasing part of the business but not in
E E
the selling of the phones. The business was very cash-heavy, and he would need to
F bring cash on behalf of the company to pay for the purchases – sometimes it would F
be cash from the office, and sometimes it would be money transferred into D’s
G G
account (via the ATM machine, by cash deposit, etc) to be withdrawn by him to
H make the payments. D was only told by Mr Mian that money would be / had been H
deposited for a certain purchase; the funds might come from bank accounts other
I I
than Top Smart’s (including the bank accounts of buyers of phones from Top
J Smart), but they were all arranged by Mr Mian. When asked why Mr Mian did not J
transfer the money directly to the seller, D stated that his team had to check the
K K
quality of the phones (and some phones in the batch might be rejected) before
L payment, so the amount that needed to be paid could not be finalised until after that L
had been done.
M M
N 11. As to the method of withdrawal of cash by D to pay for the phone N
purchases, D said that he sometimes did so at an ATM machine (with limit of
O O
$20,000 per transaction, $80,000 daily); if the amount was large, then he would go
P to the bank counter. P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
6
A A
B B
12. D also added that as some of the funds were from the buyers of
C C
phones, the amount deposited into his account might not match the amount for the
D next purchase. If he did not use up all the money transferred into his account for a D
certain purchase, he would sometimes use it for another assignment or transfer it
E E
back to Top Smart, or withdraw it and pay Mr Mian / Top Smart back in cash – all
F based on Mr Mian’s instructions. F
G G
13. There was a paper trail for all of these purchases/transactions, but the
H paperwork was kept by Top Smart (and D had left the company in early 2020). By H
the time of the 3 VRIs, D was no longer an employee of Top Smart and did not
I I
6
have access to such paperwork .
J J
14. D worked at Top Smart from 2010 to 2020; his salary was paid by
K K
transfers into his account or by cash, or by cash deposit into D’s account. As
L business was not as good since 2018, Mr Mian did not pay D regularly but in lump L
sums of $50,000 or $100,000 irregularly. Up until now, some salary is still owed.
M M
N 15. D also worked with Mr Waheed Abdul, the owner of Galaxy N
Wireless. The company was also in the second-hand mobile phone business
O O
(purchasing phones from countries like the US, France, etc). Sometimes Mr
P Waheed Abdul needed to make “TT” transfers to pay the suppliers, and D would P
help him do so. (Mr Waheed Abdul originally said he would pay D for that service,
Q Q
but in the end he did not pay D; D was willing to do so anyway because they were
R family friends belonging to the same hometown in Pakistan.) As to the money for R
these “TT” transfers, Mr Waheed Abdul would sometimes deposit money into D’s
S S
account, and would sometimes pay D in cash. The money was deposited on Mr
T T
6
As already stated above, the police did not execute any search warrant in relation to Top Smart.
U U
V V
7
A A
B Waheed Abdul’s instructions but were from different parties. Once there was B
enough money to send a “TT”, Mr Waheed Abdul would inform D, and D would
C C
send the money for the mobile phone order.
D D
16. D was asked to give interviews to the police under caution 3 times for
E E
this case. He cooperated every time. However, there was insufficient information
F provided by the police for the transactions (which happened some time ago) and he F
found it difficult during the interviews to give any details with the limited
G G
information provided by the police on the transactions. Subsequently, D himself
H went to the ATM machine to punch in the account number of the counterparty for H
each transaction (i.e., the depositor / receiver of money from D’s HS Account /
I I
HSBC Account) and was able to find out the partial names of most of these parties
J (the machine would display the name with some letters represented by asterisks, J
unless the account holder had blocked the information). The counterparty names in
K K
red on D8(64)-(91) were added to the fund flow tables (originally prepared by
L PW1) by the defence to show the information obtained by D using this method. L
From this additional counterparty information, D was able to explain the purpose
M M
of / reason for a large number of the transactions in his two accounts (which he had
N been unable to without the information during the interviews). N
O O
17. Mr Waheed Abdul gave evidence that he was the owner of Galaxy
P Wireless. He had known D for many years, and they were from the same P
hometown in Pakistan (Gujranwala). Mr Waheed Abdul had contracts with
Q Q
Chinese companies; he was the middleman helping these companies to place
R orders for second-hand phones with suppliers; these Chinese companies would pay R
the suppliers directly and no money would go through Mr Waheed Abdul’s
S S
account. However, Mr Waheed Abdul wanted to do a side business without letting
T the Chinese companies know. As such, he had asked D to help him send “TT” T
U U
V V
8
A A
B transfers to suppliers to purchase phones. Mr Waheed Abdul explained that he did B
not open a bank account for Galaxy Wireless to make the transfers because he
C C
wanted to keep this side business a secret from the Chinese companies; he also did
D not use his personal account for the same reason. D’s role had only been to arrange D
for transfer of funds to suppliers overseas, and the phones would be sent to Mr
E E
Waheed Abdul directly. D had only acted on Mr Waheed Abdul’s instructions on
F where to send the money. F
G G
18. D’s evidence (and the evidence from Mr Waheed Abdul, PW1 and
H documentary evidence) in relation to the transactions in D’s HSBC Account and H
D’s HS Account are accurately summarised in Part G and Part H, respectively, of
I I
D’s Closing Submissions dated 30 May 2025 (“D’s Closing”) and I do not intend
J to repeat the same here. J
K K
Directions
L L
19. The prosecution has the burden to prove for each charge the requisite
M M
elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. D has no burden of proof.
N N
20. I bear in mind D has no criminal conviction record when considering
O O
his credibility and propensity.
P P
21. There are two counts against D. I must consider each independently.
Q Q
R 22. D’s 3 VRIs under caution were admitted as evidence. They are mixed R
statements and consistent with D’s evidence in the box (save D was able to provide
S S
more information when he testified). The real issue thus becomes whether the court
T T
U U
V V
9
A A
B accepts D’s evidence. (HKSAR v Lo Wai Ming [2007] 3 HKLRD 191; R v Vu B
Trong Minh [1994] 1 HKC 161; HKSAR v Woo King Chi [2008] 3 HKLRD 326)
C C
D 23. In this case, the prosecution submits that the Court can draw the D
irresistible inference that D committed the offence in the two charges. I remind
E E
myself that if I am to draw an inference, the inference must be drawn from facts
F proved and that the inference must be the only reasonable inference to be drawn F
from the proved facts.
G G
H Legal principles H
I I
24. Section 25(1) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.
J 455 provides that: “Subject to section 25A, a person commits an offence if, J
knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that any property in whole or in
K K
part directly or indirectly represents any person’s proceeds of an indictable
L offence, he deals with that property.” L
M M
25. The prosecution confirmed that it is not relying on the “knowing”
N limb. N
O O
26. For the “reasonable grounds” limb, it is not necessary for the
P prosecution to prove, as an element of the offence, that the property dealt with by P
the defendant in fact represents the proceeds of an indictable offence: HKSAR v
Q Q
Yeung Ka Sing Carson (2016) 19 HKCFAR 279 at [28], [90].
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
10
A A
B B
27. The test for “having reasonable grounds to believe” as reformulated in
C C
HKSAR v Harjani Haresh Murlidhar (2019) 22 HKCFAR 446 at [26] is as
D follows: D
E (1) What facts or circumstances, including those personal to the E
defendant, were known to the defendant that may have affected
F F
his/her belief as to whether the property was the proceeds of
G crime (“tainted”)? G
H (2) Would any reasonable person who shared the defendant’s H
knowledge be bound to believe that the property was tainted?
I I
(3) If the answer to question (2) is “yes” the defendant is guilty. If
J J
it is “no” the defendant is not guilty.
K K
28. It is not the law that a defendant is entitled to be acquitted on the
L L
ground that he/she believed or may have believed that the property was not tainted.
M The court needs to apply the test of “reasonable grounds to believe” from the M
viewpoint of the defendant, having regard to all the facts and circumstances known
N N
to him/her. The defendant’s belief is relevant to the extent that it reveals facts and
O circumstances upon which the belief is based. However, the actual question to be O
answered is: on an objective basis, do these facts and circumstances (known to the
P P
defendant which may have affected his/her belief) establish “reasonable grounds to
Q believe” that the property is tainted.7 Q
R R
S S
T T
7
Harjani at [56].
U U
V V
11
A A
B Analysis and findings B
C C
29. Most of the prosecution case (as shown by documentary evidence)
D was not disputed by the defence. PW1’s evidence was not seriously challenged by D
the defence – cross-examination centred on taking PW1 through the fund flow
E E
tables she had put together and the various transactions contained therein. I am of
F the view that PW1 gave evidence to the best of her recollection, but she left the F
team in charge of this case and the investigation early on, and I agree with the
G G
defence submission that: “PW1’s ability to address certain issues was hampered by
H the way in which the investigation was conducted and the way in which her H
investigation was ended early.”8
I I
J 30. As to the defence evidence, I am of the view that D and Mr Waheed J
Abdul were honest witnesses who gave evidence to the best of their recollection
K K
regarding the events/transactions relevant to the case. Their evidence was
L consistent in material aspects on matters of which they both had knowledge. 9 The L
defence is able to provide documentary evidence in support of D’s evidence
M M
(including tax returns). As I have stated above, D is of clear record and his
N credibility and propensity have to be assessed in that light. D has provided N
numerous documents which show his positive good character – the evidence
O O
regarding his background (including the certificates/commendations awarded to
P him by the police and different government departments) is summarised accurately P
in para 29 of D’s Closing.
Q Q
R R
S S
T 8
Para 63 of D’s Closing. T
9
I accept the submission at para 22 et seq of D’s Closing that the court should take into account the passage of time
between the offence date and trial, and the effect of such on the memories of defence witnesses.
U U
V V
12
A A
B 31. On the evidence which is accepted by the court, the following facts / B
circumstances were known to D which may have affected his belief regarding
C C
whether the subject property in Charge 1 was tainted:
D D
(1) D’s background , including his involvement in the Union and
10
E E
his experience in the second-hand mobile phone business (in
F
particular, that it is cash-intensive, involving a lot of deposits F
and withdrawals (payments in and out) to conduct the
G G
business);
H H
(2) The transactions in D’s HSBC Account were mainly related to
I the second-hand mobile phone businesses of Top Smart and I
Galaxy Wireless;
J J
(3) D’s knowledge regarding the character of Top Smart’s boss, Mr
K K
11
Mian;
L L
(4) D’s knowledge regarding the business of Top Smart;12
M M
(5) Some of the deposits into the HSBC Account were salary from
N N
Top Smart, as reflected in tax returns;13
O O
(6) D’s knowledge of the business of Galaxy Wireless and of the
P character of Mr Waheed Abdul and their personal P
relationship;14
Q Q
R R
S S
10
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in paras 27-29 of D’s Closing.
11
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in para 34 of D’s Closing.
T 12
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in paras 35 and 36 of D’s Closing. T
13
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in paras 37 and 38 of D’s Closing.
14
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in paras 28(6), 41, 43-45 of D’s Closing.
U U
V V
13
A A
B (7) D’s knowledge regarding the $500,000 transaction involving B
Amandeep Kaur15 (being the cause triggering the investigation
C C
in this case);
D D
(8) D’s knowledge regarding the transactions in his HSBC Account
E E
as explained by him and accepted by the court.16
F F
32. On the evidence which is accepted by the court, the following facts /
G G
circumstances were known to D which may have affected his belief regarding
H
whether the subject property in Charge 2 was tainted: H
I (1) D’s background, as set out above in para 31; I
J (2) D’s use of his HS Account mostly for everyday purposes and J
expenses;
K K
L (3) D’s use of his HS Account once in a while for purposes related L
to Top Smart (and his relevant knowledge regarding Mr Mian
M M
and Top Smart, as set out above in para 31);
N N
(4) D’s knowledge of his wife’s cake business and that she would
O sometimes ask customers to deposit payment for such into D’s O
HS Account;17
P P
(5) D’s knowledge regarding the transactions in his HS Account as
Q Q
18
explained by him and accepted by the court.
R R
S S
15
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in para 75 of D’s Closing. There is no evidence in this case that
these funds were tainted / illegal.
T 16
See Part G of D’s Closing. T
17
The pertinent evidence is summarised accurately in para 54 of D’s Closing.
18
See Part H of D’s Closing.
U U
V V
14
A A
B 33. The question the court has to answer is: Would any reasonable person B
who shared D’s knowledge be bound to believe that the property for each charge
C C
was tainted?
D D
34. Given the evidence accepted by the court (including the evidence of D
E E
and the evidence of Mr Waheed Abdul), I am of the view that P has not proved that
F any reasonable person who shared D’s knowledge of the relevant facts and F
circumstances would be bound to believe that the property of either of the charges
G G
was tainted. I am of the view that a reasonable person would have the same beliefs
H and views as D in the circumstances – that the sums are for legitimate purposes and H
not tainted.
I I
J 35. Thus, for both charges, the answer is “no” to the question in para 33 J
above.
K K
L 36. In the premises, D is found not guilty of Charges 1 and 2. L
M M
N N
O O
( May Chung )
P Deputy District Judge P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V