HKSAR v. MENG CAIYI

CACC 58/2026, [2026] HKCA 1531

On appeal from [2025] HKDC 2201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 58 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 1283 OF 2024 AND 680 OF 2025)

_______________________

_______________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Introduction

1.  On 29 December 2025, the applicant was sentenced to a total of 42 months and 15 days’ imprisonment by Deputy District Judge K Lo (“the judge”) following his plea of guilty to 2 charges 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, and his agreement to the amended consolidated summary of facts. 

2.  On 12 February 2026, the applicant filed his Form XI with affidavit to apply for leave to appeal against sentence out-of-time.  He is acting in person in the appeal proceedings.

3.  The applicant, a Mainland resident, visited Hong Kong in July 2023 and opened two bank accounts, one with Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited (“AC1”), another with Hang Seng Bank Limited (“AC2”).  In both accounts, he was the sole signatory.

4.  Subsequently, funds from victims of fraud were deposited into the accounts. 

5.  One of the victims, PW1, who fell prey to an online cryptocurrency investment scam, deposited HK$51,480 into AC1 (out of the more than HK$2 million he transferred to 13 different bank accounts in August/September 2023).  Another victim, PW2, was similarly deceived and made a transfer of HK$400,000 into AC2 on 11 August 2023 (out of the HK$6.6 million he remitted into various bank accounts). PW3 was deceived into transferring HK$80,000 into AC2 on 14 August 2023 (out of the HK$605,000 he deposited into various bank accounts).

6.  The funds in the two accounts were dissipated by multiple withdrawals (131 for AC2 and 73 for AC1).  The transactions of the accounts were consistent with the patterns of mirroring, quick-speed withdrawals and low day-end balance.  After the active transactions, the accounts became idle and were with low balance.

7.  The applicant was intercepted when he entered Hong Kong on 10 July 2024.  He said in his cautioned statement in relation to AC1 that as he had financial need, he accepted payment of RMB1,000 from a casual friend “Ah Lung” for opening AC1, “which would be used for receiving proceeds from deception cases.”  He said he knew that selling a bank account to another was illegal.  He said further that, as instructed by Ah Lung, he registered a particular phone number, and then came to Hong Kong on 18 July 2023 and opened AC1 on his own.  He activated AC1, and handed over the bank card, internet-banking credentials and the SIM card of that registered phone to Ah Lung.  He denied knowledge of the fraud involving PW1, denied having control over AC1, and claimed to have no knowledge of the activities in it.  In respect of AC2, he stated that he had no knowledge of the scam. 

8.  The applicant was charged with, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the properties concerned in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represented proceeds of indictable offence(s):

(i)  Charge 1 ‒ dealt with the 190 deposits totalling HK$2,253,049.36 in AC2 between 18 July and 15 August 2023; and

(ii)  Charge 2 – together with a person known as “Ah Lung”, dealt with the 71 deposits totalling HK$4,023,123.07 in AC1 between 19 July and 31 August 2023.

9.  In the Amended Consolidated Summary of Facts, the applicant admitted, amongst other matters, that he opened AC1 and AC2, admitted to the analyses of the two accounts (which set out amongst other matters the relevant deposits and withdrawals therein), and admitted to the predicate offences.  He admitted, at §§12 and 13 thereto, that he, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the charged properties in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with them

10.  I have considered the judge’s reasons for sentence.  I have concern as to the bases upon which the applicant’s pleas of guilty were accepted.  In particular, at §§28, 34, 35 and 46 of the same, the judge observed that:

28.  The defendant under caution stated that he knew AC1 was to be used for receiving proceeds from deception cases.  Further, from the transaction records of AC2, ie the HSB account, AC2 was very active for 29 days, during which PW2 and PW3, both victims of the cryptocurrency investment scam, deposited money into AC2.  There is, however, no evidence that the defendant knew the details of the operation of the scam.

…

34.  Evidence before this court limits the role of the defendant to merely lending the relevant bank accounts for use by others.  The defendant said he received RMB 1,000 for the lending of one of these accounts.

35.  Further, the defendant here is a two-way permit holder to Hong Kong from Guangzhou.  From what he said in his cautioned statement to police, it is clear that he came to HK pursuant to instructions from “Ah Lung”, who also resides in Mainland China, to open the two bank accounts in question for the purpose of committing the two serious offences.  It was clearly his plan to come to Hong Kong to open the two bank accounts for the purpose of lending them for the use of others.  This serves as an aggravating feature in sentencing.

…

46.  The use of stooge accounts is clearly still very prevalent in deception and money laundering cases …

11.  I have considered the Court of Appeal Decision in HKSAR v Salim Majed and another (CACC 184/2013, 14 November 2014) (in particular §§91 to 109) and 律政司司長 對 谢志建 [2025] HKCA 911 (in particular §29).  I expressed concern during the hearing as to whether the agreed facts support the two counts, especially on the issue of actus reus.  The problem is accentuated by the fact that charge 1, contrasted with charge 2, alleges that the applicant committed the offence alone. 

12.  In the end, I direct that Appeal Aid Certificate be granted to the applicant covering both conviction and sentence.  I direct that the applicant’s application for leave be placed before and be considered by the Full Court directly.

13.  I record that I during the hearing explained to the applicant fully his entitlement to apply for bail pending appeal.  Having heard my explanations, he informed this Court that he did not want to make one.

14.  It has come to this Court’s attention that similar legal and factual issues have arisen in at least two other cases, notably CACC 260/2024 and CACC 438/2025.  The common issue may be whether the mere opening, lending and surrendering control of a bank account are sufficient, both in terms of mens rea and actus reus, to support a charge of money laundering.  CACC 260/2024 has been set down to be heard before the Full Court on 20 November 2026.  I request and direct the Department of Justice to consider the issues involved in all three cases and place before this Court and all parties involved within 21 days proposed directions (with reasons and justifications) as to whether all those three cases (and other cases involving similar issues if any) should all be heard together on 20 November 2026.