DCCC583/2025

DCCC583/2025

A A B B DCCC 976/2024 & 583/2025 (Consolidated) C [2025] HKDC 1830 C D D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E CRIMINAL CASE NOS 976 OF 2024 AND 583 OF 2025 F F G ---------------------------- G HKSAR H H v I BASHIR ZAHID I ---------------------------- J J K Before: Deputy District Judge Pang Leung-ting K Date: 24 October 2025 L L Present: Ms. Chit Noelle Aileen, Senior Public Prosecutor of M Department of Justice for HKSAR M Mr. Laskey, Edward F. Le B., Counsel instructed by Messrs N N Boase, Cohen & Collins, assigned by DLA, for the Defendant O Offence: [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 P P 表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) Q Q R -------------------------------------- R REASONS FOR SENTENCE S S -------------------------------------- T T U U V V  -2- A A B B 1. The defendant pleaded guilty before me to two charges of C dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an C indictable offence, both being an offence contrary to section 25(1) and (3) D D of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455. E E 2. The two charges involve different bank accounts owned by, F F and registered under the name of, the defendant. G G 3. The first charge alleges that, between the 18th day of December H H 2022 and the 17th day of January 2023 (both dates inclusive), the defendant, I in Hong Kong, together with a person known as “Dai Fong”, knowing or I having reasonable grounds to believe that property, namely, money in the J J sum of $3,645,771 Hong Kong currency in the bank account held with K PAO Bank Limited (the account number of which being 7522000511620), K in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented proceeds of an L L indictable offence, did deal with that property. M M 4. The second charge alleges that, between the 8th day of N N December 2022 and 29th day of March 2023 (both dates inclusive) in Hong O Kong, together with a person unknown, knowing or having reasonable O grounds to believe that property, namely, money in the sum of P P $3,873,377.24 Hong Kong currency in the bank account held with Livi Q Bank Limited (the account number of which being 756057109125), in Q whole or in part directly or indirectly represented proceeds of an indictable R R offence, did deal with that property. S S 5. For the sake of simplicity, the account held with PAO Bank T T Limited will, in this piece of writing, be referred to as “the PAO account”, U U V V  -3- A A B B whereas the account held with Livi Bank Limited will be referred to as “the C Livi account”. C D D 6. The defendant agreed to the Summary of Facts submitted by E the prosecution and read to him in open court. E F F 7. At the proceedings the defendant was represented by counsel G Mr. Laskey. G H H 8. The facts revealed that, at all material times the defendant was I the account holder and sole signatory of each of the said accounts. I J J 9. According to the bank records, the defendant opened the PAO K account on 18th December 2022. It was recorded that he opened the account K for receiving salaries and savings purposes. In the account opening L L mandate, the defendant declared that he was a cook by occupation, M nevertheless he did not mention anything about his salary. Such PAO M account was closed on 17th January 2023. N N O 10. According to the bank records, the defendant opened the Livi O account on 7th December 2022. In the account opening mandate, the P P defendant declared that he was a hotel waiter by occupation, with a Q monthly income of about $25,001 to $50,000. As a requirement, the bank Q had kept copies of the defendant’s identity card and also of images of his R R facial appearance. S S 11. There is no evidence that the defendant was involved in any of T T the predicate offences leading to the transfers by the victims of their monies U U V V  -4- A A B B into the two respective bank accounts in question. However, as part of the C sentencing exercise, the background of those predicate offences need be C mentioned and stated here. D D E 12. The first victim was a Mr. Kwok. On 9th December 2022, he E received a phone call from an unknown person (hereinafter “WP1”), who F F claimed himself to be an officer from Hang Zhou Communication Bureau. G Such person alleged that Mr. Kwok’s mobile phone number was involved G in a deception case in the mainland, and therefore would refer the matter H H to the police for investigation. Thereupon another unknown person I (hereinafter “WP2”) spoke to Mr. Kwok on the phone. He claimed that he I was an officer from Hang Zhou Security Bureau. This second person J J claimed that he could help Mr. Kwok settle the matter if he were to provide K him with the login names, passwords and mobile security keys of five of K his online bank accounts. L L M 13. Mr. Kwok did not realize that it was a deceit. He did as told. M N N 14. Investigations revealed that, during the period from 24 th O December 2022 and 12th January 2023, someone, without Mr. Kwok’s O consent or knowledge, transferred a total sum of $2,932,100 from Mr. P P Kwok’s accounts to four different bank accounts. Among those 4 recipient Q accounts, one was the PAO account owned by and registered under the Q name of the defendant; and the amount transferred into that PAO account R R was $435,300. S S 15. The second victim was a Madam Wu. On 18th December 2022, T T she received a phone call from an unknown person (hereinafter “WP3”), U U V V  -5- A A B B who claimed that he was an officer from Shanghai Public Security Bureau. C WP3 accused Madam Wu of having an involvement in a money laundering C case, and would require her to furnish to him her bank account information, D D such as the credentials of her HSBC account, for the purposes of checking E her assets and proving her innocence. Madam Wu did not realize that it E was a deceit. She did as told. F F G 16. Madam Wu waited for long, yet she did not receive any update G or news that her name was cleared. She made a report in Shanghai. It was H H not until then did she realize that, without her knowledge or consent, funds I amounting to $500,000 were transferred from her HSBC account into the I Livi account owned by and registered under the name of the defendant. J J K 17. Both Mr. Kwok and Madam Wu had made a report to the Hong K Kong Police. L L M 18. On 28th November 2023, police arrested the defendant on M suspicion that he had laundered the monies in the PAO account. Police N N conducted a video-recorded interview with him. Under caution, the O defendant said, amongst other things, that some time in December 2022, O when he was gambling at a gambling parlour in Jordan, a friend of his, P P whose nickname was “Dai Fong”, asked him if he was willing to help him Q open an online bank account in return for a reward of $1,500. The Q defendant agreed, and therefore provided his personal particulars to Dai R R Fong, and further helped with the facial recognition procedure. He knew a S bank account under his name was successfully opened with PAO, and S because it was an online banking account, it did not have any paper T T U U V V  -6- A A B B statements or an ATM card. The defendant claimed that he was under the C influence of drug when Dai Fong asked him to open the bank account. C D D 19. About 11 months later, on 15th October 2024, police cautioned E the defendant in connection with the Livi account, because police E suspected that he had involvement in laundering the monies in that account. F F On this occasion police took a record of interview from the defendant, who, G under caution, said, amongst other things, that some time ago he got G acquainted with someone at a game amusement centre in Jordan, and that H H person (whose name he could not recall), asked him if he was willing to I help him open a bank account, and in return he would be given some drugs I for his own consumption. He agreed, and thus inputted his personal J J particulars or personal information on the webpage or Apps appearing on K the screen of that person’s mobile phone. He also went through the facial K recognition process. To his knowledge, a bank account under his name was L L successfully opened with Livi bank, and because it was an online banking M account, it did not have any paper statements. He said he lost contact with M that person after that occasion. N N O 20. Police had conducted fund flow analyses on both the PAO and O Livi accounts. Both exhibited what is called a mirroring pattern, in that P P there was a corresponding withdrawal of an identical amount, or of a like Q amount, from the account in question not long after a deposit into the Q account was made. Alternatively, not long after a deposit into the account R R in question was made, multiple outward transfers of amounts making up S the total amount of the deposit would ordinarily follow. Those patterns S suggested that the accounts were merely used as temporary repositories. T T U U V V  -7- A A B B 21. Insofar as the PAO account is concerned, during the period C particularized in the first charge, there were 44 deposits and 50 withdrawals. C Those 44 deposits involved a total amount of $3,645,771, and as a result D D of those 50 withdrawals that followed, there was only a closing balance of E $101 in the account. E F F 22. Insofar as the Livi account is concerned, during the period G particularized in the second charge, there were 30 deposits and 45 G withdrawals. Those 30 deposits involved a total amount of $3,873,377.24, H H and such entire amount was withdrawn as a result of the 45 withdrawals I that followed. In the end the Livi account only had a zero balance. I J J 23. Pursuant to section 27(2) of the Ordinance, the prosecution K applied for an enhancement of sentence to be passed on the defendant in K respect of each charge. A notice was duly served on and received by the L L defendant. The grounds relied upon by the prosecution for the application M were: (1) the prevalence of the specified offence; and (2) the nature and M extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by N N recent occurrences of this specified offence. O O 24. In support of the application, the prosecution furnished this P P Court with a statement given by Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam, who was an Q officer in charge of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Q Assessment of the Financial Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (FIIB), R R and also the Secretariat of the Money Laundering Expert Cadre. By way of S two tables, Chief Inspector Li has set out the statistics which he collected S and compiled in relation to, amongst other things, the number of deception T T and money laundering cases known to the police in the past few years. He U U V V  -8- A A B B has also placed particular emphasis on the number of money laundering C cases involving the use of stooge accounts in the past few years. C D D 25. I shall discuss the quantum of sentence and the issue of E sentence enhancement later. I now first of all mention the defendant’s E background and the plea in mitigation advanced on behalf of the defendant. F F G 26. The defendant was born in Hong Kong. He is 50 years of age G at the time of these proceedings. H H I 27. He has previous convictions for a total of 14 charges. Those I were recorded as a result of 3 different court appearances. Among them, J J 11 convictions were recorded in January 1999, when he was about 23 years K old. Those 11 convictions related to theft and deception offences. He K received a suspended sentence for those charges. His second court L L appearance was in 2018. He was then sentenced by the District Court for M two offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs. His third, and also, the last M court appearance was in 2023. He was then sentenced by West Kowloon N N Magistrates’ Court to the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre for a O shoplifting offence. O P P 28. In other words, he has no previous conviction relating to Q money laundering offences. Q R R 29. He received education in Hong Kong, and attained secondary S 5 level. Prior to the arrest he had been working as a cleaner. S T T U U V V  -9- A A B B 30. Mr. Laskey filed with this Court a document entitled “Skeleton C Written Mitigation”. At the proceedings he adopted those written C submissions as his plea in mitigation. Upon the request of this Court he D D also made oral submissions in regard to issues not already touched upon by E his written submissions. E F F 31. In his written submissions, Mr. Laskey submitted that the G defendant’s involvement, or culpability, was limited to the opening and G selling (or “loaning”, which was the word he used in his oral submissions) H H of two fresh bank accounts to persons whom he met at the gambling parlour I and the game amusement centre respectively. Mr. Laskey agreed that the I defendant was aware that those two persons would use the two fresh J J accounts for illicit purposes. However, Mr. Laskey drew this Court’s K attention to the following factors, which, in his submission, would amount K to mitigating circumstances: L L M (i) On the facts disclosed, the prosecution could only tell that M $435,000 deposited into the PAO account originated from N N the deceit practised on Mr. Kwok, and that $500,000 O deposited into the Livi account originated from the deceit O practised on Madam Wu; P P Q (ii) The defendant had no knowledge of any of those two Q deceits; and in any case, there was no evidence that the R R defendant knew anything about the predicate offences S (even if the prosecution managed to identify all of them); S T T U U V V  - 10 - A A B B (iii) There was no evidence that the defendant had control over C the two bank accounts; C D D (iv) The defendant had only received $1,500 as the reward for E opening and selling the PAO account, yet he did not E receive any reward or benefit as promised in respect of the F F opening of the Livi account; and furthermore the benefits G he received were minimal; G H H (v) Although both Mr. Kwok and Madam Wu were deceived I into believing that they were under investigation by the I Mainland authorities, the monies deposited into the PAO J J account and Livi account came from the local bank K accounts of the two victims, and therefore no cross-border K element was involved; and L L M (vi) The transmissions into the PAO account took place M between 18th December 2022 and 17th January 2023, while N N those for the Livi account took place between 8 th O December 2022 and 29th March 2023; the money O laundering activities lasted for relatively short periods of P P time. Q Q 32. Mr. Laskey also invited this Court to consider the ruling made R R by the High Court of Australia in Ostrowski v Palmer (2004) 206 ALR 422. S There, it was held that a defendant’s ignorance of the law could, where S appropriate, be recognized as a mitigating factor. T T U U V V  - 11 - A A B B 33. It was submitted that it was only because of the defendant’s C eagerness to earn quick money that he committed the instant offences. He C is remorseful for his acts, and therefore entered his timely pleas at the D D earliest available opportunity. E E 34. Mr. Laskey also referred to a letter which was written by the F F defendant only shortly before the hearing. There, the defendant said with G sadness that his father passed away just a few days ago, and it was with G regret that he was in jail custody, and could not personally see him at his H H bedside at the time of his passing. The defendant blamed himself for his I foolishness in lending bank accounts to others. He said he had learnt a I lesson, and asked this Court for leniency. J J K 35. In his written submissions, in respect of the starting point to be K adopted, Mr. Laskey referred this Court to two Court of Appeal judgments: L L HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545; and Secretary for Justice v M Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201. Mr. Laskey specifically drew M my attention to the observation made by Court of Appeal in paragraph 15 N N of the judgment of Wan Kwok Keung, which read as follows: O O “15. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536, Cheung JA set out the P P amounts of money involved and the sentences passed in a number of Q “money laundering” cases. The sentencing starting point is 3 years or so Q where the “black money” involved is between 1 million and 2 million R dollars, 4 years or so where it is between 3 million and 6 million dollars, R and could be over 5 years where it is above 10 million dollars.” S S (The judgment was written in Chinese. This is the official English T T translation of the relevant paragraph). U U V V  - 12 - A A B B C 36. Mr. Laskey pointed out that there are no tariffs, or strait-jacket C guidelines, when it comes to the sentencing of offenders of money D D laundering offences. It was submitted that, in light of the amount of money E involved in this case, as well as the observation of the Court of Appeal as E stated in the passage quoted above, the global starting point for the two F F charges of money laundering to which the defendant has pleaded guilty G should be no more than 4 years and 3 months. G H H 37. Mr. Laskey had also made oral, but not written, submissions, I with regard to the prosecution’s application for sentence enhancement. I J J 38. Mr. Laskey submitted that, according to the statistics provided K by Chief Inspector Li in relation to the number of arrested persons who had K provided stooge accounts to others for money laundering purposes, and L L also the number of cases involving stooge accounts, as a matter of fact, M there has been a marked decline in the year of 2025 compared to the M previous year. Mr. Laskey noticed that the statistics for the year of 2025 N N only ran from January to August, and therefore, assuming that the trend O would remain more or less the same for the months from September to O December 2025, then, on a pro rata basis, the total number of stooges P P arrested and the number of cases involving stooge accounts would still be Q much less than those in the year of 2024. He submitted that a simple Q arithmetic calculation would reveal a reduction of about 25% and 60% R R respectively. S S 39. In the light of such declining trend, it was submitted that this T T Court had a discretion not to enhance the sentence notwithstanding the U U V V  - 13 - A A B B prosecution’s application. It was submitted that, if, in any event this Court C was mindful of enhancing the sentence, the degree of enhancement should C be no more than 10 percent. Nevertheless Mr. Laskey was not able to say D D from which authority he got such percentage. E E 40. The prosecution agreed that, broadly speaking, there has been F F a decline in the number of money laundering cases involving stooge G accounts in the year of 2025 when compared to the preceding year. Yet the G prosecution still invited this Court to enhance the sentence. H H I 41. I now proceed to the discussion of the sentences to be passed I on the defendant. J J K 42. At the proceedings I got the confirmation from Mr. Laskey that, K when he submitted, or suggested, that the starting point should be no more L L than 4 years and 3 months, he was making a reference to the global starting M point for the two charges in question, but not the individual starting point M for each charge. It is worth noting that this suggested starting point has yet N N to encapsulate the element of sentence enhancement, if at the end of the O day the prosecution’s application for sentence enhancement succeeds. O P P 43. Given the fact that the total amount of money involved in the Q two charges was $7,519,148.24 (or $7.52 million for simplicity), and in the Q light of the seriousness of this matter, I would say, with respect, that the R R suggested global starting point is on any view a bit on the low side. S S 44. In Hsu Yu Yi, the Court of Appeal said the following at T T paragraph 9 of its judgment: U U V V  - 14 - A A B B “9. There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing C C with the proceeds from an indictable offence because the facts vary from D case to case. However the following factors are to be taken into account D when determining sentence: E E (1) It is the amount of money involved that is a major F F consideration and not the amount of benefit received G by a defendant in the transaction. G H (2) The culpability of the offence lies in the assistance, H support and encouragement offered to the commission I I of an indictable offence. So a defendant's level of participation and the number of occasions on which he J J is involved in the ‘money laundering' activities are K relevant factors to be considered. K L (3) The offence of dealing with the proceeds from an L indictable offence does not necessarily have any direct M M correlation with the indictable offence in question. N However if the relevant indictable offence can be N identified, the court may take into account the sentence O imposed on the indictable offence pre se when O determining the sentence of the dealing offence. P P (4) If the case has an international element involving Q Q activities carried out across different regions, the court R may impose a more severe sentence. This is to protect R Hong Kong's reputation as an international finance and S banking hub from being tarnished. S T T (5) The length of time the offence lasted.” U U V V  - 15 - A A B B C 45. Also, in Wan Kwok Keung (which has been referred to above) C and HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal discussed D D the factors relevant to sentencing in money launching cases. E E 46. I accept the plea in mitigation put forward by Mr. Laskey. In F F short, I accept that there was no evidence that the defendant had knowledge G of the predicate offences, or that he had control over the money being G laundered in the two bank accounts registered under his name. I also accept H H that, insofar as the two charges are concerned, although the fraudsters used I “Mainland authorities” as the pretence to deceive the two victims into I surrendering their money, the monetary transfers only involved local bank J J accounts. Therefore, strictly speaking, the present case does not carry with K it any cross-border element. I also accept that the offences lasted for short K periods of time. L L M 47. Despite the foregoing, money laundering is a serious offence. M There are authorities saying that it is not necessary for the prosecution to N N identify the source, or sources, of the money being laundered in the bank O account in question in order to prove the offence. However, in the instant O case, given the fact that both Mr. Kwok and Madam Wu encountered a P P similar experience when they received phone calls from persons holding Q themselves out as officers from the Mainland authorities, this Court can Q logically deduce and infer that a significant part of the monies deposited R R into the two accounts had some connection with phone deception cases. S S 48. It is accepted that the defendant only received a minimal T T reward for opening and lending out those two bank accounts. Nevertheless, U U V V  - 16 - A A B B the significance of the role played by the defendant cannot be ignored. C Stooge accounts are exactly what the scammers are looking for when they C are mindful of practising fraud on victims of phone deception, because they D D can simply hide behind the scene and reduce the risk of being arrested by E the police. Without anyone providing them with a stooge account, their E plan can hardly succeed. F F G 49. In HKSAR v Tam Wai Pio [1998] 4 HKC 291, the Court of G Appeal held that, in a case where the prosecution applies for an H H enhancement of sentence, the court should first of all state the starting point I to be adopted for the offence, and then reduce the sentence on account of I the guilty plea (if any) and other mitigating circumstances. Only after those J J steps have been taken should the court proceed to consider the question of K enhancement. The court should satisfy itself that the offence in question is K a specified offence as defined by the Ordinance. If the court is so satisfied, L L then it should consider whether the circumstances warrant any M enhancement, and furthermore, the percentage of enhancement should the M court be mindful of granting the application for enhancement. N N O 50. I have given consideration to all the circumstances, including O the facts, the mitigation advanced and submissions made, as well as the P P Court of Appeal authorities discussed above. Q Q 51. For Charge 1, I consider that the appropriate starting point R R should be 4 years’ imprisonment. The defendant is entitled to a one-third S discount. The sentence is first reduced to 32 months. S T T U U V V  - 17 - A A B B 52. Dealing with property known or believed to represent C proceeds of an indictable offence is a specified offence. As evidenced by C Chief Inspector Li’s statement, the offence is still prevalent in the territory, D D and there is no doubt that it causes much harm to the community. I am of E the view that the application for enhancement should be granted. E F F 53. There is some force in the submission that there has been a G decline in terms of both the number of stooges arrested and the number of G money laundering offences involving the use of stooge accounts. I am H H aware that, in some Court of Appeal judgments, it was held that, the I appropriate percentage of enhancement should be no more than one-third I (See, for example, HKSAR v Hung Wing Chan [2011] 2 HKLRD 167; and J J HKSAR v Shum Wah Kwong [2015] 2 HKLRD 945). K K 54. Having considered the circumstances, I would consider that L L the percentage of enhancement for Charge 1 should be 20 percent, which M would increase the sentence to 38.4 months. I would round it up to 38 M months. Therefore the sentence for Charge 1 is 38 months’ imprisonment. N N O 55. For Charge 2, I also consider that the appropriate starting O point should be 4 years’ imprisonment. After giving him the one-third P P discount, the sentence is first reduced to 32 months. Q Q 56. Likewise, I would enhance the sentence for Charge 2. The R R percentage of enhancement is the same as that for Charge 1, which is 20 S percent. After enhancement the sentence for Charge 2 is increased to 38.4 S months. Similarly I round it up to 38 months. The sentence for Charge 2 is T T 38 months’ imprisonment. U U V V  - 18 - A A B B C 57. I need to deal with the question of totality. C D D 58. In the light of all the circumstances, I am of the view that the E global starting point, before any discount is given or any enhancement is E made, should be one of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, or 54 months. F F Notionally, after the one-third discount is given, the overall sentence is G reduced to 36 months. Nevertheless that has yet to be enhanced by 20 G percent. Therefore, in the end, the final sentence should be 43.2 months, or H H 43 months for sentencing purposes. I I 59. In order to achieve such result, I order that 33 months of the J J sentence for Charge 2 should run concurrently with the sentence for Charge K 1, and that 5 months of the sentence for Charge 2 should run consecutively K to the sentence for Charge 1. The final sentence is 43 months’ L L imprisonment. This is the sentence I pass on the defendant. M M N N O O ( Pang Leung-ting ) P Deputy District Judge P Q Q R R S S T T U U V V