|
DCCC 355, 597, 637 & 1489/2024 (Consolidated)
[2026] HKDC 20
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 355, 597, 637, 1489 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
QUAN MENGFAN (D1) |
|
-----------------------------------------
| Before: |
His Honour Judge E Yip in Court |
| Present: |
Mr Wayne Lee, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR |
|
Mr Lee Pak Chau, instructed by Mike So, Joseph Lau & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant |
| Offence: |
[1] & [6] Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產) |
---------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---------------------------------------------
A. Introduction
1. The Defendant is convicted after trial on two counts 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. Charge 1 concerns dealings between 3 January 2023 and 28 February 2023 involving a total sum of HK$6,544,402.49 through a Bank of China (Hong Kong) account. Charge 6 concerns dealings between 1 February 2023 and 3 February 2023 involving HK$529,500 through a Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) account.
3. The Defendant was convicted after trial. There is therefore no credit for plea of guilty.
B. Seriousness of the Offences
4. Money laundering is a serious offence. It facilitates and sustains predicate crimes, enables criminals to enjoy the fruits of their wrongdoing, undermines the integrity of the financial system, and erodes public confidence in Hong Kong as an international financial centre.
5. As found in the Reasons for Verdict, the Defendant knowingly or with wilful blindness allowed her personal bank accounts to be used as conduits for fraud proceeds. The transaction patterns were classic laundering indicators: rapid inflows and outflows, multiple unrelated depositors, and near-zero end balances.
6. Although the Defendant was not a mastermind and did not personally withdraw the funds, her role was indispensable. Without the availability of her accounts, the laundering could not have been carried out in the manner and on the scale proved.
C. Starting Point of Sentence
7. There are no rigid sentencing tariffs for offences under section 25 OSCO. The Court must have regard to the guidance in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi許有益 [2010] 5 HKLRD 536 and subsequent authorities, where the amount of money involved is the dominant consideration, together with the duration, frequency of transactions, the Defendant’s role, and any cross-border or organised elements.
8. The Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung 雲國強 [2012] 1 HKLRD 197suggests that for laundered sums below HK$1,000,000, a starting point of below 2 years’ imprisonment should be considered, and for sums between HK$6,000,000 and HK$10,000,000, a starting point of around 5 years’ imprisonment should be considered.
9. Applying these ranges, for Charge 1, which involved HK$6,544,402.49 over nearly two months, a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment is appropriate, and for Charge 6, which involved HK$529,500 over just three days, a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
D. Enhancement under Section 27 OSCO
10. The Prosecution has applied for sentence enhancement pursuant to section 27 of OSCO. The Court has before it a detailed statement from the Chief Inspector of Police, addressing:
(a) the prevalence of that specified offence (under section 27(2)(c)); and
(b) the nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of that specified offence (under section 27(2)(d)).
11. I note that the prevalence is on the decline but it remains high. The use of stooge accounts remains widespread and poses a substantial threat to the integrity of the banking system, the effectiveness of law enforcement, and the reputation of Hong Kong as a financial hub, causing much harm to the community. There I allow an enhancement of 20%, which I regard as fair and proportionate.
E. Mitigation
12. The Defendant is of a clear record, university educated, and gainfully employed. There is no evidence that she received any direct financial benefit from the laundering activities, that she was the mastermind behind the scheme, that she recruited others, or that she was operating as part of a large syndicate.
13. I have taken into account her family circumstances, including her mother’s serious medical condition and her career, but these are not mitigating factors.
14. The offences were not momentary lapses. They involved repeated transactions over sustained periods and very substantial sums. The Defendant’s conduct was characterised in the Reasons for Verdict as wilful blindness amounting to belief.
15. For Charge 1, I take a starting point of 5 years (60 months). Enhanced by 20%, it becomes 72 months (or 6 years).
16. For Charge 6, I take a starting point of 2 years (or 24 months). Enhanced by 20%, it becomes 29 months (when rounded to the nearest whole month).
F. Totality and Concurrency
17. The two charges arose from closely related conduct within a narrow timeframe and involved the same modus operandi, namely the use of the Defendant’s bank accounts to launder fraud proceeds.
18. Applying the totality principle, I order for the sentences on the two charges to run concurrently. The overall sentence is therefore 6 years’ imprisonment.
|