區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge K K Leung28/12/2025[2025] HKDC 2137
DCCC176/2025
A A
B B
DCCC 176/2025
C [2025] HKDC 2137 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 176 OF 2025
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I GURUNG Tikaram I
---------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge K K Leung K
Date: 29 December 2025
L L
Present: Ms Alison Mo, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Mr Kwan Tong Lee, instructed by Howell & Co, assigned by M
the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
N N
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 O
P
表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) P
Q Q
R ---------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C 1. The defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to a charge of Dealing C
with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable
D D
offence (commonly known as “"Money Laundering"), contrary to section
E 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455. E
F F
SUMMARY OF FACTS
G G
2. An online investment scam whereby victim (“PW1”) met a
H H
scammer via Instagram and was duped into opening an investment account
I on a bogus platform so as to invest in USDT Futures. She wired altogether I
HKD4,497,200 to various bank accounts designated by the scammer and
J J
one of which turned out to be D’s bank account opened with Standard
K Chartered Bank ( “SCB A/C”), which received HKD155,000 from PW1 on K
7 March 2023. When PW1 tried to withdraw the sums invested, she was
L L
asked to remit even more funds. Thus, she realized she was conned and
M reported the case to the police. M
N N
3. D’s SCB A/C was opened on 3 March 2023 and closed on 2
O May 2023. Fund flow analysis showed that during the said period, the SCB O
A/C recorded a total deposit of HKD3,697,457.37 over 108 transactions
P P
and the funds were all withdrawn on 131 occasions.
Q Q
4. On the account opening mandate, D claimed to work in the
R personal services/retail & wholesale industry, making HKD16,000 per R
month. He provided a residential address in Temple Street, Yau Ma Tei
S S
and submitted his HKID card copy to SCB during the account opening
T process. He was provided with e-statement and a cheque book by the bank T
(mailed to his residential address by ordinary post).
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. Fund flow analysis also showed that all the funds, once
C C
deposited into the said account were siphoned off within a day or two.
D Hallmark pattern of money laundering was sighted and the account was D
used as a temporary repository of funds.
E E
6. Movement record showed that D was within the jurisdiction
F F
when the subject account was opened. D did not file any tax returns for
G G
the financial years between 2019/20 and 2021/22. D was arrested on 21
H
January 2024. Under caution, he remained silent. H
I 7. D did not account for the source of funds received into his I
SCB A/C during the material time. Over HKD3.6 million was remitted into
J J
the subject account by strangers (including PW1) who were not known to
K D within 2 months’ time. The large sum of money remitted into D’s subject K
account was incommensurate with his financial status.
L L
M 8. D was the sole authorized signatory of the SCB A/C; thus, he M
was always in control of it. He was found to have dealt with the funds in
N N
the subject account during the material time, knowing or having reasonable
O grounds to believe that the said property, in whole or in part directly or O
indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence.
P P
Q PROSECUTION’S APPLICATION Q
R R
9. The Prosecutions applied for an enhancement of sentence
S pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance S
Cap. 455 by furnishing with the court a witness statement of Chief
T T
Inspector Li Yiu Nam of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Risk Assessment of the Financial Intelligence and Investigation Bureau,
C Hong Kong Police Force dated 2 December 2025. The information C
provided by Chief Inspector Li showed the prevalence of the use of stooge
D D
account in the commission of money laundering offence in Hong Kong and
E the extent of harm caused directly or indirectly to the community. E
F F
CRIMINAL RECORD AND BACKGROUND OF THE DEFENDANT
G G
10. D has 10 previous criminal convictions and one breach of
H H
probation order record. All of them are not similar to the present offence.
I I
MITIGATION
J J
11. D is now aged 46. D is separated with his wife. D has a
K K
daughter aged 14. D worked as a cleaner in hotel earning HKD16,000 per
L month. D was living in Shanghai Street, Mongkok before his arrest. L
M M
12. In mitigation, it is submitted that shortly before 3 March 2023,
N N
D was offered with HKD5,000 to open a bank account in the SCB. D then
O
surrendered the full control and operation of the bank account to the person O
who offered him the money. D was also provided with the Temple Street
P P
address. On 3 March 2023, SCB Account was opened. Then D gave the
Q bank card and passwords to that person to use. As D did not reside in Q
Temple Street, he did not receive any cheque book or e-statement.
R R
Therefore, he had no idea what was going on in the SCB Account. In fact,
S D just ‘turned a blind eye’ to what money would be deposited into (or S
withdrawn from) the SCB Account after he ‘sold’ his account to the buyer.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
13. It is submitted that there is no evidence that D participated in
C the investment scam and he had no knowledge of the scam, there was no C
international element involved and no sophisticated plan involved.
D D
14. Mr Kwan, representing the D, referred the court to a number
E E
1
of District Court sentence cases which concerned defendants using their
F bank accounts as stooge accounts to launder “black money” from 4 to 6.5 F
million dollars that adopted sentence in the range of 3 years to 3 years and
G G
9 months as starting point.
H H
15. Mr Kwan raised no objection to the enhancement application
I I
but asked the court to consider it to be between 20% and 25%.
J J
SENTENCE
K K
L 16. The maximum penalty for the offence of money laundering is L
14 years’ imprisonment. There is no sentencing tariff for this offence.
M M
Money laundering is a serious offence.
N N
O
17. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, the Court of O
Appeal listed the following factors for consideration when determining the
P P
appropriate sentence:
Q Q
(a) The amount of money involved was a major
R R
consideration, not the amount of benefit received by a
S defendant in the transaction. S
T T
1
DCCC 1279/2023 & 8/2025, DCCC 855/2024, DCCC 1548/2024 and DCCC 1001/2023.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
(b) The culpability of the offence lies in the assistance,
C support and encouragement offered to the commission C
of an indictable offence. So a defendant’s level of
D D
participation and the number of occasions on which he
E is involved in the ‘money laundering’ activities are E
relevant factors to be considered.
F F
G (c) The offence of dealing with the proceeds from an G
indictable offence does not necessarily have any direct
H H
correlation with the indictable offence in question.
I However if the relevant indictable offence can be I
identified, the court may take into account the sentence
J J
imposed on the indictable offence per se when
K determining the sentence of the dealing offence. K
L L
(d) If the case has an international element involving
M activities carried out across different regions, the court M
may impose a more severe sentence. This is to protect
N N
Hong Kong’s reputation as an international finance and
O banking hub from being tarnished. O
P P
(e) The length of time the offence lasted.
Q Q
R 18. In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal R
listed some of the significant features which the sentencing court should
S S
take into account. The list is non-exhaustive, they include:
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
(a) the nature of the predicate offence, if known, and the
C penalty available for the predicate offence; C
D D
(b) the state of the offender’s knowledge;
E E
(c) where the operation involved an international
F F
dimension, this would be a significant aggravating
G feature; G
H H
(d) the sophistication of the offence, including the
I degree of planning; whether deceit was practiced to I
achieve the objective;
J J
K (e) where the offence was committed or on behalf of an K
organized criminal syndicate would be an
L L
aggravating feature;
M M
(f) whether there was one transaction or many and the
N N
length of time over which the offence was
O committed; O
P P
(g) whether the offender continued to launder funds
Q after he had discovered the nature of funds were Q
proceeds of an offence or a serious offence was
R R
involved; and
S S
(h) the role of the offender and the acts performed by
T T
him.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 19. In Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD C
201, the Court of Appeal listed out the factors relevant to sentencing,
D D
including the number of offences involved, the duration of the offence, the
E defendant’s level of participation, whether or not it was organized or E
sophisticated crime; and the sentence should be adjusted upwards, if there
F F
was information to prove that the ‘black money’ originated from serious
G crimes or the defendant’s benefit was huge. G
H 20. I have also considered The Secretary of Justice v Xie Zhijian H
（谢志建）[2025] HKCA 911 the Court of Appeal stated that the amount
I I
of money involved is not the sole important factor for sentencing. The
J J
court should have given regard to the overall consideration of the case.
K K
21. As regards to the length of time of the offence, the duration
L L
was around 2 months, which was between 3 March to 2 May 2023. The
M money involved was around HKD3,697,457. The number of deposits into M
SCB accounts totaled over 108 and the funds were all withdrawn on 131
N N
occasions. The facts also showed that once the funds were deposited, they
O were siphoned off within a day or two. D obtained a monetary rewards by O
opening the stooge account.
P P
Q 22. Taking into account of the nature of the offence that D was Q
facing, the facts of the case admitted, the background of D, the mitigation
R R
submitted by the defence and the relevant authorities, I adopt a starting
S point of 39 months’ imprisonment, after one-third discount upon D’s guilty S
plea, the sentence is 26 months’ imprisonment.
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
ENHANCEMENT
C C
23. The Prosecutions applied for an enhancement of sentence
D D
pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance.
E As stated in Chief Inspector Li’s statement, anti-money regime in Hong E
Kong is hampered by the prevalence of stooges for money laundering
F F
activities as follows:
G G
H
(a) It interferes with the normal operation of the banking H
system, having a negative effect on the reputation of
I I
Hong Kong as an international financial hub;
J J
(b) It forms multiple layers of “shields” concealing the
K K
identity of the masterminds behind, making it difficult,
L for police to identify the masterminds behind; L
M M
(c) It facilitates the commission of crimes and in turn leads
N to more crimes being committed, as the mastermind N
could easily get away with the criminal liability;
O O
P (d) The prevalence of stooge accounts makes money P
laundering easier, which allows culprits to make use of
Q Q
their ill-gotten gains to extend their sphere to engage in
R a wider range of illegal activities; R
S S
(e) It means that law enforcement agencies have to put in
T more investigation efforts and resources; and T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C (f) People with low income or less awareness of the C
consequence of selling their bank accounts are more
D D
likely to be lured by the culprits to take the risks of
E commission of crimes to surrender their accounts for E
monetary reward.
F F
G 24. The information provided by Chief Inspector Li covered the G
data for period between 2020 and October 2025. Though the number of
H H
cases in 2025 (till October) involving the use of stooge accounts is less than
I the number in 2024, there is no doubt that this type of offence remains I
prevalent in the community2 (see HKSAR v Lee Yuek Sing & Anor CACC
J J
515/2001 and HKSAR v 楊鎧駿 CACC 135/2024).
K K
25. Having considered all the information, I am satisfied that
L L
enhancement of sentence is appropriate in this case. I am of the view that
M 25% enhancement is appropriate having regarded to all the circumstances. M
As a result, after the enhancement by 25%, the defendant is sentenced to
N N
32 months’ imprisonment.
O O
P
26. There is no other mitigating factor which justifies a reduction P
of sentence.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
2
Paragraph 19 of the statement.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
CONCLUSION
C C
27. The sentence of D is 32 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E E
F F
( K K Leung )
Deputy District Judge
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 176/2025
C [2025] HKDC 2137 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 176 OF 2025
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I GURUNG Tikaram I
---------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge K K Leung K
Date: 29 December 2025
L L
Present: Ms Alison Mo, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Mr Kwan Tong Lee, instructed by Howell & Co, assigned by M
the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
N N
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 O
P
表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) P
Q Q
R ---------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C 1. The defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to a charge of Dealing C
with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable
D D
offence (commonly known as “"Money Laundering"), contrary to section
E 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455. E
F F
SUMMARY OF FACTS
G G
2. An online investment scam whereby victim (“PW1”) met a
H H
scammer via Instagram and was duped into opening an investment account
I on a bogus platform so as to invest in USDT Futures. She wired altogether I
HKD4,497,200 to various bank accounts designated by the scammer and
J J
one of which turned out to be D’s bank account opened with Standard
K Chartered Bank ( “SCB A/C”), which received HKD155,000 from PW1 on K
7 March 2023. When PW1 tried to withdraw the sums invested, she was
L L
asked to remit even more funds. Thus, she realized she was conned and
M reported the case to the police. M
N N
3. D’s SCB A/C was opened on 3 March 2023 and closed on 2
O May 2023. Fund flow analysis showed that during the said period, the SCB O
A/C recorded a total deposit of HKD3,697,457.37 over 108 transactions
P P
and the funds were all withdrawn on 131 occasions.
Q Q
4. On the account opening mandate, D claimed to work in the
R personal services/retail & wholesale industry, making HKD16,000 per R
month. He provided a residential address in Temple Street, Yau Ma Tei
S S
and submitted his HKID card copy to SCB during the account opening
T process. He was provided with e-statement and a cheque book by the bank T
(mailed to his residential address by ordinary post).
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. Fund flow analysis also showed that all the funds, once
C C
deposited into the said account were siphoned off within a day or two.
D Hallmark pattern of money laundering was sighted and the account was D
used as a temporary repository of funds.
E E
6. Movement record showed that D was within the jurisdiction
F F
when the subject account was opened. D did not file any tax returns for
G G
the financial years between 2019/20 and 2021/22. D was arrested on 21
H
January 2024. Under caution, he remained silent. H
I 7. D did not account for the source of funds received into his I
SCB A/C during the material time. Over HKD3.6 million was remitted into
J J
the subject account by strangers (including PW1) who were not known to
K D within 2 months’ time. The large sum of money remitted into D’s subject K
account was incommensurate with his financial status.
L L
M 8. D was the sole authorized signatory of the SCB A/C; thus, he M
was always in control of it. He was found to have dealt with the funds in
N N
the subject account during the material time, knowing or having reasonable
O grounds to believe that the said property, in whole or in part directly or O
indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence.
P P
Q PROSECUTION’S APPLICATION Q
R R
9. The Prosecutions applied for an enhancement of sentence
S pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance S
Cap. 455 by furnishing with the court a witness statement of Chief
T T
Inspector Li Yiu Nam of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Risk Assessment of the Financial Intelligence and Investigation Bureau,
C Hong Kong Police Force dated 2 December 2025. The information C
provided by Chief Inspector Li showed the prevalence of the use of stooge
D D
account in the commission of money laundering offence in Hong Kong and
E the extent of harm caused directly or indirectly to the community. E
F F
CRIMINAL RECORD AND BACKGROUND OF THE DEFENDANT
G G
10. D has 10 previous criminal convictions and one breach of
H H
probation order record. All of them are not similar to the present offence.
I I
MITIGATION
J J
11. D is now aged 46. D is separated with his wife. D has a
K K
daughter aged 14. D worked as a cleaner in hotel earning HKD16,000 per
L month. D was living in Shanghai Street, Mongkok before his arrest. L
M M
12. In mitigation, it is submitted that shortly before 3 March 2023,
N N
D was offered with HKD5,000 to open a bank account in the SCB. D then
O
surrendered the full control and operation of the bank account to the person O
who offered him the money. D was also provided with the Temple Street
P P
address. On 3 March 2023, SCB Account was opened. Then D gave the
Q bank card and passwords to that person to use. As D did not reside in Q
Temple Street, he did not receive any cheque book or e-statement.
R R
Therefore, he had no idea what was going on in the SCB Account. In fact,
S D just ‘turned a blind eye’ to what money would be deposited into (or S
withdrawn from) the SCB Account after he ‘sold’ his account to the buyer.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
13. It is submitted that there is no evidence that D participated in
C the investment scam and he had no knowledge of the scam, there was no C
international element involved and no sophisticated plan involved.
D D
14. Mr Kwan, representing the D, referred the court to a number
E E
1
of District Court sentence cases which concerned defendants using their
F bank accounts as stooge accounts to launder “black money” from 4 to 6.5 F
million dollars that adopted sentence in the range of 3 years to 3 years and
G G
9 months as starting point.
H H
15. Mr Kwan raised no objection to the enhancement application
I I
but asked the court to consider it to be between 20% and 25%.
J J
SENTENCE
K K
L 16. The maximum penalty for the offence of money laundering is L
14 years’ imprisonment. There is no sentencing tariff for this offence.
M M
Money laundering is a serious offence.
N N
O
17. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, the Court of O
Appeal listed the following factors for consideration when determining the
P P
appropriate sentence:
Q Q
(a) The amount of money involved was a major
R R
consideration, not the amount of benefit received by a
S defendant in the transaction. S
T T
1
DCCC 1279/2023 & 8/2025, DCCC 855/2024, DCCC 1548/2024 and DCCC 1001/2023.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
(b) The culpability of the offence lies in the assistance,
C support and encouragement offered to the commission C
of an indictable offence. So a defendant’s level of
D D
participation and the number of occasions on which he
E is involved in the ‘money laundering’ activities are E
relevant factors to be considered.
F F
G (c) The offence of dealing with the proceeds from an G
indictable offence does not necessarily have any direct
H H
correlation with the indictable offence in question.
I However if the relevant indictable offence can be I
identified, the court may take into account the sentence
J J
imposed on the indictable offence per se when
K determining the sentence of the dealing offence. K
L L
(d) If the case has an international element involving
M activities carried out across different regions, the court M
may impose a more severe sentence. This is to protect
N N
Hong Kong’s reputation as an international finance and
O banking hub from being tarnished. O
P P
(e) The length of time the offence lasted.
Q Q
R 18. In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal R
listed some of the significant features which the sentencing court should
S S
take into account. The list is non-exhaustive, they include:
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
(a) the nature of the predicate offence, if known, and the
C penalty available for the predicate offence; C
D D
(b) the state of the offender’s knowledge;
E E
(c) where the operation involved an international
F F
dimension, this would be a significant aggravating
G feature; G
H H
(d) the sophistication of the offence, including the
I degree of planning; whether deceit was practiced to I
achieve the objective;
J J
K (e) where the offence was committed or on behalf of an K
organized criminal syndicate would be an
L L
aggravating feature;
M M
(f) whether there was one transaction or many and the
N N
length of time over which the offence was
O committed; O
P P
(g) whether the offender continued to launder funds
Q after he had discovered the nature of funds were Q
proceeds of an offence or a serious offence was
R R
involved; and
S S
(h) the role of the offender and the acts performed by
T T
him.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 19. In Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD C
201, the Court of Appeal listed out the factors relevant to sentencing,
D D
including the number of offences involved, the duration of the offence, the
E defendant’s level of participation, whether or not it was organized or E
sophisticated crime; and the sentence should be adjusted upwards, if there
F F
was information to prove that the ‘black money’ originated from serious
G crimes or the defendant’s benefit was huge. G
H 20. I have also considered The Secretary of Justice v Xie Zhijian H
（谢志建）[2025] HKCA 911 the Court of Appeal stated that the amount
I I
of money involved is not the sole important factor for sentencing. The
J J
court should have given regard to the overall consideration of the case.
K K
21. As regards to the length of time of the offence, the duration
L L
was around 2 months, which was between 3 March to 2 May 2023. The
M money involved was around HKD3,697,457. The number of deposits into M
SCB accounts totaled over 108 and the funds were all withdrawn on 131
N N
occasions. The facts also showed that once the funds were deposited, they
O were siphoned off within a day or two. D obtained a monetary rewards by O
opening the stooge account.
P P
Q 22. Taking into account of the nature of the offence that D was Q
facing, the facts of the case admitted, the background of D, the mitigation
R R
submitted by the defence and the relevant authorities, I adopt a starting
S point of 39 months’ imprisonment, after one-third discount upon D’s guilty S
plea, the sentence is 26 months’ imprisonment.
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
ENHANCEMENT
C C
23. The Prosecutions applied for an enhancement of sentence
D D
pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance.
E As stated in Chief Inspector Li’s statement, anti-money regime in Hong E
Kong is hampered by the prevalence of stooges for money laundering
F F
activities as follows:
G G
H
(a) It interferes with the normal operation of the banking H
system, having a negative effect on the reputation of
I I
Hong Kong as an international financial hub;
J J
(b) It forms multiple layers of “shields” concealing the
K K
identity of the masterminds behind, making it difficult,
L for police to identify the masterminds behind; L
M M
(c) It facilitates the commission of crimes and in turn leads
N to more crimes being committed, as the mastermind N
could easily get away with the criminal liability;
O O
P (d) The prevalence of stooge accounts makes money P
laundering easier, which allows culprits to make use of
Q Q
their ill-gotten gains to extend their sphere to engage in
R a wider range of illegal activities; R
S S
(e) It means that law enforcement agencies have to put in
T more investigation efforts and resources; and T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C (f) People with low income or less awareness of the C
consequence of selling their bank accounts are more
D D
likely to be lured by the culprits to take the risks of
E commission of crimes to surrender their accounts for E
monetary reward.
F F
G 24. The information provided by Chief Inspector Li covered the G
data for period between 2020 and October 2025. Though the number of
H H
cases in 2025 (till October) involving the use of stooge accounts is less than
I the number in 2024, there is no doubt that this type of offence remains I
prevalent in the community2 (see HKSAR v Lee Yuek Sing & Anor CACC
J J
515/2001 and HKSAR v 楊鎧駿 CACC 135/2024).
K K
25. Having considered all the information, I am satisfied that
L L
enhancement of sentence is appropriate in this case. I am of the view that
M 25% enhancement is appropriate having regarded to all the circumstances. M
As a result, after the enhancement by 25%, the defendant is sentenced to
N N
32 months’ imprisonment.
O O
P
26. There is no other mitigating factor which justifies a reduction P
of sentence.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
2
Paragraph 19 of the statement.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
CONCLUSION
C C
27. The sentence of D is 32 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E E
F F
( K K Leung )
Deputy District Judge
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V