HKSAR v. YIP LONG TIM

DCCC 855/2024

[2025] HKDC 595

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 855 OF 2024

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  D is convicted upon his plea on an amended charge of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to s 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, commonly known as “money laundering”.

2.  This was a money laundering  case involved in lending of bank account to others.

The Facts

3.  The police received a report that a victim was deceived to part with a total sum of HK$7,530,310 in an investment scam.  Among the said sum of HK$7,530,310, a sum of US$39,500 (equivalent to HK$307,152.54) was remitted into an account held in the name of D with HSBC (“the Account”). 

4.  Investigation with relation to the Account was then conducted.  The records of the Account showed that:

(a) The Account was an integrated personal account opened on 11 November 2020.

(b) D was the sole signatory of the Account;

(c) He reported a living of HK$30,000 to HK$49,999 a month as a construction worker;

(d) Between 3 and 18 December 2020, a total sum of HK$5,855,721.46 was deposited into the Account by 45 transfer deposits;

(e) During the same period, a total sum of HK$5,751,992.19 was withdrawn from the Account by way of 28 transfer withdrawals;

(f) Repository patterns were noted. Sums deposited into the Account were transferred out of the Account shortly after the deposits were made.

5.  On 28 July 2021, D was arrested and cautioned. In the subsequent video-recorded interview, D made the following statements under caution:

(a) He opened the Account at around October to November 2020;

(b) On-line banking facility was available to the Account;

(c) He had lost the ATM card of the Account about a week after the Account was opened. He had made a loss report to the bank and police.

6.  Investigation revealed that D had reported loss of the ATM Card to the bank on 16 November 2020 but no loss report was made to the police.

7.  At all material times, D had never filed any tax return with the Inland Revenue Department. 

8.  Between 3 and 18 December 2020, D dealt with the amount of HK$5,855,721.46 in the Account despite having known or had reasonable grounds to believe the said total sum was either in whole, in part directly, or indirectly represented proceeds of an indictable offence.

Enhancement of Sentence

9.  In this case, the prosecution applies for an enhancement of the sentence based on section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance.

10.  According to Chief Inspector Li from the Financial Intelligence and Investigation Bureau, he stated that money laundering stooges are recruited to allow criminals to use their accounts for money laundering purposes by opening new accounts. The police have spent a lot of resources on crime prevention and warning people not to “sell” or “lend” their bank accounts to others as they could possibly be lured into taking risks of money laundering offences.

	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Deception and money laundering cases (HKD)   (no of cases)	3,017.89M   (1,844)	9,662.30M   (2,269)	36,644.73M   (3,705)	12,033.26M   (5,529)	6,115.15M   (5,250)
Cases with Stooge accounts (HKD)   (no of cases)   Percentage of money from deception/ Money from stooge accounts	1,879.83M   (845)   62.29%	5,565.15M   (1,451)   57.60%	36,320.17M   (2,886)   99.11%	9,984.38M    (3,970)   82.97%	4,466.39M   (3,675)   73.04%

11.  The amount of reported monetary losses and proceeds laundered has been very significant. Since 2022, over 73% of such losses and laundered proceeds involve the use of stooge accounts.

12.  Mr Wong for D does not challenge the evidence of Chief Inspector Li.

Criminal Record

13.  D had 38 previous court appearances giving rise to a total of 57 convictions, of which include theft, burglary, robbery, gambling, dangerous drugs, MOTS and offences relating to dutiable goods.  The last conviction was the offence of money laundering in September 2024.  He was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment. 

Mitigation

14.  D is currently 60 years old, single with a primary school education. He was a construction worker. He lived with his two brothers in public housing.

15.  D’s bank account was opened in 2020 for receiving his salary.  However due to the pandemic, D became unemployed.

16.  Counsel for D submitted that sometime after opening the Account, D’s friend asked him to borrow his ATM card to receive his salary.  The friend told D that he would return the ATM card once he had confirmed his salary had been paid. D complied and handed his ATM card with all the relevant details to his friend without asking any questions. However, when D tried to bet back his ATM card back a few days later, his friend could not be contacted or located.

17.  As a result, D foolishly decided not to report the matter to the police. It was only when he was arrested by the police for the first time on 28 July 2021 did he realize there was something seriously wrong.

18.  Mr Wong has no objection to the application of enhancement of sentence.

Sentence

19.  Money laundering is a serious offence. The offence carries a maximum penalty of a fine of $5 million and an imprisonment term of 14 years on indictment.

20.  In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal set out the general approach and principles relevant to sentencing in money laundering cases. There is a non-exhaustive list of factors, such as the nature of the predicate offence; the state of the offender’s knowledge; any international dimension, involvement of an organized crime syndicate; sophistication of planning; the number of transactions; the length of time over which the offences had occurred; the role of the offender and whether the activity occurred after D had become aware of the nature of the funds. 

21.  I clarified with Mr Wong to ascertain whether D has the requisite mens rea for money laundering. He confirmed that although D did not (or claimed that he did not) have knowledge of the bank transactions conducted with his Account, he knew that his Account was to be used for receiving money which he had reasons to believe were proceeds of crime.

22.  There is no evidence that D was involved other than the lending of the Account for money laundering purposes. However,it is in my view that the offence was committed for an organized criminal syndicate.  Clearly D turned a blind eye as to how the Account was to be used during this period. After his Account had been opened for 3 weeks, it was used to launder more than $5.8M.

23.  There were 45 transfer deposits and 28 transfer withdrawals made from the Account.  These transactions took place over a period of 15 days after the Account was opened for only 3 weeks. The total sum involved is over $5.8M.  There is no evidence of benefit or gain to D for commission of this offence.

24.  In the case of Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the court said that money laundering is a serious offence and must be deterred.  The sentence should reflect the amount of “black money” laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant.

25.  In Wan Kwok Keung, the Count of Appeal referred to the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi  [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, which stated that the sentencing starting point is 4 years if the “black money” involved is between $3 million and $6 million.

26.  Considering the above, I find the appropriate starting point is 45 months of imprisonment.

27.  Mr Wong asked me to take into account the delay in charging D.  He informed me D was first arrested in July 2021 but was charged on 28 May 2024, almost three years after he was arrested. He understood that there was the Covid-19 occurred during the period of time.

28.  According to the chronology provided by Prosecution, this case involved nine suspects of a total of 9 bank accounts. It reflects there is a degree of complexity in the investigation.  D was arrested in July 2021 and had since been released on police bail.  He failed to report since September 2021.  He was re-arrested in March 2023. The file was submitted to the Department of Justice in the same month. Advice was given in January 2024 despite the number of suspects and bank accounts involved in this case.  I find that there had been no delay in D’s prosecution and will not reduce the sentence on that basis.

29.  In HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830, the Court of Appeal stated that a heavier sentence is to be imposed on a persistent offender. 

30.  D is a repeat offender based on his criminal record. I find this an aggravating factor.   The sentence will have to be enhanced accordingly in order to deter him from re-offending and to protect the public.  For this reason, I enhance the sentence by 3 months. The resulting starting point is therefore 48 months (45 + 3).

31.  D is entitled to one-third reduction for his guilty plea.  Therefore, he is sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment.

32.  I have considered the statement made by Chief Inspector Li, and I attach full weight to the statement accordingly.

33.  In my view, it is a case where enhancement should be made.   I am satisfied that the use of stooge accounts is prevalent in the commission of the offence of money laundering.  The financial harm imposed onto society by recent occurrences is also substantial. The enhancement of 30% is appropriate.

34.  For the reasons given, I sentence D to 41 months’ imprisonment after the enhancement.