HKSAR v. CHAN MANG HO

DCCC 1064/2024

[2025] HKDC 1603

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1064 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant, Mr Chan, has entered pleas of guilty on two charges today.  Both the charges deal with the offence of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence which is contrary to Section 25(1)  and (3)  of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.

2.  As far as the details of those charges are concerned, they both relate to bank accounts held by the defendant and the 1^st charge the overall total of money involved or “black money” as it is referred to is $3,899,938 and that money was in the accounts between the dates of 7 April 2021 and 25 August 2022.

3.  As far as the 2^nd charge is concerned, the overall figure is $2,788,869 with that money passing through that account between 26 September 2022 and 29 September 2023 meaning there is an overall period of time in respect of the both accounts of between 7 April 2021 and 29 September 2023.  The overall global total of monies involved is $6,688,807.

4.  The facts that the defendant has agreed to are straightforward.  He admits that he is the account holder of both accounts which in the facts are described as “Account A” and “Account B”.  He was the sole signatory of both those accounts “A” and “B”.

5.  During the financial years when the money was passing through that account, that is between 2018 and 2022, there would have been no tax records of the defendant in those financial years and he was reported to be employed as a Personal Trainer earning $3,165 for the financial year of 2020/2021 and a Chef and Delivery Assistant earning $4,563 for the financial year of 2022/2023.

6.  The facts set out an analysis of the details of Account A and Account B between the relevant dates show a large number of transactions of money entering and leaving those accounts consistent with what is described as a “mirroring pattern” and consistent with a finding that the monies were in fact be used for the purpose of money laundering and on that basis I found that the charges are proved against the defendant.

7.  The defendant did provide a record of interview and a statement under caution in which he admitted those accounts “A” and “B” were solely used by him.  He had never lent, he said, the accounts to others.  The accounts were used mainly for the transfer of money to an online gambling platform for a friend.

8.  The defendant’s personal record shows him to be at the time when the antecedent statement was compiled he was 37 years of age.  He has a number of previous convictions, none of them are similar and none of them are relevant to sentence in respect of the case today.

9.  The defendant worked as a Personal Trainer and in Logistics and on a seafood stall.

10.  As far as the mitigation advanced by him, based on his personal details he is said to be 37 years old, parents aged 71 and 69, both retired.  Education up to Form 3 level.  The main mitigation put in submission for this defendant is his plea of guilty.  He said he did not know the source of the black money and there is no evidence of any international element involved in the case.

11.  It said the defendant played a minor role in the present case.  He is what described as “stooge” or “money mule” and did not on the face of it receive any remuneration.  He is said to be remorseful. He asks for the court to give him a chance, promises not to reoffend, wishes to serve his sentence as soon as possible so that he can take care of his parents.

12.  Another factor in sentencing today is that the fact that the prosecution are applying for an enhancement of this sentence.  That enhancement has been made under Section 27(2)  of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.  Notice of intention to furnish information was filed on 30 August 2024 and served on the defendant on 3 September 2024.  The prosecution has in pursuit of that furnished a witness statement of a Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam of the Hong Kong Police Force containing information relating both to the prevalence of the offence and the nature and extent of harm caused to the community by recent occurrence of the specified offence.  It deals with what is described as “stooge” accounts and the defendant’s use of Account A and B fall into the category of “stooge account”.

13.  It is my understanding from the mitigation of the defendant that he does not oppose the enhancement of sentence.  Clearly, their grounds are made out in the course of Chief Inspector Li’s statement that would justify the court in an enhancement of his sentence and I find that to be the case here.

14.  I am dealing with the principles that are to be applied for money laundering.  There are a number of cases that I am referred to.  These generally are the cases that are considered to set out the principles of money laundering.  The cases themselves are HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and the case of HKSAR v Boma which is at [2012] 2 HKLRD 33.  The general overall effect is that there is no sentencing guideline for this particular offence.  The main sentencing factor for the court is the amount of what is described as “black money” involved in the individual cases.  The court must also consider as sentencing factors:

- Where the defendant knew what the predicate provisional offence was from which the money was being laundering;

- Whether there is an international element;

- Whether the offence involves the elaborate steps, schemes or fraudulent measures;

- Whether there is a criminal syndicate;

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

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

- The role and remuneration of the defendant.

15.  In this case, there is not said to be or found to be any international element on the basis of the facts that have been agreed.  The total sum involved is $6,688,807 in the two charges and the length of time over which the offences were committed was something in the region of two years.  These appear to be the main factors to take into account in determining the level of sentence.

16.  Although there are no guidelines as to the length of sentence to be imposed, the case that I have already referred to, HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi, contains a review of previous sentencing and that review shows that the sentencing starting point for money laundering cases is 3 years or so where the black money involved is said to be between $1 million and $2 million, 4 years or so where it is between $3 million and $6 million and it could be over 5 years where it is above $10 million.  As I said, this is not a guideline but is simply a review of earlier cases.  On this basis, the overall starting point before enhancement of sentence for this defendant would lie in the range of somewhere around about 4 years’ imprisonment. 

17.  Now I bear in mind the defendant is still relatively young, he has no similar convictions so he can, as it were, start his life again after he completes the prison sentence for being involved for this matter and it would appear aside from the question of enhancement of sentence the overall starting point to be considered in a case such as this would be around about 4 years’ imprisonment.

18.  There are two charges and I must necessarily pass the correct sentence on each charge and then deal with the question of overall totality by ordering the sentences to be run consecutively or concurrently in whole or in part.  The offences are obviously in respect of two different accounts and can be served consecutively if necessary.  I will simply deal with the starting points of sentence and then the question of enhancement afterwards. 

19.  Now the level of sentence on the 1^st charge, and with regards to the factors I have already set out should be a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.  After deduction for the defendant’s plea of guilty, he is entitled to a one-third discount, that would lead to a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment.

20.  I must deal with the question of enhancement at this stage in respect of the 1^st charge.  The defendant does not challenge the fact that enhancement is appropriate.  I consider a 25 per cent enhancement to be the proper level of enhancement in this case.  That would lead to an overall sentence on the 1^st charge of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment or 30 months.

21.  On the 2^nd charge, I consider the starting point for sentence to be one of 2½ years’ imprisonment or 30 months’ imprisonment.  That would be reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment after the defendant’s plea of guilty, and again, a further enhancement of 25 per cent of that figure would lead to a sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment.

22.  To take the question of the overall totality of sentence, I consider the overall total sentence on both charges should be a sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment.  I will achieve that by ordering that 10 months of charge 2 be served consecutively to charge 1, leading to an overall sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment.