HKSAR v. CHEUK HOI MAN

DCCC 1083/2024

[2025] HKDC 1601

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1083 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence.  This is contrary to the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.  The total of money involved is $5,577,394.3 and the offence was committed between 13 October 2022 and 9 December 2022.

2.  The facts are straightforward.  The facts show the existence of an investment scam which occurred between September 2022 and January 2023 and deal with the victim of that investment scam who was the 1^st prosecution witness.  That witness was lured into joining a bogus Cryptocurrency investment platform paying a total of $2.75 million into various bank accounts of purported investment capital security deposits which included a payment of $340,000 into the account set out there, which is a Hang Seng Bank limited account held by the defendant.  Upon failing to withdraw any money from the platform, the victim realised she was scammed and reported the case to the police.  Now the account in question into which the $340,000 was paid is the personal account of the defendant and in her sole name with her being the sole signatory.  She opened the account herself in person at the bank branch on 21 January 2011, at the time describing her employment as being a stall keeper in a supermarket.

3.  We can see a typical behaviour of money laundering in the operation of the account, especially between 13 October 2022 and 9 December 2022.  Details were as follows:

151 deposits created the total amount of money involved here including the deposit from PW1, the majority of that, that is 126 of those transactions, in the total amount of almost $5 million represented 88.1 per cent of the total money deposited was by bank or FPS transfer, the rest being mostly cash deposits. There were a further 84 withdrawals totalling $5,566,329.39. The majority of those, which was 76 transactions, representing 99.5 per cent, the total withdrawal amount were again by bank FPS transfer, the rest being ATM withdrawals and EPS payments.

4.  Most of the transactions, that is deposits and withdrawals, took place between 5 December 2022 and 9 December 2022 and during that time the daily total deposits and withdrawal amounts were similar resulting in a rapid draining of funds and a pattern consistent with an account when used as a temporary repository of funds also showing what I believe is described as “mirroring”.  Clearly, the operation of the account clearly proves the offence in this case and I convicted the defendant accordingly.

5.  As far as the defendant’s antecedents are concerned, she is I understand a 36 year old woman, studied up to Secondary 3 and in the employment history described as a clerk.  She lived simply in Kowloon.  She has a number of previous convictions, totally three. Of significance is that the fact that on 18 June 2025 and on 30 June 2025 in respect of two separate offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs and possession of a Part 1 poison, she received a total of 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment in total.  She is serving that sentence and has been serving that sentence as a non-remand prisoner, certainly since 18 June 2025. I will deal now with the mitigation as advanced in respect of her.

6.  In her mitigation, she is described as 33 but the antecedents says she is 36.  I do not see any complication there.  It is certainly not relevant to sentence anyhow but I will deal with the details in the mitigation that has been put before me.  She is described as being single, she has a 10 year old son.  The defendant has been the sole carer of her son until she was arrested and placed into custody.  That son is now living with her parents who are in court today.  The defendant’s parents and elder sister live apart.

7.  The defendant has studied up to Form 3. She has been on CSSA in the past.  When the child started going to school, the defendant secured work as a sales and waitress earning some $14,000 a month and the defendant has been the sole provider of the son without financial help from the son’s father since that time.

8.  Now the way which she committed the offence is again fairly typical, it had involved an ex-boyfriend who would ask to use the defendant’s Hang Seng account which the defendant opened over 10 years ago for her private use.  The defendant rather foolishly agreed and handed over the account with the bankcard and passport and did not ask any more details.  This showed, as she concedes, poor judgment without thinking of the consequences and ended up in a commission of the present offence.

9.  In her mitigation, the defendant is described as very remorseful, ashamed of her actions, she admits she turned a blind eye to something that was wrong.  She will of necessity lose valuable time of seeing her son grow up, especially through his teenage years, and also feels guilty about having to burden her ageing parents to raise her son.  She hopes to be reunited with her son and family after release and proposes to take up various courses whilst in custody. 

10.  There are letters from the defendant, her son, her father, her sister and pastor which show the support that she has from her family and wider community.

11.  In respect of sentencing, there are sentencing principles in relation to the money laundering aspect of sentence. I also note that the prosecution has applied for an enhancement of sentence in this case.  In support of the application for enhancement is a statement by Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam which I have considered.  The statement sets out the evidential basis upon which the prosecution apply for that enhancement.  I note at this stage the application is unopposed and the contents of the statement establish the basis for the requested enhancement, so I will be enhancing the sentence in accordance with the prosecution’s application.

12.  Dealing briefly with the sentencing principles that I have to deal with in respect of the instant offence, the maximum sentence for this offence is one of 14 years’ imprisonment.  Secondly, there is no actual sentencing guideline for the present offences.  Generally speaking, the main sentencing factor is the amount of what is described as “black money” involved in individual cases.  I refer to the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD at page 545.  There the Court of Appeal emphasised that the amount of money being laundered is a major sentencing consideration.  Judge Lee giving the Judgment said “There are no sentencing guideline to the offence of dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence because the facts vary from case to case”.  However, he set out a number of factors that were to be taken into account. 

13.  Clearly, the amount of money involved major consideration and not necessarily the amount of benefit received by the defendant in the transaction.  Culpability for the offence lies in the assistance, support and encouragement offered to the commission of an indictable offence, so the defendant’s participation in the money laundering is a relevant factor.  This offence does not necessarily have to have a correlation with the indictable offence or what we call the predicate offence. However, the relevant indictable offence can be if it can be identified, the court may take into account the sentence imposed on the indictable offence per se when determining the sentence of the dealing offence.  And also, the court must look to see if there is any international element involved in this case.  There does not appear to be any from what I can see here.

14.  Besides that case, also and in that case, that is Hsu Yu Yi, the court consider the amounts of money involved in sentences passed in a number of other money laundering cases.  The starting point for sentences is 3 years or so where the black money involved is between 1 million and 2 million; 4 years or so where it was between 3 million and 6 million and over 5 years where it is above 10 million.  That is not a guideline but it is a relevant consideration when looking at the amount of money involved in the particular cases.

15.  The sentencing framework was further evolved in the case of HKSAR v Boma which can be found at [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 where the Court of Appeal emphasised that the question of the amount of the money laundered is not the be-all and end-all of a case but is a significant factor.

16.  The court went on to list other relevant factors that should be taken into account and these are as follows:

1)  The nature of the predicate offence;

2)  Where the defendant knew what the predicate offence was;

3)  Whether there is an international element;

4)  Whether the offence of money laundering involves elaborate steps, scheme or fraudulent measures;

5)  Where there is a criminal syndicate;

6)  The number of transactions and the length of time during which the offences were committed;

7)  Whether the defendant continued to launder money after knowing the nature of the predicate offence; and

8)  The role and remuneration of the defendant.

17.  Now I must take into account all those factors when dealing with the starting point for sentence for this defendant in respect of her involvement in the money laundering of 5.577-odd million dollars.

18.  Her involvement is that of the person who lends the account, what is described as “the provisional stooge account” in the evidence of Chief Inspector Li.  It is a common method by which money laundering is achieved, it is prevalent and it causes considerable social harm.  I take all those factors into consideration.  Now looking at this individual charge, what I shall do is take a starting point for sentence in respect of this particular individual charge at 48 months’ imprisonment.

19.  The defendant is now entitled to a discount from that of one-third, leaves a sentence now of 32 months’ imprisonment.  The prosecution have applied to enhance that figure.  I agree with the prosecution that this is an appropriate case for enhancement and the evidence supports the enhancement that has been applied for.  Given the defendant’s involvement in this, I will enhance that by 25 per cent which is a figure of 8 months.  This now leads to a final figure of 40 months’ imprisonment.

20.  That does not complete the sentencing exercise today because the defendant is serving a lengthy sentence of imprisonment of 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment and it is incumbent on me to consider that issue.  The first thing I must deal with is whether the sentences can be served consecutively or concurrently.  This offence was committed separately to the offences for which the defendant was earlier convicted, so this sentence can be serve wholly consecutively if necessary but the court must consider the overall totality of sentence for this defendant.  She is already serving a considerable sentence.  One does not want to burden her with another considerable length of sentence, especially when one considers there is also a child involved.  Nevertheless, the interests of justice demand that some element of this sentence must be served consecutively to that of the existing sentences to which she is serving. 

21.  What I shall order is that 20 months of the sentence be served consecutively and the balance concurrently to her existing sentences of imprisonment.