HKSAR v. GONZALES TARA ROSE

DCCC 1342/2024

[2025] HKDC 2149

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1342 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant has been convicted after trial of a single offence on this indictment of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence.  The total sum involved is in the region of $2.5 million.  The relevant facts are contained in my earlier reasons for verdict, I will not rehearse them again.

2.  The defendant’s antecedents are as follows:

She is a Hong Kong Identity Card holder and Permanent Resident in the city, currently aged 33 years, educated to Form 5 level, graduate of Rosary Hill Secondary School. She has worked in the food and beverage industry and most recently was working as a manager in a restaurant with a salary in the region of $200,000 per annum. She is single but was living with her boyfriend in Causeway Bay.

3.  As far as her criminal record is concerned, she does have a criminal record for offences of dishonesty back in 2010 when she was sentenced to a period of Probation which she successfully completed.  A more recent conviction in respect of gambling, that is a minor offence not relevant for the purposes of sentencing today.

4.  As far as the approach that the court should take that can be seen in a number of cases in determining the appropriate sentence for money laundering the court often considers guidelines in established previous cases but there are no full guidelines in terms of sentencing.  That was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536 where it is said there are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing with the proceeds from indictable offence.

5.  The court then set a number of factors which should take into account when determining sentence.  Those factors have also been looked at in the case of HKSAR v Boma Amaso CACC 335/2010 which sets out the kind of consideration the court should consider such as the nature of the predicate offence, if known, and the penalty available for that predicate offence.  In this, the only predicate offence that can be distinguished in this case is one of fraud.  One must look at the state of knowledge of the defendant of the predicate offence, knowledge of the nature of the predicate offence and also knowledge that the funds and the proceeds of the indictable offence.

6.  The court must also consider whether there is an international element in the offence, the length of time the offence lasts for, the defendant’s role, if any, in the money laundering, the sophistication of the offence, whether an organised or criminal syndicate is involved and whether there is one transaction and the length of time over which the offence took place.  The court should have regard to the role of the defendant and the acts performed by the offender.  The director of a laundering scheme should attract a greater sentence.  The sentence should be sufficient to deter those who might be prevailed upon by directing minds. 

7.  In the case of a person further down the chain, the court would wish to have regard to whether a benefit has been received and if so the nature and size of the benefit but within the category of persons down the chain there will be gradations of culpability and it gives an example, if the drug addict or petty crook is paid a small sum to open account, hand over its operation to another with no more participation and no more knowledge that it is going to be used for some kind sort of crime is much less culpable than an offender of a different sort not used in that way.

8.  In the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi, which I have already referred to, the court did look at a number of the sentences passed in money laundering cases over recent years and said that the starting point is 3 years or so where the black money involved is between one million to 2 million, 4 years or so where it is between 3 million to 6 million and it could be over 5 years where it is above 10 million.

9.  In this case there is also an application for enhancement of sentence and a statement from Chief Inspector Li, I believe, setting out the basis on which that application is made.  I note there is no objection to that application and clearly the evidence produced by the prosecution would be sufficient for the court to consider and impose an enhancement on the sentence imposed.

10.  I take into account the various factors set out in both the Hsu case and Boma as they would apply to this case.  There clearly is not an international element worthy for consideration here.  It is a commonplace offence in Hong Kong, the kind of fraud that is involved here again is commonplace.

11.  Taking all these factors into consideration and especially the fact of the defendant’s background, she is a Hong Kong Resident, she has little involvement in crime, has been hardworking from the look of it and I believe that I can take those factors into account.  I do also take, on the basis of the evidence, she would have had a very low role within the hierarchy of this money laundering operation.

12.  I am going to take a starting point for sentence for this case having taken into account the amount of money involved and her particular what evidence there is of her role, I will take a starting point at 30 months’ imprisonment. 

13.  The prosecution have an application for enhancement.  As I have indicated, there is evidence for that and I do propose to enhance the sentence.  I do note in the figures produced by the prosecution that there appears to be a levelling-off in the amount of cases involved.  I am going to take an enhancement in the region of 20 per cent which would add an extra 6 months to the sentence.  So the final sentence of imprisonment in this case will be one of 36 months’ imprisonment.