HKSAR v. RONG JIANMING

DCCC 1133/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1133 OF 2013

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1. Rong Jianming you have pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to deal with property knowing or believing the property represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 455 and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200.

2. In summary on the 16 October last year Madam Wong aged 72, was at home with her husband Mr Tam aged 79, when she answered the telephone.  The caller demanded Madam Wong to pay $250,000 for the release of her son.  At the same time another male pretending to be her son said “Mom, I was beaten up”.  Madam Wong agreed to pay $100,000 and was instructed to take the money to the nursing school next to Yan Chai Hospital.   

3. Meanwhile Mr Tam overhearing the telephone conversation suspected this was a scam and immediately telephoned his son who confirmed he was safe.  Mr Tam then called the police who mounted an operation with Madam Wong to deliver a dummy money bag.

4. When Madam Wong arrived in the vicinity of the hospital you approached and asked Madam Wong if she had brought the money at which stage the police arrested you.  Under caution you admitted, inter alia, that you were asked by a person called “Hak Lo” to go to Hong Kong for a job in return for which you would be given RMB¥600-700.  Having arrived in Hong Kong you were told by “Hak Lo” to collect money which he had deceived from an old lady. 

5. In passing sentence I take into account everything said on your behalf by Mr Yeung, including that you did not participate in the telephone deception your role being that of what Mr Yeung calls the “legman” collecting the money.  I also take into account that you have a clear record.  This however carries little weight when you have been in Hong Kong less than three days. 

6. Money laundering is a serious offence for which deterrent sentences are required.  A number of significant factors have been identified as relevant in determining the culpability of a defendant, including the nature of the offence that generated the laundered money and the extent to which the offence assisted the crime or hindered its detection; whether the defendant had knowledge of that underlying offence or has turned a blind eye to the source of the money; whether there was an international element to the commission of the offence; the degree of sophistication of the offence and the level of the defendant's participation, including the length of time the offence lasted and the benefit he derived from the offence; and the amount of money involved (see for example Secretary for Justice v Jerome Yuval Arnold Herzberg [2010] 1 HKLRD 502; HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545; and HKSAR v A male known as Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33).

7. Generally, sentence should mainly reflect the amount of the money laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant       (see HKSAR v Wu Jianbing [2012] 2 HKLRD 33).  However the benefit received, said to be RMB¥600-700 in this case, may be relevant in considering the role played by the defendant (see paragraph 40(8) of Boma Amaso).   

8. In HKSAR v Wu Jianbing the appellant, who travelled from the Mainland, collected money on four occasions, over 4 days, which resulted in 4 charges of money laundering.  The sums to be collected ranged from $20,000 – $200,000 and totalled altogether $310,000.  All monies arose from telephone deception cases.  The Court of Appeal, taking into account there was no evidence to show that the defendant participated directly in the telephone deceptions, said that the proper starting point after trial was 3 years imprisonment on each charge.

9. Mr Yeung has submitted a table of six cases sentenced in the District Court in 2013 where lower starting points were taken for similar cases.  I have considered these cases.

10. In HKSAR v Yang Chia Cheng [2011] 3 HKLRD 610, a telephone deception case, the Court of Appeal held that where the sole purpose of coming to Hong Kong was to commit crime this warrants additional punishment.  You told the police you were asked to come to Hong Kong for a job.  Mr Yeung informs the court that whilst you did not know until after your arrival in Hong Kong that the money to be collected was from a deception of an old lady you knew when you were asked to come to Hong Kong to do a job that you were to commit crime.

11. Taking into account the amount to be collected was HK$100,000; you travelled to Hong Kong to commit crime; although you knew the money was obtained by deception you did not participate directly in the telephone deception your role being limited to collecting the money; this was a single occasion; and you have a clear record, I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is one of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.  Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 1 year and 8 months imprisonment.

Enhancement of sentence

12. The prosecution apply for enhancement of sentence pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance on the grounds of the prevalence of the offence and the nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of the offence.

13. In support of the application the prosecution submit a statement of Detective Chief Inspector Lam Cheuk Ho, dated the 15 January 2014.  There has been no objection to the admission in evidence of DCIP Lam’s statement which has been read pursuant to section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221.

14. The statement of DCIP Lam clearly shows a significant increase in what he has termed “Drop-off” cases and the consequential loss in such cases.  DCIP Lam concludes that the modus operandi of “Drop-off” in telephone deception cases and the associated money laundering activities by culprits tasked to retrieve the money are prevalent crimes in Hong Kong with obvious concern to the community.   On this evidence, which I accept, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt both grounds for enhancement are made out.

15. I am satisfied that an enhancement of 7 months imprisonment is appropriate, which is just more than the one-third enhancement approved in HKSAR v Wu Jianbing.

16. You are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 3 months imprisonment.