HKSAR v. SEE PING HON

DCCC 1417/2024

[2025] HKDC 1546

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1417 OF 2024

----------------------------

----------------------------

---------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---------------------------------------

1.  The defendant, Mr See Ping-hon, was charged with one count of “Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. 

2.  According to the particulars of offence, the defendant is charged that between the 1^st day of September 2023 and the 30^th of the same month, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that a total sum of $10.89-odd million in the bank account with the Standard Chartered Bank, account number 413-8-656238-1, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted accordingly. 

3.  According to the facts which he has admitted, the amount in question was the total amount deposited into the Standard Chartered Bank account opened by the defendant on 15 February 2022.  The defendant was the sole authorised signatory of that account.  The incident came to light when one Kam Yun-sang, Johnny, fell prey to an online dating scam and transferred HK$862 to the said account on 20 September 2023. 

4.  After the matter was reported to the police, it was found that between the 1^st and 30^th September 2023, the defendant’s account had a total of 3,968 deposits totalling over HK$10.89‑odd million, and 1,003 withdrawals, totalling HK$10.91‑odd million.  Most of these transactions were conducted through bank transfers.  There were frequent deposits and withdrawals on the same day, and the day-end balance of the account was generally low.  The transactions in the account displayed smurfing and mirroring patterns and it appeared that the account was used during the material period as a temporary repository of funds. 

5.  The defendant was arrested on 30 June 2024. When cautioned after arrest, he chose to remain silent.  He now admits that during the material period, he had dealt with the relevant property, namely the deposits made into his account at the Standard Chartered Bank, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the said property, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represented proceeds of indictable offence. 

Defendant’s Background

6.  Defendant is now 46 years old.  He was born in Hong Kong. He left school after completing Form 3.  His parents have both passed away and he has no siblings.  He is still single.  According to Mr Chan, counsel representing him this morning, before his arrest he was living with his stepfather and it is said that the defendant had been employed as a salesman for a few years up.  He has remained unemployed since April 2022. 

7.  According to the criminal records put before me this morning, the defendant has a total of 39 previous convictions entered on 33 occasions.  Most of these convictions are for drugs related offences, but there are also 8 offences involving dishonesty.  And apart from these, he has also had convictions for gambling and selling infringing copies of copyright works, etc. 

8.  In the past 20 years or so, he had served various prison terms for different offences. The very last conviction he has was entered in March 2024 for an offence of gambling in a gambling establishment, for which he was fined $4,000. 

Sentencing Principle

9.  In a good number of cases from the Court of Appeal, including the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi and HKSAR v Boma, the court has set down a range of factors which a sentencing court should take into account when considering sentence. 

10.  Now, without going through these in detail, I think it is right to say that the most important factors include:

(a) the amount of proceeds being dealt with;

(b) the period within which the dealing took place;

(c) the nature of the predicate offence; and

(d) the relationship, if any, between the defendant and the predicate offence.

11.  In the case of Hsu Yu Yi, Mr Justice Cheung, JA as he then was, also referred to the usual range of sentences passed in a series of past cases.  According to his Lordship’s analysis, a starting point of around 4 years’ imprisonment has been adopted by courts in the territory when the proceeds being dealt with were in the region of HK$3 to 6 million.  The sentence goes up to around 5 years when the money involved is over $10 million. 

12.  In the present case, we are dealing with a total sum close to HK$10.9 million.  However, the period within which the money was dealt with was comparatively short.  On the other hand, the number of transactions involved cannot be said to be small.  A total of 3,968 deposits and over 1,000 withdrawals were made within that period. 

13.  On what is before me, it is also clear that the predicate offence is likely to be fraud or fraud related.  But in fairness to the defendant, it has to be admitted that there is nothing to suggest any connection between the defendant and the fraudsters behind, except perhaps for the service he provided in dealing with the money. 

14.  The defendant has close to 40 previous convictions involving a catalogue of different offences, some involving dishonesty, but fortunately for him he has no previous similar conviction. 

15.  Taking a global view of the matter, I am of the opinion that a notional starting point of 4½ years is appropriate.  The defendant has indicated his guilty plea at the outset, he is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That will take the notional sentence down to one of 36 months. 

16.  But that is not the end of the matter, because the prosecution has made an application for enhancement of sentence under section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. In support of their application, a witness statement was given by Chief Inspector Li who is in charge of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment Division of the Financial Intelligence and Investigation Bureau of the Hong Kong Police Force. And that is admitted in the evidence under section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.

17.  According to the contents of this statement, the prosecution’s case on the enhancement application is that, firstly, offences involving the use of stooge account has been prevalent for the past few years, and secondly, the nature and extent of harm caused to the community by the use of stooge accounts.

18.  Having considered Chief Inspector Li’s statement, I am satisfied that the application is made on valid ground.  I note also that in fact the defence has not raised any objection to the application made by the prosecution.  Looking at the matter in the round, and bearing in mind the previous decisions made on applications for enhancement in the District Court, I believe an enhancement of 20% would have been appropriate in the circumstances.  With a 20% increase, the sentence which the defendant will have to serve will become 43 months.