HKSAR v. NG CHUN TO, RAYMOND AND ANOTHER

DCCC405 & 895 /2009

(Consolidated)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 405 & 895 OF 2009 (Consolidated)

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  D1 and D2 are jointly charged with conspiracy to defraud, contrary to Common Law and punishable under s.159C(6) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200 in charges 1-4. It is alleged in charges 1 to 4 that D1 and D2 had conspired with others to defraud over 4 different periods of time 4 different sets of victims in relation to 4 different derivative warrants. D1 was convicted of all 4 charges after trial. D2 pleaded guilty to charges 1-3 after the evidence in chief of PW2.

2.  D1 and D3 were originally jointly charged with conspiracy to defraud in charge 5 for the period between a day unknown in the end of 2007 and 27^th May 2008 in relation Dresdner warrants. During the trial, upon the refusal of one of the key immunity witnesses to give evidence for the prosecution, the prosecution offered no further evidence against D1 on this charge and D1 was acquitted of this charge. The name of D1 however is left in the charge as a named co-conspirator and the trial of D3 on this charge continued. D3 was convicted of charge 5 after trial.

3.  D1 faces charge 6 alone, in which it is alleged that D1 had done acts tending and with intent to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to Common Law. The alleged period is between 29^th May and 31^st July 2008. It is alleged that D1 had approached Lee Wai Ming (PW2 in the trial proper) whom D1 knew was being investigated by the ICAC for an offence alleged to have been committed by D1 and others, asking the said Lee Wai Ming not to co-operate with the ICAC and to give false or misleading information to the ICAC. D1 was convicted of charge 6 after trial.

4.  D4 faces charges 7-23 alone. All 17 charges are for dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to s.25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crime Ordinance, Cap.455. The total alleged amount that D4 had dealt with is HK$103,857,390 (in relation to the $300,000 allegedly laundered in charge 23, the prosecution conceded in their final submissions that only the $280,000 that was withdrawn from the bank account is alleged to have been laundered). D4 was convicted of charges 7-23 after trial.

Background

5.  This case involves the trading of derivative warrants. We are looking at conspiracies that spanned over a period of years and involved various people taking up different roles in a fraudulent trading scheme, making millions of dollars in profits in the process of carrying out the conspiracies. This fraudulent mode of trading of warrants had been given the term of “warrant pushing” in these proceedings, which is a translation of the Cantonese term used by the group engaged in the schemes.

6.  It is proved after trial that D1 and D3 conspired with those named in the respective charges to take part in schemes which involved the false trading in various warrants issued by different financial institutions in Hong Kong. The physical location of the group of some of the people conducting most of the actual false trading in charges 1 to 4 were in mainland China, using the internet as well as mobile phones as their tools. The prosecution referred to them as the “Mainland base”. As for D3, she was based in Hong Kong at the time of her involvement with the false trading.

7.  The mechanism of the false trading was not in much dispute. Various different trading accounts (“dummy accounts”) were set up and those in the warrant pushing group would use the accounts to carry out the trading. Those operating the dummy accounts were referred to by the group as “hands (手)”. Warrants would be sold by the warrants issuers to the hands who would then trade among themselves using the dummy accounts, thus raising the trade volume of the selected warrants, creating a false impression that the warrants were being actively traded, luring potential and innocent investors to perhaps join in the trading which would result in a higher price. The warrants would then be sold back to the warrant issuers or market makers, usually at a profit. The money generated would be taken out by members of the group in cash and then handed over to someone. D4 was a person who had dealt with the money made from the fraudulent trading.

8.  In addition to those conducting the warrant pushing in mainland China, there were various “insiders” who were employees of the companies related to the warrants being “pushed” working from inside those companies to assist the warrant pushing group members in their false trading.

9.  In relation to D1’s 4 conspiracy charges, there was no direct evidence from any prosecution witness to identify him as the person who was referred to throughout the different stages of the carrying out of the conspiracies. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to invite the court to draw the irresistible inference that D1 was the “Raymond” referred to in the evidence of the co-conspirators, the person who gave regular instructions to the group as to how the warrant pushing should be conducted.

10.  In relation to D1’s perverting the course of justice charge, the prosecution relies on the evidence of pw2 to prove that D1 had made contact with pw2 after the ICAC had arrested pw2 and that D1 had said things which had a tendency to pervert the course of justice, intending to so pervert. What happened was that D1 had used a pseudo-name to contact pw2 and in at least 3 different phone calls, D1 had told pw2 not to cooperate with the ICAC, saying that the ICAC did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute pw2. D1 also told pw2 that should the need arise when pw2 was questioned by the ICAC, pw2 should just tell them that the whole group of them was pooling money together to speculate in warrants, which according to pw2’s own evidence, was not the truth.

11.  In relation to D3’s conspiracy charge, the conspiracy that D3 had taken part in was the pushing of warrants issued by Dresdner. The confession of D3 in the form of a video recorded interview proved that D3 did take part in the false trading and that she knew that she was taking part in the pushing of warrants. The evidence of some of the members of the mainland base gave corroborating evidence to show what D3 said in her confession was true, in that she did assist in the false trading and had been reporting to the mainland base her activities. Based on her confession and the circumstantial evidence, including certain documentary evidence relating to the trading of the Dresdner warrants with certain dummy account, the only inference was that D3 must have conspired with one or more of those named in the charge at some stage and had agreed to work from Unit 1904 to take part in the false trading of the Dresdner warrants.

12.  In relation to D4’s money laundering charges, I found that D4 had knowledge that the money found in her safe deposit box and the cash deposits that were made into her various bank accounts were profits from the warrant pushing activities. I found, as an alternative, that given the circumstances known to D4, she must have had reasonable grounds to believe that the HK$34 odd million cash found in her deposit box, and the various cash deposits made into her bank accounts were proceeds from an indictable offence.

Previous

13.  All the defendants were of previously good character.

D1’s mitigation:

14.  D1 was convicted after trial of charges 1-4 of conspiracy to defraud and charge 6 of perverting the course of justice.

15.  D1 is 42 years old and the husband of D4. They have 3 sons aged 6, 11 and 12. It will obviously be harsh and difficult for the family that both the parents will be facing terms of imprisonment.

16.  D1 was born in Hong Kong. He is a university graduate and essentially the main bread winner of the family. Since D1 and D4’s arrest on 28^th May 2008, all their assets, money in the bank accounts, real property and other personal items had all been seized and awaiting disposal by the court. There had been no financial support since May 2008.

17.  It is submitted that for D1, his conviction is a great fall from grace and that there is no doubt he will suffer the inevitable consequence of financial and career ruins.

18.  In relation to the circumstances surrounding the conspiracy charges, it was submitted in mitigation that this is a case more of market manipulation. The conspiracy involved manipulating the market to make enormous profits from the pushing of warrants. It is further suggested that if payments were made to the insiders they were perhaps nothing other than sharing of profits.

19.  It was further submitted that, as stated in my finding, D1 was one of the ring leaders and not the sole ring leader. Cheung Ching Ho was very much in charge of the mainland base, but PW2 and some of the other conspirator witnesses who gave evidence under immunity played important roles in the conspiracy. Those are some of the factors that counsel for D1 urge this court to take into account when sentencing.

20.  In relation to the conduct of the trial itself, it was submitted that there had been substantial admission of facts. Apart from PW4, there was hardly any cross-examination by D1. As a result, the trial was much extradited. There was no attempt to put the prosecution to strict proof on any of those matters that were admitted.

21.  2 authorities were cited for my reference. As pointed out by Mr. Cheng for D1, the cases do not provide any guidelines sentence and that each case must be judged on its own merits. Mr. Cheng agreed that it is inevitable that a term of imprisonment will be imposed.

22.  In the case of HKSAR v Cheung Sing Chi and another, CACC 193/2003, the applicants, Cheung Sing Chi and Cheung For Sang, who are brothers, were convicted of an offence of conspiracy to defraud in the District Court and were sentenced to 16 months and 13 months imprisonment respectively.

23.  That case involved wash sales of the shares. It was the prosecution's case that in the period of just-over 12 months between 1 October 1999 to 14 October 2000, the Applicants conspired together and with two witnesses, Raymond Wong Win Keung (PW2) and Stephen Lee Sing Wai (PW3) and with persons unknown, to defraud such companies, firms and persons as might trade in shares of the Gay Giano International Group Limited (Gay Giano) by dishonestly creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading in those shares in the stock market. The 1st Applicant was Gay Giano's Chairman and a major shareholder.

24.  Gay Giano was listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong on 13 April 2000. Fifty million shares were offered to the public at an offer price of $1.20 per share.

25.  Two days after the flotation the price of Gay Giano shares had risen 25% from the offer price. They continued to climb gradually thereafter on substantial daily turnover. The stock out performed the Hang Seng Index. The upward trend continued until 18 September 2000, when the shares ended at $4.35, on an average daily turnover of 3.7 million shares. The price declined sharply on and after 19 September 1999. There was no price-sensitive news during this period.

26.  It was found that 2 groups of people had been involved in the trading of the shares. Many of these sales and purchases were 'wash sales' that is share transactions in which there is no change in the beneficial ownership. Without the trading in and between the two groups, the turnover of Gay Giano shares in a 3 month period in 2000 would have been 60% less than it was.

27.  Twenty-two different firms of stockbrokers were used in the trading by and between the 2 groups, which helped create a false appearance of active trading in Gay Giano shares by different brokers and investors. The only reason for the two groups entering into the wash sales was to create the false appearance of active trading of Gay Giano shares and push up the stock's price and trading volume.

28.  At a meeting between the other conspirators, the Applicants asked a Raymond Wong to manipulate the Gay Giano's share price up to $4 within the six months after the flotation. Stock Exchange Rules prevented them selling their own shares within a lock-in period of six months' after the flotation. Raymond Wong explained to them that there was a way of 'kicking up' the share price by consistently buying and selling shares. The Applicants agreed to go along with this and promised Raymond Wong a reward of $4 million if at the end of the lock-in period a portion of their shares could be sold at $4. The Applicants assured him that they could find subscribers for Gay Giano shares who would be prepared not sell the shares without his consent. Later, he was faxed a list of subscribers for a total of 7.8 million shares whom the first Applicant had found.

29.  During the period that the wash sales had taken place, Raymond Wong made daily reports to the first Applicant and less frequent reports to the second Applicant, on the trading volume of Gay Giano shares; the daily share closing price that Raymond Wong had decided on; the daily price movement he had decided on and how he maintained control of the shares.

30.  The question of whether the sentences were appropriate was never discussed as the appeal was solely against conviction. Mr. Cheng nevertheless seeks to rely on this case to show that even in serious market manipulation cases that this one, sentences of 16 months and 13 months were considered appropriate and the prosecution did not seek to review that sentence.

31.  The 2^nd case that Mr. Cheng relies on is the case of HKSAR v Mo Yuk Ping, CACC 26/2006. This case also involves market manipulation and acts tending to pervert the course of justice.

32.  The prosecution case alleged agreements to create a false picture of active trading in shares whereby the first applicant, Ms Mo, arranged for transactions to be conducted in the shares of a publicly listed company through the trading accounts of other persons but paid for by herself or by connected persons and in which transactions the named transactors had no beneficial interest.

33.  There were said to have been two such conspiracies, each operated in the same way. The first commenced in about June 2002 and the second in March 2003, the second triggered by a need to maintain the share price at a specific level in order to avoid payments under a loan agreement by virtue of which the shares were pledged to the lending bank.

34.  The other allegation was that some of the persons whose names had been thus used were encouraged to tell lies to the Securities and Futures Commission investigators, acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice.

35.  After a 4 month trial in the District Court of conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice, the 2 applicants were sentenced to terms totalling three and a half and three years’ imprisonment respectively. Again, the Court of Appeal merely dealt with their appeal against conviction and there was no discussion as to the appropriateness of their sentence.

36.  The prosecution case was that between September 2000 and February 2003, in excess of forty two securities trading accounts were opened in the name of at least twelve persons with thirteen different securities companies. Many of the accounts were opened without the knowledge or consent of the traders (“the Group”) in whose names they were opened even though one or more may not have objected to such a course. Bank accounts were also opened in their names at the behest, so it was said, of Mo. Blank and pre-signed cheques were provided by members of the Group and handed by Mo to Yu Ge for safekeeping.

37.  From about June or July 2002, and on the instructions of Mo, one of the conspirators’ (“Lui”) work was wholly devoted to dealing in shares of a target company (“SL”). The trading took the form of margin trading so that after Lui had purchased the shares, she would sell them, or approximately the same number, the following day. Only SL shares were traded. The evidence of Lui was that Mo asked her to find friends and relatives to open accounts for SL trading and she did so, even in the name of her, Lui’s, own mother. Payments to the securities companies through whom the trades were effected were made with the pre-signed cheques.

38.  In order to meet these payments, Lui regularly informed Mo how much was required so that arrangements could be made for the deposit of the requisite sums into bank accounts of Group members. Mo then gave instructions to another person whose function it was to arrange for the deposits.

39.  The second share placement exercise occurred on 30 September 2002. 73% of the shares placed in this exercise went to four parties connected to a “Chau” and the judge held that the purchase of these shares was funded, to Mo’s knowledge, by Chau at a cost in excess of $80 million. When the second placement exercise was complete, SL issued a public announcement to the effect that New Nongkai had notified SL that “on 30 September 2002 the offeror had procured for the placing of shares to more than six independent professional, institutional and/or individual investors, who are independent of and not connected with the company or the directors, chief executives and substantial shareholders of the company or its subsidiaries or their respective associates. …” The judge found these representations as to the independence of the investors to be false.

40.  In October 2002 Taiwan Concord Capital, one of the securities companies that had been used, informed Lui that margin limits had been exceeded in certain accounts and that no further margin could be provided. As a result, so went the evidence, Mo instructed Lui to open other accounts and new accounts were consequently opened with TIS Securities in the names of D3 and D4.

41.  Trading by Lui in SL shares continued thereafter. No other shares were traded by her and her evidence was that it was from Mo that she normally received instructions regarding settlement or sale of shares. She often bought at a price higher than the price at which she sold the following day.

42.  It is Mr. Cheng’s submission that this court should use this case as a yardstick to assist in deciding on the appropriate sentence for D1, since both cases involve market manipulation.

D1’s Sentences

43.  The first obvious difference that we see between this our case and the 2 cited cases is that our case involves a cross border element. The warrant pushing scheme was moved to mainland China to avoid detection by the Hong Kong authorities. Even when they were in China, they moved around different premises to avoid detection by mainland Chinese authorities.

44.  Having taken into consideration on the one hand the scale of the schemes, the cross border element, the sophistication of the schemes, and on the other hand the mitigating factors put forward by D1, bearing in mind the cases cited but also mindful that each case must be dealt with on its own merits, I will sentence D1 on the various charges as follows:

45.  I will adopt a starting point of 3.5 years’ imprisonment on each of the 4 conspiracy charges. Since the defendant is convicted after trial, there will be no discount to the sentences.

46.  In relation to charge 6, I will adopt a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment.

47.  Bearing in mind the principle of totality, I will order that the sentences for the 4 conspiracy charges to be served concurrently. Although the perverting course of justice charge is not part and parcel of the conspiracy and really ought to run consecutive to the other charges, again, having considered the matter of totality, I will order that only 6 months of that sentence to be served consecutively. D1 is therefore sentence to a total of 4 year’s imprisonment on all the convicted charges.

D2’s mitigation

48.  Ms. Draycotte for the 2^nd defendant first of all drew a distinction between the role that D1 and D2 played in the conspiracies that they had been convicted on. D2 did not play any part in the original orchestration of the scheme, was never in the inner circle, was not in the decision making process and he never shared the pot of the profits made. His role is of a cog in wheel that others set in motion. He did what he did for a wage, he realized what he was doing was wrong, but the money he made from his part of the scheme was not to support a lavish lifestyle.

49.  The other matter to distinguish him between and D1 is D2’s plea. While it is true that it was not entered at the earliest stage, it’s a very peculiar aspect that so many members of the conspiracies were given immunity and were giving evidence against effectively D2 only. The most senior man, CCH, was given immunity. Importantly, pw2 was not cross examined, he was not called a liar, once his evidence was before the court, D2 accepted it and pleaded guilty. Ms. Draycotte asked for the full discount for D2’s plea.

50.  D2 was 10 when his father emigrated to Canada. Despite the change of language and education, D2 obtained honours degree from University of Toronto. He then decided to make his life in Hong Kong and returned to look for work. Because of SARS, despite his best effort to find work, he was unable to do so. His mother was eager for him to find a job and pressed him to contact his uncle, one of the members who took part in the warrant pushing schemes. D2 was living with this brother but there was friction because he was in his brother’s home and living off his brother and he was anxious to end that. He went to his uncle and asked him to find work. He went to watch at first, got drawn in, make no excuse and frankly admitted what he did was dishonest.

51.  The facts that D2 had pleaded on contained no allegation of corruption. From what the court knows of his role in the scheme, D2 was never party to or in contact with the insider, nor did he know what arrangements were made. He might have turned a blind eye, but never privy, just a foot soldier.

52.  One can see the reality of his role and his isolation, all the others either worked together or had family ties, they went to Macau together, D2 only went once. D2 was someone slightly apart, he was not part of the gang, someone who kept himself separate. We can see how the others group together by the ICAC, they were all immunized and he was left on the outside. It is a particular aspect that on the mainland base, one got caught and everyone else got away.

53.  By his plea, he had dramatically shortened the trial, because the conspirators called would be evidence against D2. Had they been called to give the evidence that they had disclosed in their witness statements, the trial would go on for a great deal longer. Much time was saved by his plea.

54.  His plea is in a way an act of some courage, because he had ample opportunity to run, he knew the other were arrested, he had roots in Canada, he chose to face the matter, he had come back to face what he had done. In a way he did not have to do that. He had an alternative but he did not do so. After the trial started and he heard what Pw2 said, he chose to plead guilty.

55.  D1 had referred to 2 authorities. They do give an indication of a level of sentence. But in both cases the defendants were the perpetration and instigators. They were the people who started it, who thought of it and who did it. Not the same with D2’s situation. They do provide some guidance. They were principals, D2 a foot soldier. D2 joined into something that was already going. A bundle of letters in mitigation was submitted.

Sentence of D2 on charges 1-3

56.  In relation to charges 1 to 3 of D2, it is true that he played a lesser role in the carrying out of the conspiracy. For that reason, and having considered the mitigation put forward by D2’s counsel, I will adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment on each of the 3 charges that he had pleaded guilty to.

57.  Since D2 only pleaded guilty after PW2 had given his evidence in chief, I cannot not grant him the usual full 1/3 discount, which would have brought his sentence down to 2 years’ imprisonment. I am however convinced by Ms. Draycotte that I should give him some discount and I find that a discount of around 20% would be appropriate. I sentence D2 to 28 months’ imprisonment on each of the 3 charges. As in the case of D1, I order that the sentence for the 3 charges to run concurrently. D2 is therefore sentenced to a total of 28 months’ imprisonment.

D3’s mitigation:

58.  D3 is 35, married in 2001, has a daughter who was born in May 2006. She started to work in Hong Kong in 1998 when returning from Canada. Because of the offence, she can no longer work, not only in the field that she was in but in any other capacity, she was out of job. Her husband now works as a real estate agent. Since her arrest, they had to sell the matrimonial home and are now living in rented premises. She has a clear record.

59.  In many ways, D3 is in a similar position to D2. She was not involved in planning the conspiracy. She was a foot soldier, on a salary, not sharing the pot. All these matters will have to be taken into account when assessing the criminality of the defendant. The only difference between them is the plea.

60.  For that, counsel for D3 ask this court to take into account that D3 was one of the first person who cooperated with the ICAC when the operation commenced on 28.5.2008. The video interview was the killer for her, because she cooperated, she told the ICAC what she knew. And that video interview was the foundation of the conviction.

61.  The other matter that differentiates her is that the offence, as compared to the other 4 is of much shorter duration and smaller volume. That it did not her travelling outside Hong Kong for the commission of the offence. To that extent, the criminality involved in smaller.

62.  There are other factors which dragged her into the episode. Her curriculum vitae was found in unit 2205. In fact, she was originally employed or invited to join the operation of the NG family, D1 and Michael Ng, to work on 22nd floor as a deal. The $30,000 that she was given as salary was a handsome payment, but for someone with her background without commission, this cannot be described as a very large sum, perhaps on the high side.

63.  In the evidence, there is a document called a loan agreement, P-214, the date was July 2006 found in one of the desks of one of the staff, PW21 in unit 1904. There is also P-215, notice of driver issued to the wife of Michael Ng, D3’s husband was given as the driver. D3’s husband had the use of Michael’s wife’s car. The loan is important because in May 2006 D3 gave birth to their daughter and about 2 months later the loan was given. D3 and her husband were in the worst financial situation in their lives. At that time, the Ng family provided assistance and had in a lot of ways helped them to move on in their lives. So far as D3 is concerned, she owed Michael Ng a lot.

64.  It was submitted that perhaps it was this misplaced loyalty that attracted her into this situation. She was originally intended to work as a normal dealer at unit 2205. The evidence, towards the end of 2007, was that there were some suggestions and then the new phase of warrant pushing schemes were put into operation and there was a further need of manpower, it so happened that at that time she was around.

65.  D3 is really a very small part of the scheme. A very small scheme in a very big scheme. It is submitted that the offence that she had been convicted of is unique in the circumstances. While in a normal event a conviction of an offence of this nature would lead to term of imprisonment, for this particular defendant, Mr. Chung ask the court to consider this to be a very special situation with exceptional circumstances so far as background of the defendant is concerned and the circumstances surrounding the offence and if possible consider any form of punishment other than immediate custodial sentence.

66.  The manner in which D3 conducted the trial is also relevant, the only matter she had challenged was the cautioned statement. All the rest of the evidence, even though counsel had asked some questions, were basically admitted in the sense that there is no real challenge to the prosecution’s evidence. On the basis of all those submissions, counsel suggested a sentence of community service order or a suspended term of imprisonment would be appropriate.

Sentence of D3:

67.  I find that, similar to D2, D3 played a lesser role in the carrying out of the conspiracy. D3 is also guilty of only one charge and the period that she had taken part in the carrying out of the conspiracy was much shorter than that of D2. Having taken those and the mitigating factors put forward by Mr. Chung on her behalf into account, I will sentence her to 2 years’ imprisonment.

D4’s mitigation:

68.  Mr. Harris very helpfully provided me with a written submission in mitigation. Mr. Harris drew my attention to the fact that the money laundering acts of D4 lacked sophistication. The money were easily traceable without any further attempt to dissipate them. The safe deposit box was in her sole name and in an account she had exclusive control. Mr. Harris pointed out that there had been no extensive, devious, complex mechanism put in place by D4 to distance herself from the money.

69.  D4 had cooperated totally in the smooth progress of the case and not one hour or one day of delay can in any way be attributed to her. Such was her cooperation that the entirety of the case against her was able to be produced and called largely by way of admitted facts.

70.  D4’s cooperation did not extend only to the trial. Prior to the trial she was the subject under s.14 of the prevention of bribery ordinance, requiring her to explain the source of the funds under her control. She had to comply and did so. There is nothing in her response to that order which can be said to be untrue. She identified as the source of the money, her husband, D1.

71.  The element of delay in bringing the matter to trial. Mr. Harris was not critical of the ICAC or the Department of Justice, nor of anybody, but it is a fact that D4 has had matters hanging over her head for some 3 years.

72.  In the intervening period between arrest and trial and that D4 left Hong Kong on no less than 17 occasions. Most were related to 2 of the kids in UK boarding school. Had D4 wanted to, it was submitted, she could have distanced herself from this jurisdiction and make it difficult to bring her back. She did not do so, but came back to Hong Kong to face the music.

73.  Throughout the entirety of this case, D4 had behaved impeccably, with great dignity. The court might have some sympathy that she had to hear about her husband’s lover in court.

74.  The totality of the charges concerns an amount of money just over 100M, on any sensible view, that is s huge sum. That’s important when come to look at issue of sentence, although separate charges, Mr. Harris submitted that what happened here represented one course of conduct.

Personal circumstances of D4

75.  D4 went to the UK when she was 3. She has 2 younger sisters, one of them in court today. D4 and D1 met in about 1989. D4 qualified as a solicitor in 1997. Her Older boys are in boarding school while the younger boy will go to England and will be looked after by his grandparents and maternal aunts.

76.  There is nothing to suggest that D4 abused her position as solicitor. The fact that she is a solicitor should not aggravate the sentence. It is almost certain that she will face disciplinary proceedings and will be removed from the roll of solicitors, if not for life, for a substantial time.

D4’s Sentence

77.  There is no tariff in relation to money laundering offences, depend very much on their own facts. Nevertheless, Mr. Harris for D4 very helpfully provided me with a list of cases setting out some sentences on money laundering charges. I have considered those cases. I have also considered the mitigating factors put forward on behalf of D4. I have noted in particular how her sons will suffer from both their parents being imprisonment at the same time. Not to be unsympathetic, but she should have thought about this day each time she deposited the money into the safe deposit box and each time she dealt with the cash deposits in her accounts, and distributing the money to her sons’ accounts. There is no one to blame but themselves that their children should so suffer.

78.  In relation to D4, for the 17 money laundering charges, I will adopt a starting point of 3 and a half year each. I will reduce that by 6 months to take into consideration the delay in her prosecution. I will order that all the sentences to be served concurrently. D4 is therefore sentenced to a total of 3 years’ imprisonment.