HKSAR v. LEE YU TO

CACC 582/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 543/1999)

__________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hon Mayo VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted of an offence of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to s 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455 ("the Ordinance") after a trial in the District Court before H H Judge Line. He was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment. He originally sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. He abandoned his application for leave to appeal against conviction and we accordingly dismissed the application.

2. The trial was a rather unusual one as there was no viva voce evidence. The prosecution placed reliance upon a number of agreed facts and upon the contents of a cautioned statement made by the applicant the admissibility of which was not contested.

3. The facts can be stated very simply. The applicant carried on business as a bookmaker. For the most part the business was undertaken in Macau. The applicant would receive telephone calls from customers who were known to him. They would place bets with him on the results of horse racing in Hong Kong and football matches in Europe. He would give his customers a 10% discount on the odds quoted by the Jockey Club for racing in Hong Kong. If the punter lost he would pay the required amount into a bank account the applicant held with the Hang Seng Bank in Hong Kong. These moneys would then be transferred to a "Banksmart" account where the moneys or some of it was used to pay winning punters. The total amount of deposits in the first account amounted to just over $30 million.

4. In our view the Judge was correct in taking into account the nature of the offence which was the subject of the contravention of s 25(1) of the Ordinance.

5. It is well established that in a substantial case of bookmaking a custodial sentence is virtually inevitable. Here it is clear that it was a very substantial operation.

6. Mr Grounds submitted that it was necessary to bear in mind an internal scale of proportionality relating to the principle and secondary offences. We do not consider such an exercise to be valid on the facts of the present case.

7. We consider that the Judge did adopt a correct starting point. He also gave a sufficient discount for the lack of sophistication involved and the fact that the applicant had not seriously challenged the prosecution evidence.

8. In all the circumstances we do not think that the sentence was either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and accordingly we dismiss the application.