HKSAR v. TONG CHIN PANG

DCCC 998/2024

[2025] HKDC 1510

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 998 OF 2024

----------------------------

----------------------------

---------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---------------------------------------

1.  Mr Tong pleaded guilty before me to two charges of Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, on a Charge Sheet as follows.

2.  Particulars of Charge 1 are that he, between 5 November 2020 and 2 December 2020, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, together with a person unknown, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property namely a total sum of $5,478,264.50 Hong Kong currency in the bank account with The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, account number 634715981833, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

3.  Particulars of Charge 2 are that he, between 24 November 2020 and 16 April 2021, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, together with a person unknown, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property namely a total sum of $3,012,704.50 Hong Kong currency in the bank account with Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited, account number 01235810382396, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

Facts admitted by Mr Tong

4.  In the first case, PW1 (female aged 78) was duped by scammers purporting to be Mainland PSB officers into handing over her online banking credentials. A total sum of about $82 million belonging to PW1 was remitted by the scammers to various bank accounts one of which was Mr Tong’s bank account with HSBC, namely the bank account under Charge 1, which received sums totalling $5,477,554 in this regard between 23 November and 2 December 2020 over 16 occasions.

5.  Between 5 November and 2 December 2020, the same account recorded a total deposit of $5,478,264.50 over 25 transactions and a total withdrawal of $5,478,186.60 over 25 occasions.

6.  Mr Tong was provided with bank statements sent to his reported residential address in Kwai Chung by HSBC.

7.  In the second case, PW2 was duped by an imposter with whom she fell in love into joining some bogus investment schemes.  She remitted altogether $2,716,200 to various bank accounts one of which was Mr Tong’s bank account with Bank of China, ie the bank account under Charge 2, which received $1.5 million on one occasion on 11 December 2020.

8.  Between 24 November 2020 and 16 April 2021, that BOC account recorded a total deposit of $3,012,704.50 over 17 transactions and a total withdrawal of $3,012,705.02 over 24 occasions.

9.  Mr Tong was provided with bank statements by BOC.

10.  Funds flow analyses showed all the funds, once deposited into both accounts were siphoned off within the same day to their respective USD accounts or other people’s bank accounts.

11.  Mr Tong was arrested on 15 January 2021 and 7 November 2023 in relation to the BOC account and the HSBC account respectively.  Under caution, Mr Tong admitted selling the BOC bank account and the HSBC bank account to a stranger for a monetary reward of $7,500 and $2,500 respectively.

12.  Companies Registry records show Mr Tong held directorship of a company called “Far-east digital outlet Limited” since 5 January 2021.

Criminal record

13.  Mr Tong has 24 previous convictions none similar.  However, half of the convictions were related to either theft or other Theft Ordinance offences.  A majority of the theft convictions were related to shoplifting.

Antecedents

14.  Mr Tong is aged 51 (47 at the time of the offences), educated to Secondary 3 level, unemployed.

Mitigation

15.  Mr Geoffrey Chang of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Tong.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

16.  Mr Tong was born in Hong Kong, unmarried.  His father (81) and mother (90) are both retirees.  Mr Tong was the only child of the family.

17.  Mr Tong’s last occupation was as a warehouse clerk, for about 5 years. Between 2003 and 2004, Mr Tong ceased work due to some mental issue.  He is currently unemployed and receives CSSA.

18.  In the past, Mr Tong has had some mental issue.

19.  Around early November 2020, Mr Tong saw a Facebook job advertisement urgently recruiting an assistant for remote work with no experience required and offering a daily wage of $500.  Mr Tong left his contact number.  A “Mr Lau” called back, claiming to be from an HR company seeking an assistant to distribute salaries to employees and to verify attendance records.  Mr Lau requested Mr Tong’s full banking details so the company could deposit funds into Mr Tong’s account for onward transfer to employees.  He described the role as simple, short-hours, phone-based and work from home.  He offered $2,500 upon account being set up and he urged Mr Tong to start immediately.

20.  Mr Tong already held a BOC account.  Following Mr Lau’s instructions, Mr Tong activated its online banking services.  Following Mr Lau’s instructions, Mr Tong opened an HSBC account.  Unaware of the scam (meaning the employment scam), Mr Tong provided all bank details including account numbers, ATM cards, passwords, online banking credentials, email, and phone number to Mr Lau who stated that the company needed transaction records to verify salary payments. Mr Lau later invited Mr Tong to “discuss work” at a hotel for a week.  Mr Tong declined as he was subjected to mandatory night-stay order at a designated care-home as part of his mental treatment.

21.  At an in-person meeting in Mong Kok, Mr Lau gave Mr Tong $2,500 and persuaded him to start a business together.  Another “colleague” later made appointments to meet Mr Tong at an accounting firm, and later at Kwai Fong MTR Station.  Mr Tong met with two men who offered $7,000 to him to set up a company and a corporate bank account.  Mr Tong refused because he found the process complex and unsuitable for him.

22.  Days later, Mr Lau called Mr Tong, threatening to terminate his employment unless he opened the company accounts.  After an argument, Mr Lau declared Mr Tong “fired” and stated that the two personal accounts be treated as “sold” to the company, and cut off contact.

23.  Mr Tong was arrested 3 days later.

24.  Mr Chang assured the court that Mr Tong is guilty of the offences charged under the second limb of the mens rea requirement.

25.  In HKSAR v Ho Shun Hsiung CACC 472/2009: money laundering of HK$4,150,000 with 5 charges, international element and foreign remittances. After guilty plea, 3 years’ imprisonment (global starting point: ~4.5 years).

26.  In HKSAR v Jain Nikhil and Anor [2007] 2 HKC 205: laundering of HK$6,600,000 with fraud proceeds, victim loss being HK$3,900,000.  After guilty plea, 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

27.  For Charge 1 (HK$5,478,264.50), the appropriate starting point should be around 4-4.5 years.  For Charge 2 (HK$3,012,704.50), the appropriate starting point should be in the region of 3-4 years (~3.5 years).

28.  Mr Chang submitted there is no international element in the present case.

29.  In respect of sentence enhancement, Mr Chang has the following submissions.

30.  In the witness statement of CIP Li Yiu Nam dated 18 July 2025, paras 14, 15 and 17(b) described circumstances which Mr Tong experienced, namely, he was a victim of an “employment scam”.

31.  Table B in the witness statement shows an upward trend in similar cases peaking in 2022.

32.  Mr Tong played the lowest-tier role: he was deceived into providing his bank accounts for fraudulent use under the guise of employment.  Thus, the enhancement should apply at the lower range (20%-30%).

33.  Mr Tong suffers from chronic schizophrenia (with symptoms like auditory hallucinations) stemming from bipolar disorder.  Over two decades, he underwent repeated long-term hospitalizations and has resided in a psychiatric nursing home for 9 years under medical order.  His condition:

(a) Renders him more susceptible to deception than mentally healthy individuals; and

(b) Impairs his ability to foresee consequences.

34.  Mr Chang requested the court to commission a psychiatric report to assess Mr Tong’s mental state and its impact on his culpability at the time of the offence (sic).  Given Mr Tong’s condition, Mr Chang sought reduced culpability and a lower enhancement.

35.  Mr Tong pleaded guilty and is entitled to a one-third sentencing discount.

36.  Mr Chang submitted that Mr Tong’s role was minor; that he himself was a victim of fraud; that his mental illness exacerbated his vulnerability; that his culpability is thus relatively low.  Mr Chang urged the court to:

(a) Order concurrent sentences; or

(b) If consecutive sentences are imposed, set a low overall sentence commensurate with Mr Tong’s reduced culpability.

37.  Mr Chang submitted on behalf of Mr Tong one mitigation letter written in Chinese by Mr Tong’s father.  The contents generally are that the case has dragged on for 4 years causing the family members to suffer long-term worry, insomnia and depression; that Mr Tong’s mother suffers long-term illness (medical history in English enclosed).  The father asked that Mr Tong be dealt with leniently so the family can be reunited early.

38.  Having received the psychiatric report called for (more below), Mr Chang submitted that Mr Tong agreed to the contents which confirmed the psychiatric history of Mr Tong.

39.  When questioned by the court about Mr Tong’s claim in mitigation that he refused the scammers’ request to open a company which was contradicted by the Amended Summary of Facts para 8, Mr Chang, after taking instructions, submitted that the scammers took Mr Tong’s particulars and registered the company using his name.

Psychiatric Report

40.  On the urging of Mr Chang on behalf of Mr Tong, the court obtained a psychiatric report on Mr Tong.

41.  There was a narrative in the report on how Mr Tong got involved in the offence (sic):

“6. … he searched for job at the Facebook. He was promised to be paid HKD500 a day as salary. He was asked to open 2 bank accounts which he later gave the details to the party who hired him. Tong claims he did not think too much about what they used the bank accounts for. He says he got HKD2500 in total and was arrested 2 weeks later. Tong denies knowing the details on how the accounts were used.”

42.  The opinion of the psychiatrist on Mr Tong was:

“8. … Tong is diagnosed with Dissocial Personality Disorder and Paranoid Schizophrenia with residual symptoms. His mental condition is largely stable in custodial setting and inpatient psychiatric treatment is not warranted at current juncture …”

Sentence

43.  It is noteworthy nothing in the psychiatric report supports the defence submission that Mr Tong’s mental illness exacerbated his vulnerability to being lured into an employment scam and therefore his culpability ought to become lower.  In fact, there was nothing in the report to indicate he was lured into surrendering his two accounts.

44.  I further note that the amount of money he told the psychiatrist he received is somewhat different to what he admitted in the Amended Summary of Facts, namely $7,500 for selling the BOC account and $2,500 for selling the HSBC account.

45.  In the Amended Summary of Facts, Mr Tong further admitted that as per the Companies Registry records, he became a director of a limited company on 5 January 2021.  This is contrary to the mitigation claim that he refused to set up a company for a reward.

46.  I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Mr Tong fell prey to an employment scam as he claimed.

47.  Before sentencing Mr Tong, I have had regard to the principles enunciated in Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, and HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33.

48.  This case has the following features.  The total amount laundered was just short of $8.5 million.  There were 40 to 50 deposits/withdrawals spanning just over 5 months.  There was no international element.  Mr Tong did not appear to know anything about the predicate offence of fraud.  Mr Tong’s role was to sell his two accounts to a stranger for other people’s use in return for a total reward of $10,000.

49.  I also note that Mr Tong has admitted he committed the two offences with the said stranger.

50.  Bearing in mind the circumstances of the present case and comparing them against the list of non-exhaustive features identified in Boma, and factoring in the element of joint enterprise, I adjudge an appropriate global starting point of sentence for the two offences to be 4 ½ years’ imprisonment.

51.  Mr Tong pleaded guilty to the offences in good time.  He shall be entitled to the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

52.  Mr Chang has no objection to the prosecution furnishing information in the form of a witness statement of CIP Li Yiu Nam dated 18 July 2025 on the court under section 27(2) of OSCO, Cap 455.  Mr Chang also has no objection to enhancement of sentence but urges the court not to enhance beyond the 30% mark.

53.  The basis of the “enhancement application” are (a) prevalence of money laundering offence; and (b) the nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of this offence.

54.  In Table A on page 5 of the statement, it can be seen that the use of (money laundering) stooge (Mr Tong is one such stooge) is increasing steadily in both figures and proportion from year 2020 to year 2024.  The first 6 months of year 2025 achieve a figure of 2,758 and a proportion of 72%.  Using the mathematical method of extrapolation, the projected figure and proportion obtained for the whole of 2025 will be 5,516 and 72% respectively.  This will represent a drop from the corresponding figure and proportion of 7,883 and 75% for the year 2024.  This drop is not substantial.

55.  I am satisfied that the use of money laundering stooge and by implication the money laundering offence is still prevalent.

56.  In Table B on page 6 of the statement, it can be seen that for (local) Deception cases (detected with arrest)  which involved subsequent money laundering of the crime proceeds, the amount of reported losses went up from $552.88M in year 2020 to $2,143.41M in year 2024.  The figure for the first 6 months of year 2025 was $370.50M which when projected for the whole of 2025 became $741M.  This represents a significant drop from year 2024.

57.  However, reported losses are not the only harm done to the community.

58.  The use of stooge accounts is another way in which the community can be harmed indirectly (more below).  There has been an overall increase in the use of local stooge accounts under both local Deception cases (detected with arrest) and ML cases (ie overseas predicate offence with local money laundering or standalone money laundering with no identifiable predicate offence) (detected with arrest).  The relevant figure went up from 845 cases in year 2020 to 3,675 cases in year 2024.  The corresponding figure for the first 6 months of year 2025 was 511 which when projected for the whole of 2025 became 1,022.  Although this represents a reduced figure from year 2024, it still is quite substantial.

59.  CIP Li outlined in para 18 of his statement how the increase in number of stooge accounts can harm the Hong Kong community, as follows:

(a) It interferes with the normal operation of the banking system, having a negative effect on the reputation of Hong Kong as a well-known international financial hub;

(b) It forms multiple layers of “shield” concealing the identity of the masterminds behind, making it difficult, if not impossible, for police to identify the masterminds behind;

(c) It substantially facilitates the commission of crimes and in turn leads to more crimes being committed, as the masterminds could easily get away from their criminal liability;

(d) It makes money laundering easier, which allows culprits to make use of their ill-gotten gains to extend their sphere to engage in a wider range of illegal activities;

(e) It means that law enforcement agencies have to put in more investigative efforts and resources; and

(f) It means that people with low income or less awareness of the consequences of selling their bank accounts are more likely to be lured by the culprits to take the risks of commission of crimes to surrender their accounts for monetary reward.

60.  I am satisfied that the extent of harm caused to the community by recent occurrences of the money laundering offence is still substantial.

61.  I will therefore exercise the power under section 27(11) of OSCO, Cap 455, to enhance the sentence of Mr Tong.  I deem 20% enhancement to be sufficient in the circumstances of the statistics and of Mr Tong.

62.  I will disregard any decimal places after calculation of the prison term in terms of months.

63.  The resulting sentence is heavy when compared with Mr Tong’s past sentences but then again, he has never been convicted before of a money laundering offence.  I am satisfied that the global sentence herein arrived at is not excessive in the overall circumstances of the offences and the offender.

64.  I will impose individual sentences (after enhancement) for the two charges and make an appropriate order to arrive at the final global sentence.

(Mr Tong, please stand)

65.  The sentence for Charge 1 is 40 months’ imprisonment.

66.  The sentence for Charge 2 is 38 months’ imprisonment.

67.  I order that 3 months of the sentence on Charge 2 are to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1, making a final aggregate sentence of 43 months’ imprisonment.