HKSAR v. WEN KELONG

DCCC 414/2025

[2026] HKDC 349

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 414 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Mr Wen pleaded guilty before me to one charge 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, Cap 455.

2.  Particulars are that he, between 11 October 2023 and 1 February 2024, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, together with an unknown person, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property namely a total sum of $7,007,397 Hong Kong currency in the bank account with China CITIC Bank International Limited, account number 108972365, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

Facts admitted by Mr Wen

3.  On 1 January 2024, PW1 received a call from an unknown male person alleging that PW1 had made an application for a Taobao VIP account and he had to pay annual fee.  PW1 did not apply for any VIP account and requested to cancel it.  Upon instruction, PW1 provided all his bank account numbers to the male and deposited inter alia HK$32,268 to an account numbered 108972365 held with China CITIC Bank International Limited (“Account”)  on 2 January 2024.  PW1 later realized it was a scam and reported the case to the police.

4.  Mr Wen opened the Account as the sole signatory at 2145 hours on 15 August 2023.  Mr Wen declared to be a resident in Mainland China and he reported to be living in an address in Guangzhou.

5.  The transaction records between 1 October 2023 and 15 February 2024 showed:

(a)  There were no transactions in the Account between 1 and 10 October 2023;

(b)  Between 11 October 2023 and 1 February 2024, there were a total of 95 deposits amounting to HK$7,007,397 and 94 withdrawals totaling HK$7,007,599;

(c)  The last transaction was a withdrawal of HK$32,268 (fund originally from PW1)  by remittance on 1 February 2024; no further transaction was seen in the transaction records afterwards except for one bank entry;

(d)  Two deposit transactions ie HK$85 on 20 October 2023 and HK$100 on 16 November 2023 were found to have been made from account(s)  held under the name of Mr Wen;

(e)  The amounts of some deposits were large ie 12 of the deposits were over HK$200,000; and

(f)  The money was withdrawn shortly after being deposited in mirror pattern: the daily account ending balance mainly remained low.

6.  Mr Wen was arrested on 27 June 2024 when he was entering Hong Kong via the West Kowloon Control Point.

7.  In the VRI taken between 1937 and 2020 hours on 27 June 2024, Mr Wen stated under caution that:

(a)  He was living in Guangzhou; he was selling construction materials with a monthly income of HK$8,000 to HK$10,000;

(b)  He did not have any company or property in Hong Kong or in the Mainland; he came to Hong Kong with his friend to have a day trip;

(c)  He opened the Account in around mid-July 2023 online; there was no physical bank card; he exchanged money with his friend Yan Lixiang whom he had known for over ten years and then deposited money into the Account through the App;

(d)  His last withdrawal was conducted over the counter in Hong Kong around November 2023 (but later claimed that he conducted his last withdrawal in the Account by way of a transfer to a Hang Seng Bank account owned by his friend Yan Lixiang, and he asked Yan to withdraw such money out in cash for him;

(e)  Since he seldom used the Account, he cancelled it in mid-January 2024; he did not check the balance of the Account; he had no impression or explanation to the transactions in the Account; and

(f)  No one knew the password to the Account other than him.

8.  Travel record of Mr Wen between 1 January 2023 and 16 May 2024 showed that he came to Hong Kong:

(a)  Three times in 2023, ie between 15 and 16 August 2023; 12 October 2023 (one-day trip); and 31 October 2023 (one-day trip); and

(b)  Twice in 2024, ie 10 January 2024 (one-day trip)  and 1 February 2024 (one-day trip).

9.  Mr Wen now accepts and admits that at all material times, (i)  he opened the Account for the purpose of lending it to another person for a monetary reward; (ii)  he had reasonable grounds to believe that the funds to be transacted in the Account represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence; and (iii)  under such circumstances, he did give the Account’s login details to the said another person.

10.  Mr Wen now accepts and admits that despite having passed the Account’s login details to the abovementioned another person, he retained control over the Account; and he did exercise such control during the operational period of the Account.

11.  Mr Wen now admits that at all material times, he, together with an unknown person, dealt with property as particularized in the Charge, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the said property in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.

Criminal record

12.  Mr Wen has no previous convictions in Hong Kong.

Antecedents

13.  Mr Wen is aged 31 (29 at the time of the offence), educated to secondary education level in the Mainland.  Mr Wen was the manager of a furniture company in the Mainland.  Mr Wen was born in the Mainland and is single.

Mitigation

14.  Mr Lawrence Pang of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Wen.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

15.  Mr Wen was born in Shanwei, Guangdong.  His father (70)  is retired.  Mr Wen’s five siblings all reside in the Mainland.  His grandmother (88)  has trouble walking and he used to take care of her often.

16.  During the 6 years prior to the offence, Mr Wen had been working as a furniture salesman earning around RMB3,000 to 8,000 per month (depending on commission).

17.  Mr Wen has a clear record in Hong Kong and everywhere else.

18.  There is no sentencing guideline or tariff for this offence.

19.  In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, at para 9, per Cheung JA, the Court of Appeal set out the following factors relevant to sentencing in a “money laundering” case:

(a)  It is the amount of money involved that is a major consideration and not the amount of benefit received by a defendant in the transaction;

(b)  The culpability of the offence lies in the assistance, support and encouragement offered to the commission of an indictable offence. So a defendant’s level of participation and the number of occasions on which he is involved in the “money laundering” activities are relevant factors to be considered;

(c)  The offence of dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence does not necessarily have any direct correlation with the indictable offence in question. However if the relevant indictable offence can be identified, the court may take into account the sentence imposed on the indictable offence per se when determining the sentence of the dealing offence;

(d)  If the case has an international element involving activities carried out across different regions, the court may impose a more severe sentence. This is to protect Hong Kong’s reputation as an international finance and banking hub from being tarnished; and

(e)  The length of time the offence lasted.

20.  In Hsu Yu Yi, the court also set out the amounts of money involved and the sentences passed in a number of “money laundering” cases.  The sentence starting point is 3 years or so where the “black money” involved is between HK$1 million and HK$2 million; 4 years or so where it is between HK$3 million and HK$6 million; and could be over 5 years where it is above HK$10 million: see also HKSAR v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 at para 15.

21.  In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, Stock VP (as he then was), stated the following:

“24. The courts of this jurisdiction and of others have regularly commented that such is the variety of circumstances in which money laundering offences are committed and such the widely different roles played by those convicted of these offences, that it is one of those categories of offence in which it is neither realistically possible nor desirable to attempt guidelines…

25. … It is, in other words, a category of offence in which the sentencing judge is called upon to engage his “feel” for the case bringing to bear his sentencing experience bearing in mind at all times the mischief at which the legislation is directed…”

22.  In Boma, at paras 38-40, Stock VP further explained that the amount of money laundered is not the be-all and end-all of a case but is a significant feature, and that the court at the same time has to consider the following significant features:

(a)  The nature of the predicate offence;

(b)  The state of the offender’s knowledge;

(c)  Whether the offence involved an international or cross-border dimension;

(d)  Whether the modus operandi of “money laundering” was sophisticated;

(e)  Whether the offence involved an organized criminal syndicate;

(f)  The length of time over which the offence was committed;

(g)  Whether the offender continued to launder funds after he had discovered the nature of the funds were proceeds of an offence or a serious offence was involved;

(h)  The role of the offender and the acts performed by him.

23.  The offence in this case took place under the following circumstances:

(a)  Around mid-2023, Mr Wen was asked by a colleague (a Mr Cheung)  to open a bank account in Hong Kong on that colleague’s behalf. Upon repeated requests by his colleague, Mr Wen eventually agreed to help in return for RMB1,000;

(b)  On 15 August 2023, Mr Wen opened the bank account in question and gave the login details to his colleague;

(c)  Around January 2024, Mr Wen tried to cancel the bank account as he felt suspicious, but he was informed by bank staff that it could not be done. Mr Wen asked the aforementioned colleague who told Mr Wen that he would handle the termination of bank account; and

(d)  On 27 June 2024, Mr Wen came to Hong Kong and was arrested upon arrival.

24.  Mr Pang submitted that Mr Wen gave a somewhat different version under VRI because he was confused and nervous after arrest.

25.  The amount of “tainted money” is a significant factor but is not the be-all and end-all of a case.  The observations as regards each of the Boma factors are brought to the attention of the court:

(a)  $32,268 being proceeds of telephone fraud, no evidence on the remaining amount;

(b)  No evidence as to Mr Wen’s direct knowledge of the predicate offence: the basis of the guilty plea is that any reasonable person who shared Mr Wen’s knowledge would be bound to believe the money was tainted;

(c)  Mr Wen being a Mainlander came to Hong Kong to open the bank account; no evidence the tainted money came from overseas, or originated from offences that took place overseas;

(d)  No sophisticated modus operandi;

(e)  No evidence of organized criminal syndicate;

(f)  Offence lasted less than 4 months;

(g)  It is debatable if Mr Wen has in fact “discovered” the funds were tainted proceeds at all; and

(h)  Mr Wen played no other roles than the opening of bank account and passing of login details to his colleague Mr Cheung.

26.  There was no evidence Mr Wen knew about, or participated in, the predicate offence (fraud)  in relation to the $32,268.

27.  Mr Pang does not object to the enhancement of sentence.  However, he hopes that the court could exercise its discretion and adopt a lower range of enhancement.

28.  Mr Pang concluded by submitting that, with Mr Wen’s genuine remorse and deep reflection during his remand period, as well as his family support, Mr Wen is well positioned for a fresh start.  Mr Pang asked for the court’s mercy and leniency such that Mr Wen could be released soonest to be reunited with his family in the Mainland.

29.  Mr Pang submitted on behalf of Mr Wen three mitigation letters written in Chinese respectively by Mr Wen himself, one of his elder sisters, and his younger brother.  The contents generally are that Mr Wen committed the offence because of momentary greed; that he is deeply remorseful after reflection, and he has decided to reform himself; that his elder sister will help him reform; that Mr Wen is an important pillar of the family.  The letter writers asked for a chance for reform and a lenient sentence for Mr Wen so he may re-integrate into society earlier.

30.  Upon enquiry by the court and after taking further instructions, Mr Pang submitted that although Mr Wen was in Hong Kong on 1 February 2024, he did not withdraw the sum of $32,268 from the Account on that day.  What is more, so Mr Pang submitted, contrary to what was said in the VRI, Mr Wen had not made any withdrawals from the Account.

31.  However, Mr Pang accepted that it was a requirement of the bank that Mr Wen had to be in Hong Kong on the day of account opening and that was why Mr Wen came to Hong Kong from the Mainland.  Mr Pang also accepted that Mr Wen had continued to exercise control over the Account by depositing two small sums into the Account in October and November 2023 for reasons that cannot be recalled.

Sentence

32.  Money laundering is a serious offence and deterrent sentences are invariably imposed.

33.  I have borne in mind the observations as regards the Boma factors brought to my attention by Mr Pang, save and except the fact that Mr Wen came to Hong Kong to open the bank account.  I take on board the money laundered amounted to about HK$7 million.  I also bear in mind there were 95 deposits and 94 withdrawals; and Mr Wen received a reward of RMB1,000.

34.  As to whether Mr Wen had any role in money laundering activities other than the lending of the Account to his colleague Mr Cheung, the evidence is not conclusive.  I will give Mr Wen the benefit of the doubt.

35.  Having regard to the suggested bands of sentences in Wan Kwok Keung para 15, I will adopt in Mr Wen’s case an initial starting point of 4 years 2 month.

36.  There is no dispute that Mr Wen came to Hong Kong specifically to open the Account which later became the instrument of money laundering.  For this aggravating factor, I will increase the starting point by 3 months to reach a final starting point of 4 years 5 months’ imprisonment before consideration of OSCO enhancement.

37.  Mr Wen pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the full 1/3 sentencing discount.  Other than that, I cannot discern any mitigating factor of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

38.  Prosecution sought to furnish information pursuant to section 27(2)  of OSCO, Cap 455, in the form of a witness statement of CIP Li Yiu Nam dated 16 February 2026, intending thereby to show (i)  prevalence of money laundering offence; and (ii)  the nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of money laundering offence.  Mr Pang has no objection to the reception of the statement nor enhancement of sentence as a result of it.  I duly received the statement.

39.  According to Table A on page 5 of the statement, the total number of money laundering stooges (ie those who assisted in money laundering activities many of whom had either sold or lent their accounts)  in 2025 still stood at 5,355.  This compared with the corresponding figure in 2024 of 7,883.  Although this represented a drop of about 1/3, the absolute figure is still substantial.  By implication, the number of money laundering offences (even if suspected)  must also be substantial.

40.  I am satisfied that money laundering offences are still prevalent.

41.  According to Table B on pages 6-7 of the statement, in 2025 alone, the amount of reported monetary losses (including losses by overseas victims)  and (locally)  laundered proceeds both involving the use of stooge accounts ran up to $3,933.14M.  This compared with a corresponding figure of $4,466.39M for the year 2024.  Although this represented a drop of about 12% from 2024, the absolute figure is still huge.  I am satisfied that in 2025, there was still a prevalence (in the use)  of stooge accounts.

42.  However, the nature and extent of harm is not limited to the amount of reported losses and laundered proceeds.

43.  According to para 18 on pages 5-6 of the statement, the anti-money laundering regime in Hong Kong is hampered by the prevalence of stooges for money laundering activities as follows:-

(a)  The prevalence of stooge accounts (“PSA”)  interferes with the normal operation of the banking system, having a negative effect on the reputation of Hong Kong as a well-known international financial hub;

(b)  PSA forms multiple layers of “shields” concealing the identity of the masterminds behind, making it difficult, if not impossible, for police to identify the masterminds behind;

(c)  PSA substantially facilitates the commission of crimes and in turn leads to more crimes being committed, as the masterminds could easily get away from their criminal liability;

(d)  PSA makes money laundering easier, which allows culprits to make use of their ill-gotten gains to extend their sphere to engage in a wider range of illegal activities;

(e)  PSA means that law enforcement agencies have to put in more investigation efforts and resources; and

(f)  People with low income or less awareness of the consequences of selling their bank accounts are more likely to be lured by the culprits to take the risks of commission of crimes to surrender their accounts for monetary reward.

44.  I am of the view that the community is also harmed by PSA.

45.  Putting the two types of harm together, I am satisfied that the harm, whether directly or indirectly, caused to the community by recent occurrences of money laundering offence is substantial.

46.  In the premises, the two bases upon which the prosecution relies for request of enhanced sentence have been made out.  I feel confident that my power under section 27(11)  is engaged.  In light of the falling statistics, I deem a 20% enhancement sufficient to act as an extra dose of deterrence against both Mr Wen and would-be followers.

47.  As an act of mercy, I will ignore any decimal places in the calculation of sentence in terms of months.

(Mr Wen, please stand)

48.  The sentence for Mr Wen is 42 months’ imprisonment.