HKSAR v. RAHMAN MD SHEIKH MOJIBUR

DCCC 619/2017

[2018] HKDC 1293

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 619 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR VERDICT

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

1.  The defendant is facing a single charge of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence, and the facts of this case are largely undisputed.

2.  Facts admitted include:-

(a) The defendant was the account holder of 448‑844548‑292 between the period of 7 April 2014 to 19 May 2015.

(b) Between the said period, 100 deposits were made to the account amounting to a total of $1,350,503.74.

(c) Between the said period, 160 withdrawals were made totalling $1,043,356.

(d) 16 remittance slips showing a total of $540,068 had been converted to renminbi amounting to $433,700, and all were remitted back to China to four beneficiaries.

3.  It is also not in dispute that the defendant made the said remittances himself.

4.  PW1 and PW2 were staff of two different money exchange shops.  They confirmed the defendant make the 16 remittances.

The defence case

5.  The defendant testified.  He was in the business of trading secondhand mobile phones and accessories, and he liked to gamble.  The defendant, in the witness‑box said the followings:-

(i) He collected a loan of US$20,000 from a friend of his.

(ii) He had business dealings with Jewel and DW3. He also produced numerous receipts in court in support of his trading business.

(iii) The transactions shown in his bank account and remittances to China were related to his trading business.

6.  DW2, the defendant’s wife, is a Hong Kong resident, and she gave evidence in support of the fact that her husband had collected US$20,000, from his friend, and that he liked to gamble.  She further explained how the ATM transaction that appeared in the defendant’s account came about.  It was she whom helped the defendant to do the transfer since the defendant did not know how to make one.

7.  DW3 is a friend of DW2, the defendant’s wife, and also a secondhand mobile trader, and he confirmed he traded secondhand mobile phones with the defendant.

Analysis of the evidence

8.  The prosecution case based very substantially on documentary evidence, they sought to prove the money deposited into the defendant’s bank account which the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe it was in whole or in part directly or indirectly representing the proceeds of an indictable offence.

9.  Needless to say, numerous transactions going in and out of the defendant’s bank account and subsequently, some monies were being remitted back to China, the very first question to ask would be, was there any reason for the withdrawal and the remittance and the source of the deposits?

10.  The defendant and his witnesses gave a similar account of the defendant’s monetary affairs and his trading history, and I find it hard to reject their evidence given the fact that the receipts produced in court and his movement records do support his version of events.

11.  As I said, he was in secondhand mobile phone trading business.  The money deposited, withdrawn and the remittances to China were made in the course of this trading business.

12.  I had to consider whether the setting up of the business was a cover-up to hide his illegal dealings.  I found no evidence to support this argument.  Quite to the contrary, I have no evidence before this court to say that these deposits were from any other source, be it legitimate or illegitimate, other than the account of events given by the defendant.  Besides, the pattern of the transactions shown was consistent with his claim of doing business between the relevant period.

13.  Lastly, why would the defendant or anyone deposit money into the defendant’s bank account when he or she, or the defendant, could have simply gone to the remittance shop straight away to dissipate the cash, remit back to China, bearing in mind 93.65 per cent total sum were made by cash deposits.

14.  Given my finding, the prosecution has failed to prove its case, and the verdict that I deliver is one of not guilty.