HKSAR v. FU SZE MAN

DCCC 97/2025

[2025] HKDC 2089

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 97 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant is facing one count of Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence[1]. After pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted the summary of facts, the defendant was convicted accordingly.

Summary of Facts

2.  The alleged predicate offence in this case is lending at excessive interest rates.  On 11 February 2020, Mr. Chung Lai Wing (“Mr. Chung”) borrowed a sum of HK$2,000 from an unknown source pursuant to an online advertisement.  He received only $1,200 from the lender and $800 was charged as administrative fee.  It was agreed that Mr. Chung had to repay HK$200 per week until he paid up to HK$2,200.  Further, there would be penalty for late repayment.  Mr. Chung was instructed to make his repayment to an HSBC bank account numbered 064-152796-001 (“the said account”). 

3.  Between 18 February and 8 April 2020, Mr. Chung made repayments of a total of HK$4,600 by transferring money into the said account.

4.  Since 8 April 2020, Mr. Chung stopped making repayment as he thought he had fully repaid the loan.  Shortly after, he began to receive dunning text messages.  On 19 April 2020, someone splashed red paint at the home of Mr. Chung.  Mr. Chung contacted the lender and the lender demanded a repayment of HK$20,000.  On 20 April 2020, Mr. Chung made the repayment as instructed by the lender.  Later, he made a report to the Police. 

5.  After investigation, it was discovered that the said account was opened by the defendant on 12 November 2019 and the defendant was the sole account holder and signatory at all material times. 

6.  Transaction records of the said account between 23 November 2019 and 26 June 2020 recorded 3,159 deposits totaling HK$3,062,350.  During the same period, there were 261 withdrawals amounting to HK$3,044,100.  Mirror pattern of deposits and withdrawals were noted.

7.  On 10 June 2020, the defendant was arrested by the Police.  Under caution, the defendant said that the said account was not used by her and she had lent the said account to a person called “Ho Yin”.  The Police conducted a video-recorded interview with the defendant on the same day.  Under caution, the defendant said she met “Ho Yin” at a bar.  “Ho Yin” asked the defendant to open a bank account and lend it to him and in return, “Ho Yin” would pay her HK$2,000.  Since she was in need of money, she agreed to do it.  The defendant later went to the HSBC Bank to open the said account and passed the account opening documents, ATM card and passcode to the ATM to “Ho Yin”.  Later, she lost contact with “Ho Yin” and never received any reward.

8.  The defendant now admits, at the material times in Hong Kong, together with another person, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property, namely a sum of HK$3,061,750 in the said account, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

Mitigation

9.  The defendant is 26 years of age and single.  She was born locally and received education up to Form 3.  She works as a hair stylist assistant since 2018 and earns around HK$8,000 per month.  The defendant  lives with her mother.  Unfortunately her mother is a disabled person and the defendant is the main carer.  The defendant is a person of clear record.

10.  Defence submitted that the defendant is genuinely remorseful.  Concerning the offence, it was submitted that there is no evidence that the defendant knew what the predicate offence was and her involvement is only limited to lending out her bank account. Defence submitted, ever since she was arrested by the Police, the defendant has been working hard to keep her life in order and reflected a lot about her wrongdoing.  The defendant vowed to stay on the right path and turn over a new leaf.  Defence also urged the court to consider giving the defendant a further discount for the delay of prosecution in this case.  The defendant was arrested in June 2020 and it was only in December 2024 that she was first brought to court.  All in all, Defence urged the court to consider all the circumstances and impose a lenient sentence.

11.  As to the Prosecution’s application for enhancement of sentence, Defence submitted that the updated figures show that the trend seems to slow down in 2025 and therefore enhancement on the basis of prevalence could not be justified.

Sentencing Consideration

12.  There is no need to emphasize that money laundering is a very serious offence.  Not only does it encourage criminal activities indirectly, but it also helps criminals to legitimize the proceeds of crime.  The Court of Appeal in cases like HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi[2], Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung[3] and HKSAR v Boma[4] has already set out the sentencing principles for this offence.  The factors to be taken into account are:

(a) the amount of money involved;

(b) the level of participation of the defendant;

(c) the nature of the predicate offence;

(d) the defendant’s knowledge of the nature of the predicate offence;

(e) whether there is any international element;

(f) the sophistication of the offence; and

(g) duration of the offence.

13.  The Court of Appeal repeatedly said there is no guideline for this offence.  However, it was suggested in Wan Kwok Keung that if the “black money” involved is between HK$3 million and HK$6 million, the sentencing starting point could be about 4 years[5].

14.  Based on the facts admitted by the defendant, the court is prepared to accept that she did not have any knowledge of the predicate offence and her level of participation is at the lower end. The amount of money involved in the charge is about HK$3 million.  It certainly is not a small amount but it is not particularly large in this kind of cases. There is no evidence that this case involved any international element. 

15.  The court also considered the personal background of the defendant.  She is a first offender and showed her remorse by pleading guilty to the charge.  When she committed the offence, she was only about 20 years old.  Further, she needs to take care of her mother and it is not difficult to imagine the impact on her mother caused by the defendant’s incarceration.  I also note that the defendant is well supported by family and friends.  Her mother, her social worker and some friends are all present in court to support the defendant.

16.  Considered all circumstances, I adopt 3 years’ imprisonment, i.e. 36 months as the starting point.  The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest stage and is entitled to one third discount.  On the issue of delay, it took more than 4 years to bring the case to the court and it certainly affected the rehabilitation of a young person like the defendant.  However, the Police clarified that the defendant was in fact arrested twice for this case, first in 2020 and later in 2024.  After about a year after the first arrest, the defendant was discharged by the Police and bail money had been returned to her.  Therefore, the negative effect of delay, if any, was mitigated to some extent.  In any event, I agree that there was delay in this case and will give the defendant a further discount of 4 months.

17.  Prosecution has furnished with the court a witness statement dated 27 November 2025 of Chief Inspector Li Yiu-nam of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment of the Financial Intelligence and Investigation Bureau, Hong Kong Police Force.  The information provided by Chief Inspector LI shows the prevalence of money laundering offence in recent years in Hong Kong and the extent of harm caused to the community. Though the number of cases in 2025 involving the use of stooge accounts is less than 2024, there is no question that this type of offence remains very prevalent and deterrence sentence is needed. 

18.  Considered all the information I am satisfied that enhancement of sentence is appropriate in this case.  Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that 25% enhancement is appropriate.

19.  As a result, after enhancing the sentence by 25%, the defendant is sentenced to 25 months’ imprisonment.

[1] Contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455, Laws of Hong Kong

[2] [2010] 5 HKLRD 545

[3] [2012] 1 HKLRD 201

[4] [2012] 2 HKLRD 33

[5] See paragraph 15