區域法院（刑事）His Honour Judge E Lin16/12/2025[2025] HKDC 2138
DCCC851/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 851/2024
C [2025] HKDC 2138 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 851 OF 2024
F F
G --------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I DING SHOUFENG I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge E Lin K
Date: 17 December 2025
L L
Present: Ms Sham Wing Yan Jessie, Senior Public Prosecutor, and Mr
M Chau King Fung Fergus, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR M
Mr Benson Y M Tsoi, Senior Counsel, instructed by Haldanes,
N N
for the defendant
O Offence: 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. In this case the defendant is charged with one count of
C “Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an C
indictable offence”, contrary to Section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and
D D
Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, Laws of Hong Kong. He pleaded
E guilty to the charge and is convicted upon his plea and the facts he admitted E
in open court.
F F
G 2. The offence is commonly known as money laundering. It G
took place between 8 November 2018 and 14 December 2018, concerning
H H
the movements of funds in an account controlled by the defendant.
I I
3. During the said period, there were a total of
J J
US$11,155,079.61 (equivalent to HK$87,009,620.9) and HK$114,700
K paid into the said account, of which US$7,628,795.24 (equivalent to K
HK$59.5 million) and HK$114,700 formed the subject matter of the charge.
L L
In other words, of all the money paid into the account, 68.4% had been
M laundered as proceeds of an indictable offence. M
N N
Circumstances of the offence
O O
4. The defendant is a Chinese resident. He had not reported he
P P
had any income in Hong Kong, filed no personal tax return with the Inland
Q Revenue Department. His visits to Hong Kong were on a two-way permit. Q
He had no business or residential address in Hong Kong. He had visited
R R
Hong Kong on 14 occasions during the period between October 2018 and
S December 2019, each time he entered and departed the territory on the S
same day. He came to Hong Kong again 16 March 2024, when he was
T T
arrested in relation to the present offence.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 5. Hong Kong Libin Import and Export Trading Limited C
(hereinafter referred to as Libin) was incorporated in Hong Kong on 30
D D
April 2018. The defendant was its sole director and Shenzhen Libin
E International Logistics Company Limited is its sole shareholder. It was E
registered with the Business Registration Office and had reported to have
F F
commenced business on the same day.
G G
6. As on 30 April 2019, the defendant was both the only
H H
shareholder and director of Libin. He also prepared and signed Libin’s
I financial statements with the Inland Revenue Department. I
J J
7. On behalf of Libin, the defendant opened a corporate account
K (“the account”) in Hong Kong. The defendant was the sole signatory. K
Libin was stated to engage in trading in household products made in China
L L
to the targeted markets of Britain and Japan. Its correspondence address
M was in Shenzhen. Its sale turnover was said to be HK$24 million. M
N N
8. Libin’s audited filed its audit financial status with the Inland
O Revenue Department. Between 20 April 2018 and 31 December 2021, O
Libin reported no revenue, cost of revenue or any other income. Between
P P
1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019, Libin reported revenue of
Q HK$15,075,792 and cost of turnover to be $14,930,587, a gross profit of Q
HK$145,205. Its taxable profit was $510.
R R
S 9. However, the independent auditors had stated that since the S
records, books and financial statements together with evidence kept and/or
T T
provided by Libin were insufficient to carry out a proper auditing, they
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
were unable to give a proper opinion on the accuracy of Libin’s financial
C statement. C
D D
Significant movements of funds in the account
E E
10. Between 8 November and 14 December 2018, there were
F F
276 deposits in US dollars by way of cross-border transmittances from
G bank accounts in mainland China, Taiwan, Albania, Australia, Canada, G
France, Ireland, Italy, South Korea, Vietnam and the United States, making
H H
a total sum of US$11,155,079.61.
I I
11. During the same period, US$11,018,412.55 were withdrawn
J J
from the account in 339 separate transactions. On 10 December 2018, a
K cheque in the sum of HK$114,700 was deposited into the account. Two K
days later, HK$110,150 were transmitted from the account to another
L L
company.
M M
12. There were no supporting documents in Libin’s statement to
N N
show 204 of the US dollars deposits (in the total sum of US dollars as stated
O in the charge) were related to any of its business transactions. The amount O
was about 68.4 % of all the monies paid into the account.
P P
Q 13. Furthermore, the deposits and withdrawals revealed a pattern Q
consistent with the account being used as a temporary repository of funds.
R R
The defendant therefore had reasonable grounds to believe that the funds
S in whole or in part represented proceeds of an individual offence when he S
dealt with the same.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
14. Upon police inquiry, the defendant admitted in writing that in
C the capacity of Libin’s director, he had on 5 December 2018 received a C
sum of US$16,104.89. At the request of a third party, he had it exchanged
D D
to renminbi and deposit the same into a designated account in China.
E E
Sentence
F F
G 15. The offence in question can be committed in a multitude of G
circumstances, resulting in a wide spectrum of culpability, consequently
H H
resulting in the different degrees of severity in sentence. The Court of
I Appeal did not set out a clear sentencing guideline but pointed out that one I
must bear in mind that the charge, namely the offence of money laundering,
J J
is a serious offence and that deterrence is the paramount consideration. The
K amount of money laundered is also a significant feature. K
L L
16. For cases involving more than $10 million of “black money”,
M the starting point could be over 5 years (see HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 M
HKLRD 545 and Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1
N N
HKLRD 201). Furthermore, the Court of Appeal has set out a non-
O exhaustive list of factors as sentencing consideration, some of which are O
not available in the present set of circumstances.
P P
Q Discussions Q
R R
17. The offence was committed within the span of one month.
S The total sum laundered was HK$59,614,700, effected by 340 occasions, S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
taking up about 68.4 % of the total sums paid into the account during the
C same period. All except HK$114,700 were in US dollars. C
D D
18. The funds were transmitted from Libin’s Hong Kong accounts
E in China, Hong Kong and nine other countries, showing international E
dimension in the activities.
F F
G 19. There was no information relating to the source, legitimate or G
otherwise, of the funds, nor was there any information relating to the
H H
existence and/or nature of the predicate offence. Likewise, there was no
I evidence to show the defendant’s knowledge and/or involvement of the I
predicate offence, if any, or the defendant had any financial interest in the
J J
money laundering activities.
K K
20. I agree that the conviction is based on the reason to believe
L L
limb of the charge. On the other hand, the defendant was a de facto owner
M and controller of Libin, a Hong Kong registered company. He is the only M
person capable of directing any funds to be transferred out of the said
N N
account. He had full knowledge of the movements of the monies and his
O actions could not be said to be mere reckless or careless. O
P P
21. Furthermore, the defendant also admitted that at least on one
Q occasion and not in the course of normal business, he had personally caused Q
a sum of US dollars to be exchanged to renminbi and transmitted the same
R R
to China. In my view, that showed that he had full knowledge of the
S manner in which money laundering was carried out. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
22. Neither the defendant nor Libin had any tangible connection
C to Hong Kong. The defendant was a visitor to Hong Kong, his 14 visits C
were in fact day trips. Obviously, the main reason he came to Hong Kong
D D
was for the primary purpose of carrying out the money laundering.
E Although the court did not make any findings on whether the offence E
involved any criminal organisation, yet by the number of transactions and
F F
the number of different destinations of funds, the only inference one could
G draw was that there were other parties involved. G
H H
23. As accepted by the prosecution, Libin had a legitimate
I business and part of the funds paid into the account was involved in the I
money laundering exercise. Yet the amount laundered, constituted 68.4 %
J J
of all the incoming funds during the period, and Libin had no employee
K and did not report any taxable profits. I came to the inevitable conclusion K
that this business was substantially a cover up for the money laundering
L L
activities or the business was basically for money laundering.
M M
24. Although the defendant might not have personally benefited
N N
from the offence, he was certainly aware of the nature of these transactions
O and was acquainted with the mechanism of committing the offence. I am O
not persuaded by the defence’s argument that by reason of the fact that the
P P
defendant had retained control of his account, his culpability is lower than
Q someone who has simply extinguished his control of his account. Q
R R
25. In my view, in those who allowed others use their account
S (either for financial gain or otherwise) but were not personally involved in S
the transfer of funds, their culpability as compared to those who actually
T T
assisted in the money laundering process is lower. On the other hand, those
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
who was fully aware of the movement of the funds and/or has been
C instrumental in effect the transfer would bear a high degree of culpability. C
D D
26. The fact that the defendant had retained control of his account
E and used its legitimate operations to shield the money laundering part could E
well be an aggravating feature and is definitely not a mitigating factor.
F F
G 27. Having considered the whole circumstances of the case, I G
adopted 66 months’ imprisonment as starting point.
H H
I Mitigation I
J J
28. The defendant is aged 41, a mainland resident. He has a clear
K record in Hong Kong. He has a university degree in law; after his K
graduation, he worked in shipping, logistics, import and export. He is the
L L
sole provider for his wife and three young children. His father had passed
M away during his incarceration for the present offence. His mother also M
suffer from emotional stress brought on by the defendant’s predicament.
N N
O 29. I have also reviewed the enthusiastic accolades of his dearest O
and nearest in a video submitted as part of the mitigation. His daughter,
P P
wife, family members and friends all sang his praises. However, bearing
Q in mind that the main sentencing principle for the present charge is one of Q
deterrence, the offender’s personal circumstances bear little weight in
R R
mitigation.
S S
30. The defendant has been in custody since his arrest on 16
T T
March 2024. When the case was first brought up for plea on 7 January
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
2025, the defendant pleaded not guilty and a trial date was fixed on
C 27 October 2025. It was only by 4 March 2025 the defence lawyers wrote C
to inform this court of his intention to change his plea to one of guilty. For
D D
reasons not relevant to this sentencing exercise, the plea date was finally
E fixed to 9 December 2025. In other words, the defendant did not plea in E
the first opportunity and therefore is not entitled to a customary one-third
F F
reduction.
G G
31. Having considered the whole circumstance, in particular his
H H
guilty plea and his having a clear record, I will reduce the sentence by 25
I % from 66 months to 49 months. I
J J
Enhancement application
K K
32. Pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes
L L
Ordinance, Cap 455, the prosecution applied for enhancement of the
M defendant’s sentence based on the prevalence of the offence and the harm M
caused to the community. In support of the application, the prosecution
N N
filed the affirmation of Chief Inspector Li Yiu-nam dated 2 December
O 2025. The chief inspector set out his academic qualifications, work O
histories and all the related trainings he had. His qualification as an expert
P P
witness in the practice and investigation of the crime of money laundering
Q have not been challenged and the defence waived the right to Q
cross-examination of the chief inspector.
R R
S 33. Having read his statement, I am satisfied that by reason of his S
qualification, experience at work and the trainings he had, the Chief
T T
Inspector had sufficient knowledge and experience to be an expert witness.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C Money Laundering Stooge C
D D
34. The chief inspector considered the present case a species of
E money laundering stooge, which is when a person “assisted in the money E
laundering activities but has minimal or no involvement in the predicate
F F
offence or has little or no knowledge of the predicate offence” (see
G paragraph 13 of the affirmation). G
H H
35. This definition was not challenged by the learned defence
I lawyer. However, he argued the present case did not fall into this definition I
by reason that the account was set up for a legitimate purpose, had been
J J
used in part as such, and the defendant had retained control of the account,
K unlike cases where the control of the account was handed over in full. It is K
not necessary to speculate the real purpose of a money laundering exercise,
L L
as it is trite law that for the present offence, the prosecution has only to
M prove that the accused had reasonable grounds to believe that what he dealt M
with was “black money”.
N N
O 36. In this case, the defendant had knowingly used this account to O
move funds. By his plea, he accepted he had a reason to believe those were
P P
black money. The mere fact that he still had control of the account did not
Q take his case out of the money laundering stooge definition nor does it Q
absolve him from liability and reduce his culpability. If the learned defence
R R
counsel truly believed that it was the case, and the particular features of the
S case did not fit in by the definition, he should have demanded the chief S
inspector be tendered for cross-examination or advised his client not to
T T
plead guilty in order to argue the point in full.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
C Prevalence C
D D
37. The defence counsel commented that the statistics applied by
E the chief inspector showed the “dramatic proportionate drop in money E
laundering stooge cases”. While it is true that for the first 10 months of
F F
2025, the number of reported cases was 353 involving $1,485.15 million,
G as compared to the whole year of 2025, where there were 549 cases G
involving $3,971.75 million. All the figures for the whole year of 2025
H H
had not come in by the time the affirmation was made. It may be too soon
I to jump into the conclusion that there was a dramatic proportionate drop. I
J J
38. I note that at the time the offence was committed in 2020,
K there were 121 reported cases involving $2,465.01 million. Thereafter K
both figures fluctuated but had remained substantial. The term prevalence
L L
is synonymous to common and does not confine to a rise in instances and
M the total amount involved. M
N N
39. Yet even for the first 10 months of 2025, there were 353
O reported cases and the sum of $1,495.15 million cannot be said to be O
negligible for a community of 8 million inhabitants.
P P
Q Harm to the community Q
R R
40. The harm of money laundering crimes to Hong Kong, as
S pointed out by the Chief Inspector, can be summarised this: they interfere S
with the normal operation of banking systems and tarnish the reputation of
T T
Hong Kong as a world-famous financial centre; they provide shields to
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
conceal the identity of masterminds and encourage the crime and render
C police investigations, if at all possible, more expensive and sometimes C
futile; the lack of accountability and profits generated in turn encourage,
D D
enable, and engender more crimes to be committed.
E E
41. The defence did not argue the above point. Having considered
F F
all the evidence, in particular the affirmation of Chief Inspector Li, I am
G convinced that although the crime of money laundering seemed to be on a G
decline in number for the first 10 months of 2025, the sheer number
H H
reported cases and the amount involved, the crime was still prevalent in
I Hong Kong and did cause substantial crime to the community. I would I
therefore enhance the sentence by 20%, making the sentence a total of 58
J J
months imprisonment.
K K
42. Having considered the background of the defendant’s case
L L
and the circumstances of the present offence, I do not see any other valid
M mitigating factors which justifies further reduction of the sentence. M
N N
43. Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 58 months.
O O
P P
Q ( E. Lin ) Q
District Judge
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 851/2024
C [2025] HKDC 2138 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 851 OF 2024
F F
G --------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I DING SHOUFENG I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge E Lin K
Date: 17 December 2025
L L
Present: Ms Sham Wing Yan Jessie, Senior Public Prosecutor, and Mr
M Chau King Fung Fergus, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR M
Mr Benson Y M Tsoi, Senior Counsel, instructed by Haldanes,
N N
for the defendant
O Offence: 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. In this case the defendant is charged with one count of
C “Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an C
indictable offence”, contrary to Section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and
D D
Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, Laws of Hong Kong. He pleaded
E guilty to the charge and is convicted upon his plea and the facts he admitted E
in open court.
F F
G 2. The offence is commonly known as money laundering. It G
took place between 8 November 2018 and 14 December 2018, concerning
H H
the movements of funds in an account controlled by the defendant.
I I
3. During the said period, there were a total of
J J
US$11,155,079.61 (equivalent to HK$87,009,620.9) and HK$114,700
K paid into the said account, of which US$7,628,795.24 (equivalent to K
HK$59.5 million) and HK$114,700 formed the subject matter of the charge.
L L
In other words, of all the money paid into the account, 68.4% had been
M laundered as proceeds of an indictable offence. M
N N
Circumstances of the offence
O O
4. The defendant is a Chinese resident. He had not reported he
P P
had any income in Hong Kong, filed no personal tax return with the Inland
Q Revenue Department. His visits to Hong Kong were on a two-way permit. Q
He had no business or residential address in Hong Kong. He had visited
R R
Hong Kong on 14 occasions during the period between October 2018 and
S December 2019, each time he entered and departed the territory on the S
same day. He came to Hong Kong again 16 March 2024, when he was
T T
arrested in relation to the present offence.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 5. Hong Kong Libin Import and Export Trading Limited C
(hereinafter referred to as Libin) was incorporated in Hong Kong on 30
D D
April 2018. The defendant was its sole director and Shenzhen Libin
E International Logistics Company Limited is its sole shareholder. It was E
registered with the Business Registration Office and had reported to have
F F
commenced business on the same day.
G G
6. As on 30 April 2019, the defendant was both the only
H H
shareholder and director of Libin. He also prepared and signed Libin’s
I financial statements with the Inland Revenue Department. I
J J
7. On behalf of Libin, the defendant opened a corporate account
K (“the account”) in Hong Kong. The defendant was the sole signatory. K
Libin was stated to engage in trading in household products made in China
L L
to the targeted markets of Britain and Japan. Its correspondence address
M was in Shenzhen. Its sale turnover was said to be HK$24 million. M
N N
8. Libin’s audited filed its audit financial status with the Inland
O Revenue Department. Between 20 April 2018 and 31 December 2021, O
Libin reported no revenue, cost of revenue or any other income. Between
P P
1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019, Libin reported revenue of
Q HK$15,075,792 and cost of turnover to be $14,930,587, a gross profit of Q
HK$145,205. Its taxable profit was $510.
R R
S 9. However, the independent auditors had stated that since the S
records, books and financial statements together with evidence kept and/or
T T
provided by Libin were insufficient to carry out a proper auditing, they
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
were unable to give a proper opinion on the accuracy of Libin’s financial
C statement. C
D D
Significant movements of funds in the account
E E
10. Between 8 November and 14 December 2018, there were
F F
276 deposits in US dollars by way of cross-border transmittances from
G bank accounts in mainland China, Taiwan, Albania, Australia, Canada, G
France, Ireland, Italy, South Korea, Vietnam and the United States, making
H H
a total sum of US$11,155,079.61.
I I
11. During the same period, US$11,018,412.55 were withdrawn
J J
from the account in 339 separate transactions. On 10 December 2018, a
K cheque in the sum of HK$114,700 was deposited into the account. Two K
days later, HK$110,150 were transmitted from the account to another
L L
company.
M M
12. There were no supporting documents in Libin’s statement to
N N
show 204 of the US dollars deposits (in the total sum of US dollars as stated
O in the charge) were related to any of its business transactions. The amount O
was about 68.4 % of all the monies paid into the account.
P P
Q 13. Furthermore, the deposits and withdrawals revealed a pattern Q
consistent with the account being used as a temporary repository of funds.
R R
The defendant therefore had reasonable grounds to believe that the funds
S in whole or in part represented proceeds of an individual offence when he S
dealt with the same.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
14. Upon police inquiry, the defendant admitted in writing that in
C the capacity of Libin’s director, he had on 5 December 2018 received a C
sum of US$16,104.89. At the request of a third party, he had it exchanged
D D
to renminbi and deposit the same into a designated account in China.
E E
Sentence
F F
G 15. The offence in question can be committed in a multitude of G
circumstances, resulting in a wide spectrum of culpability, consequently
H H
resulting in the different degrees of severity in sentence. The Court of
I Appeal did not set out a clear sentencing guideline but pointed out that one I
must bear in mind that the charge, namely the offence of money laundering,
J J
is a serious offence and that deterrence is the paramount consideration. The
K amount of money laundered is also a significant feature. K
L L
16. For cases involving more than $10 million of “black money”,
M the starting point could be over 5 years (see HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 M
HKLRD 545 and Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1
N N
HKLRD 201). Furthermore, the Court of Appeal has set out a non-
O exhaustive list of factors as sentencing consideration, some of which are O
not available in the present set of circumstances.
P P
Q Discussions Q
R R
17. The offence was committed within the span of one month.
S The total sum laundered was HK$59,614,700, effected by 340 occasions, S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
taking up about 68.4 % of the total sums paid into the account during the
C same period. All except HK$114,700 were in US dollars. C
D D
18. The funds were transmitted from Libin’s Hong Kong accounts
E in China, Hong Kong and nine other countries, showing international E
dimension in the activities.
F F
G 19. There was no information relating to the source, legitimate or G
otherwise, of the funds, nor was there any information relating to the
H H
existence and/or nature of the predicate offence. Likewise, there was no
I evidence to show the defendant’s knowledge and/or involvement of the I
predicate offence, if any, or the defendant had any financial interest in the
J J
money laundering activities.
K K
20. I agree that the conviction is based on the reason to believe
L L
limb of the charge. On the other hand, the defendant was a de facto owner
M and controller of Libin, a Hong Kong registered company. He is the only M
person capable of directing any funds to be transferred out of the said
N N
account. He had full knowledge of the movements of the monies and his
O actions could not be said to be mere reckless or careless. O
P P
21. Furthermore, the defendant also admitted that at least on one
Q occasion and not in the course of normal business, he had personally caused Q
a sum of US dollars to be exchanged to renminbi and transmitted the same
R R
to China. In my view, that showed that he had full knowledge of the
S manner in which money laundering was carried out. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
22. Neither the defendant nor Libin had any tangible connection
C to Hong Kong. The defendant was a visitor to Hong Kong, his 14 visits C
were in fact day trips. Obviously, the main reason he came to Hong Kong
D D
was for the primary purpose of carrying out the money laundering.
E Although the court did not make any findings on whether the offence E
involved any criminal organisation, yet by the number of transactions and
F F
the number of different destinations of funds, the only inference one could
G draw was that there were other parties involved. G
H H
23. As accepted by the prosecution, Libin had a legitimate
I business and part of the funds paid into the account was involved in the I
money laundering exercise. Yet the amount laundered, constituted 68.4 %
J J
of all the incoming funds during the period, and Libin had no employee
K and did not report any taxable profits. I came to the inevitable conclusion K
that this business was substantially a cover up for the money laundering
L L
activities or the business was basically for money laundering.
M M
24. Although the defendant might not have personally benefited
N N
from the offence, he was certainly aware of the nature of these transactions
O and was acquainted with the mechanism of committing the offence. I am O
not persuaded by the defence’s argument that by reason of the fact that the
P P
defendant had retained control of his account, his culpability is lower than
Q someone who has simply extinguished his control of his account. Q
R R
25. In my view, in those who allowed others use their account
S (either for financial gain or otherwise) but were not personally involved in S
the transfer of funds, their culpability as compared to those who actually
T T
assisted in the money laundering process is lower. On the other hand, those
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
who was fully aware of the movement of the funds and/or has been
C instrumental in effect the transfer would bear a high degree of culpability. C
D D
26. The fact that the defendant had retained control of his account
E and used its legitimate operations to shield the money laundering part could E
well be an aggravating feature and is definitely not a mitigating factor.
F F
G 27. Having considered the whole circumstances of the case, I G
adopted 66 months’ imprisonment as starting point.
H H
I Mitigation I
J J
28. The defendant is aged 41, a mainland resident. He has a clear
K record in Hong Kong. He has a university degree in law; after his K
graduation, he worked in shipping, logistics, import and export. He is the
L L
sole provider for his wife and three young children. His father had passed
M away during his incarceration for the present offence. His mother also M
suffer from emotional stress brought on by the defendant’s predicament.
N N
O 29. I have also reviewed the enthusiastic accolades of his dearest O
and nearest in a video submitted as part of the mitigation. His daughter,
P P
wife, family members and friends all sang his praises. However, bearing
Q in mind that the main sentencing principle for the present charge is one of Q
deterrence, the offender’s personal circumstances bear little weight in
R R
mitigation.
S S
30. The defendant has been in custody since his arrest on 16
T T
March 2024. When the case was first brought up for plea on 7 January
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
2025, the defendant pleaded not guilty and a trial date was fixed on
C 27 October 2025. It was only by 4 March 2025 the defence lawyers wrote C
to inform this court of his intention to change his plea to one of guilty. For
D D
reasons not relevant to this sentencing exercise, the plea date was finally
E fixed to 9 December 2025. In other words, the defendant did not plea in E
the first opportunity and therefore is not entitled to a customary one-third
F F
reduction.
G G
31. Having considered the whole circumstance, in particular his
H H
guilty plea and his having a clear record, I will reduce the sentence by 25
I % from 66 months to 49 months. I
J J
Enhancement application
K K
32. Pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes
L L
Ordinance, Cap 455, the prosecution applied for enhancement of the
M defendant’s sentence based on the prevalence of the offence and the harm M
caused to the community. In support of the application, the prosecution
N N
filed the affirmation of Chief Inspector Li Yiu-nam dated 2 December
O 2025. The chief inspector set out his academic qualifications, work O
histories and all the related trainings he had. His qualification as an expert
P P
witness in the practice and investigation of the crime of money laundering
Q have not been challenged and the defence waived the right to Q
cross-examination of the chief inspector.
R R
S 33. Having read his statement, I am satisfied that by reason of his S
qualification, experience at work and the trainings he had, the Chief
T T
Inspector had sufficient knowledge and experience to be an expert witness.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C Money Laundering Stooge C
D D
34. The chief inspector considered the present case a species of
E money laundering stooge, which is when a person “assisted in the money E
laundering activities but has minimal or no involvement in the predicate
F F
offence or has little or no knowledge of the predicate offence” (see
G paragraph 13 of the affirmation). G
H H
35. This definition was not challenged by the learned defence
I lawyer. However, he argued the present case did not fall into this definition I
by reason that the account was set up for a legitimate purpose, had been
J J
used in part as such, and the defendant had retained control of the account,
K unlike cases where the control of the account was handed over in full. It is K
not necessary to speculate the real purpose of a money laundering exercise,
L L
as it is trite law that for the present offence, the prosecution has only to
M prove that the accused had reasonable grounds to believe that what he dealt M
with was “black money”.
N N
O 36. In this case, the defendant had knowingly used this account to O
move funds. By his plea, he accepted he had a reason to believe those were
P P
black money. The mere fact that he still had control of the account did not
Q take his case out of the money laundering stooge definition nor does it Q
absolve him from liability and reduce his culpability. If the learned defence
R R
counsel truly believed that it was the case, and the particular features of the
S case did not fit in by the definition, he should have demanded the chief S
inspector be tendered for cross-examination or advised his client not to
T T
plead guilty in order to argue the point in full.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
C Prevalence C
D D
37. The defence counsel commented that the statistics applied by
E the chief inspector showed the “dramatic proportionate drop in money E
laundering stooge cases”. While it is true that for the first 10 months of
F F
2025, the number of reported cases was 353 involving $1,485.15 million,
G as compared to the whole year of 2025, where there were 549 cases G
involving $3,971.75 million. All the figures for the whole year of 2025
H H
had not come in by the time the affirmation was made. It may be too soon
I to jump into the conclusion that there was a dramatic proportionate drop. I
J J
38. I note that at the time the offence was committed in 2020,
K there were 121 reported cases involving $2,465.01 million. Thereafter K
both figures fluctuated but had remained substantial. The term prevalence
L L
is synonymous to common and does not confine to a rise in instances and
M the total amount involved. M
N N
39. Yet even for the first 10 months of 2025, there were 353
O reported cases and the sum of $1,495.15 million cannot be said to be O
negligible for a community of 8 million inhabitants.
P P
Q Harm to the community Q
R R
40. The harm of money laundering crimes to Hong Kong, as
S pointed out by the Chief Inspector, can be summarised this: they interfere S
with the normal operation of banking systems and tarnish the reputation of
T T
Hong Kong as a world-famous financial centre; they provide shields to
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
conceal the identity of masterminds and encourage the crime and render
C police investigations, if at all possible, more expensive and sometimes C
futile; the lack of accountability and profits generated in turn encourage,
D D
enable, and engender more crimes to be committed.
E E
41. The defence did not argue the above point. Having considered
F F
all the evidence, in particular the affirmation of Chief Inspector Li, I am
G convinced that although the crime of money laundering seemed to be on a G
decline in number for the first 10 months of 2025, the sheer number
H H
reported cases and the amount involved, the crime was still prevalent in
I Hong Kong and did cause substantial crime to the community. I would I
therefore enhance the sentence by 20%, making the sentence a total of 58
J J
months imprisonment.
K K
42. Having considered the background of the defendant’s case
L L
and the circumstances of the present offence, I do not see any other valid
M mitigating factors which justifies further reduction of the sentence. M
N N
43. Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 58 months.
O O
P P
Q ( E. Lin ) Q
District Judge
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V