HKSAR v. YIM SIK PING

DCCC615/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 615 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to three offences of dealing with property known or reasonably believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence.

2.  He has accepted the facts and I have convicted him on the basis of his plea and the facts.

3.  The charges relate to three bank accounts opened by the defendant to which money was placed.

4.  The 1st charge relates to a Bank of China account and into that account in December of 2009 some $143,000-odd was deposited from overseas inward remittance.  Between 9 and 11 December 2009, $143,000 was withdrawn on seven occasions.

5.  The 2nd charge relates to a Bank of East Asia account which was opened in October of 2009, and between 7 December 2009 and 11 February 2010 a total of $677,000-odd was deposited by way of 11 overseas inward remittances, and by 16 March 2010, $677,000 of that money had been withdrawn on 25 occasions.

6.  The 3rd charge relates to an account at the Nanyang Commercial Bank opened in October 2009.  Now, between 3 and 22 December 2009 a total of $261,539-odd was deposited into the account on four occasions from overseas, and by 16 March 2010, $261,300 had been withdrawn on five occasions.

7.  The defendant was arrested in June of 2010.

8.  He made comprehensive video recorded interviews and admissions on 26 June and 10 November 2010.

9.  He firstly said that the B account - and that would be the Bank of East Asia account - was opened at the request of a Taiwanese man called “Kok Gor”, “Brother Kok”, and he passed the bank passbook and card to Kok Gor.  He had also withdrawn money from that account and passed the money to Kok Gor on five or six occasions, and he said that later, at the request of Ah Wah - and this, in fact, transpires to be the same man, the same Taiwanese gentleman - he opened the Bank of East Asia and the Nanyang Commercial Bank accounts, that he passed the bank passbooks and bank accounts on all the accounts to Ah Wah, and withdrawn money from the accounts and passed that to this gentleman on several occasions.

10.  The defendant would receive a few hundred dollars as a reward and totally received 1 to 2 thousand dollars as reward.

11.  The defendant accepts there were reasonable grounds for him to believe that the deposits in those three accounts were the proceeds of an indictable offence and the facts amply support a conviction.

12.  The defendant is 60 years old.  He has a clear record.  He is a married man living in Tuen Mun.  He has a low education; he was educated in the Mainland up to primary school standard.  He has undertaken many jobs in Hong Kong, working as a driver, construction site worker. The defendant lives with his wife in Tuen Mun but they have a son who is 24 years old who is apparently studying in Australia.

13.  The antecedents statement describes the defendant’s health condition as good but he does suffer from cervical spondylosis which causes neck pain.

14.  Certain factors are being put forward in mitigation.

15.  The defendant has been a hardworking man and has maintained his clear record into the later part of his life, which shows him to be basically a law-abiding, honest and responsible man.

16.  He came to be involved in these offences because he delivered goods and such like to a warehouse in the Mainland and the supervisor of that warehouse introduced this Taiwanese male to him.  The defendant would be rewarded for this and he involved himself in this money-laundering.

17.  He accepts clearly that reasonable grounds existed for him to believe that the deposits into the accounts were in part, directly or indirectly, the proceeds of indictable offences, and he is remorseful.

18.  There are letters written by work colleagues and also his wife which speak to his character as a hardworking and responsible man.  This can be seen in the defendant’s case as a somewhat out-of-character offence and no doubt the temptation of easy money was a major factor.

19.  There is no evidence to say that the defendant knew what the underlying offences may or may not have been.

20.  The offences totally amount to slightly less than

21.  Now, there is no tariff sentence for this offence.  The circumstances of which the offences are committed vary considerably.  Factors that are of importance are the overall amount of money that is involved, whether an international element exists and the extent to which the defendant may or may not be culpable in the underlying criminalities about it.

22.  Here, the sum is $1,081,000-odd.  It is not a small amount of money, but not the largest sum one could come across.

23.  The offences were committed over the course of some three to four months.

24.  There is no evidence the defendant knew anything of the underlying criminality, but the remittances were from overseas so there is an international element to this offence, and the defendant was also active in withdrawing the monies from these accounts.

25.  I consider one of the important considerations in this offence is the defendant’s age and clear record.  It must mean something in terms of start sentencing that a person has reached the age of 60 with a clear record and led a responsible life.  It is a substantial mitigating factor.

26.  Now, although there is no tariff for sentencing, one can see that in offences involving over a million dollars of money, that starting points of sentences as high as 3 years’ imprisonment and beyond have been adopted.

27.  Taking all the mitigating factors I have said into account and the defendant’s age and clear record, I consider the appropriate starting point, overall starting point, for the three offences is one of 2½ years’ imprisonment or 30 months.

28.  The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount from that sentence, which leads to a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment.

29.  I shall impose that sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment on each of the charges, to be served concurrently to a total of 20 months’ imprisonment.