HKSAR v. ZHANG YUNHUI

DCCC 1188/2025

[2026] HKDC 119

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1188 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to the first two charges on this indictment.  They are both charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence.  The 3^rd charge on the indictment has been left on the court file.

2.  The 1^st charge.  The offence was committed between 14 June 2024 and 12 August 2024.  A total of $835,993.88 is concerned in that charge.  On the 2^nd charge, the offence was committed between 14 June 2024 and 1 September 2024.  A total of $794,663.39 were dealt with in respect of the 2^nd charge.

3.  The charges relate to the operation of two bank accounts by the defendant.  Firstly, a Hang Seng Bank account described as the H-A-S-E or “Hase” account, and secondly, a Bank of Communications account or the “B-Comm” account.  They represent the bank accounts set out in the 1^st and 2^nd charges respectively.

4.  The defendant is the sole signatory and sole name holder of both these accounts.  It is the prosecution case agreed that the proceeds of scams went through both accounts.  Prosecution has evidence in relation to the Hase account or the 1^st  charge that the people described as PW1 to 5 were enticed by various scams to transfer a total of $224,000 into that account between 29 June 2024 and 12 August 2024.

5.  In respect to the B-Comm account, witnesses described as PW5 to 9 fell into various scams and transferred a total of $224,400 into the B-Comm account. 

6.  As far as the Hase account was concerned, it was opened on 14 June 2024 by the defendant in person.  The total amounts received of $835,000-odd were received in 23 deposits.  There were 29 withdrawals of over $646,000.  It is described that suspicious transaction patterns, namely mirroring, was noted, besides there were quick-speed withdrawals, an upsurge in deposit and low end-day balances in respect of that account.  The balance of that account on 12 August 2024 stands at $189,853.88.

7.  The B-Comm account was also opened by the defendant in person on 14 June 2024.  This account received a total of 32 deposits, totalling $794,663.39.  31 withdrawals were made of $794,548.  The balance on that account as on 1 September 2024 was $115.39.

8.  The defendant was arrested on 22 November 2024 when he entered Hong Kong.  A video-recorded interview was conducted with the defendant where he set out what he said had happened and this also represents part of the mitigation offered by the defendant before the court today.  He said he was asked by an agent to open the Hase and B-Comm accounts in June 2024.  He did so because he wanted to work in Hong Kong and because he could be remunerated monetarily.

9.  He passed the bank cards of those accounts to the agents.  He also said he had no knowledge of the actual transactions taken place in those accounts or, as it would turn out, the scams that were operated within that account.  He said he had never received any remuneration. The defendant admits he dealt with the properties in both accounts whilst he had reasonable grounds to believe the said property whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence.

10.  As far as the defendant’s antecedents are concerned he is aged 54.  He has no previous criminal convictions in Hong Kong.  He was a bus driver in Shenzhen with a monthly salary of some $7,000 at the time of his arrest.  He is said not to suffer from any long-term illness except he does appear to have acquired eczema in prison in Hong Kong which was part of his mitigation.

11.  The mitigation of the defendant offered is that he is a person of clear record.  He has indicated a plea of guilty from an early stage and is entitled to a one-third discount from sentence.  He said he was enticed by an agent, persuaded to engage the agent’s company to act for him in the application of work visa in Hong Kong, his key to come to Hong Kong.  He admits he opened the subject bank accounts for the agent, handing over all bank books, bank cards, passwords and other information for operation of the bank account to the agent.  He said he had no control of the bank account since that point.

12.  Now the approach to sentence is set out in a number of cases in Hong Kong.  It is clear there is no actual guideline set out by the courts in relation to the amount of money involved, however, it is a significant factor.  The cases that are relevant are of course the case of HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, also the case of Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, and finally the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545.

13.  The factors that are relevant to sentence are set out from Boma, such as the nature of the predicate offence, if known, and the penalty available for that offence; the state of knowledge of the defendant regarding the predicate offence; whether an international dimension exists.  The sophistication of the offence is relevant, whether the offence is committed on behalf of a criminal syndicate; how many transactions are involved and the length of time over which the offence is committed; are there any other aggravating factors such as continuation of laundering funds after the discovery of the offence has happened.

14.  The sentencing court should also have regard to the role of the offender and the actual acts performed by him, whether the defendant is the director of the money laundering operation or someone who is described as being further down the chain and as to what benefit the defendant may have received.  It is said that a drug addict or petty crook is paid a small amount to open an account and hand over its operation to another with no more participation and no more knowledge that it is going to be used as some sort of crime is much less culpable than the offender of a different sort not used in that way.

15.  I note that in the SJ v Wan Kwok Keung, that court considered previous cases that had come before the court and the amounts of money involved in that and the Court of Appeal observed the sentencing starting point could be 3 years or so where the black money involved is between $1 million to $2 million, 4 years or so where it is between $3 million to $6 million and could be over 5 years where the money involved is above $10 million.

16.  In terms of the court’s approach to these sentencing factors, the defence urge the court to take account of the following:-

- The defendant is of clear record;

- He is a person who would have been, as they described it, down the chain and conduit in terms of culpability;

- He has said he has no knowledge of the predicate offence; and

- There is no clear international element.

17.  Finally, the duration of the offence is very short, some four days in total of money moving in the Hase account and some two days in total for the money moving in the B-Comm account, that is the scam money. 

18.  The defendant has been in detention until now.  In mitigation, it is also urged that he has severe eczema whilst being in prison in Stanley and he wishes to see a Chinese dermatologist as his medical practitioner as it would appear the Western doctor offered to him is not able to find a cure for his problem.  I do take that into account although I do not consider it to be a significant factor in the determination of the final sentence that I will impose. 

19.  I also note the defendant will be willing and has acceded to the prosecution’s application to confiscate the monies in the Hase account, a total of $189,853.88.  That is a factor I can take into consideration although of course the money in that account was never the defendant ’s in the first place.

20.  Having taken all those factors into account, I will pass sentences on these charges as follows:-

- On the 1^st charge, I will take a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 18 months’ for the defendant’s plea of guilty;

- On the 2^nd charge, I will take the same approach, take a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 18 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty;

- I must now consider overall totality as there are two separate offences involved here. I will determine to have a final sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment. I will achieve that by ordering that 4 months of charge 2 run consecutively to the sentence under charge 1 and the balance concurrently to a total of 22 months’ imprisonment.