HKSAR v. CHAN YAN KIT

DCCC 800/2023

[2025] HKDC 2113

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 800 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

________________________

1.  In this case, the defendant Chan Yan-kit is charged with the offence of “conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”. The substance of the charge is the agreement and the subject matter is dealing with property which was known to the defendant or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence. He pleaded not guilty to the charge.

2.  The prosecution in the present case had to prove the Defendant had enhanced into an agreement with another person, the name of Kasen to launder the total sum of $420,000 currency.  The prosecution contended the defendant had agreed to lend his account to Kasen.  As a result, monies were paid into his account and was subsequently transferred out of the sum. 

3.  The defendant is the holder and the sole signatory of an HSBC account. On 16 September 2022, a total payment of $420,000 had been paid into this account in six transactions.  Within the same day, most of the monies (namely $406,001)  has transferred through online banking to another account. 

4.  This without more would be sufficient for a prima facie case to prove that it was a money laundering exercise.  The defendant was the only person authorised to manage this account: he had the ATM card, and the PIN for transferring funds in his account.  The court could only conclude that the movement of funds were either done by him personally or with his authorisation. 

5.  In addition, the prosecution relied on the contents of what the defendant said during a video-recorded interview on 27 November 2022.  The defendant contested the admissibility of such a statement on the basis that he was under duress and inducement by a police officer. 

6.  The court held a voir dire to determine whether the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the interview was conducted fairly, with the consent of the defendant and that he voluntarily answered the questions posed by the police officer.  I had ruled that the prosecution has discharged such duty and ruled that the contents of the interview admissible evidence, brief reasons of which have been given in open court and I would not repeat the same.  I did not find any reason to exclude the evidence. 

7.  During the interview, the defendant admitted to have lent his account to a friend Kasen.  He gave Kasen the online banking password.  He was given $4,000 as a reward. 

8.  In the interview, the defendant also said that even after lending the account, he had continued to use it.  It was only in September 2022 that he found his account was frozen by the bank by reason of suspicious movements of funds. 

9.  The defendant also stated that he had lent his account for the purpose of making purchases.  He was aware that sums of over $100,000 and several tens of thousands of dollars had been deposited into his account and were subsequently withdrawn.  The only inference I could draw is that the defendant had agreed with Kasen that the latter could use his account, and that he was aware that the account was used to receive funds. 

10.  After I ruled that there was a case to answer at the end of the prosecution’s case, the defendant elected to give evidence.

11.  From what I could make out of what he said at the witness stand, the defendant continued to contest the admissibility and the veracity of what he said in the interview.  He stated he felt threatened by the police and that before the interview, there were discussions with a police officer who he could not identity.  He was advised by that particular police officer that the police would be relentless in making him say what they wanted him to.  He felt threatened and he was scared. 

12.  The defendant also stated he did not lend the account to anyone.  He might have inadvertently let Kasen use his banking app to take out an insurance for him, but he did not give her his PIN.  He speculated that someone might have access to his PIN without his knowing and someone might have access to one of his lost bank cards. 

13.  He also added that during the interview, there was a very loud white noise whenever the police officer posed the questions.  He had a headache even listening to it again, and that at the time he was adversely influenced.

14.  Basically the defendant stated that he did not lend his account to anyone.  Not to Kasen or anyone else.  And he was not aware of the movement of funds in his account until they were done much later. 

15.  I do not believe in the defendant not only by reason of the lack of consistency in what he told this court earlier before the voir dire, but also by the inherent inconsistencies in his testimony.  I also found the account he gave was inconsistent with normal course of events in our daily lives. 

16.  The defendant basically said he was in a haze when he responded, he was scared, and also he was intimidated by the presence of the police.  But none of that showed during the interview.  In fact from what I could observe in the recording he was in a conversation mood with the police, freely giving out information to the police. 

17.  I do not accept the defendant’s contention and reject the same on the part which is inconsistent with the prosecution’s case.  Despite that, the prosecution still had a duty to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.  I found that the defendant voluntarily gave information during the interview to the effect that he agreed to lend his account to his co-conspirator in order to use the account for effecting movement of the funds. 

18.  From the undisputed banking record, I concluded that the agreement had been carried out.  He is now convicted as charged.