HKSAR v. SIU KAM LIN

DCCC1102/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1102 OF 2008

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The 2nd defendant was convicted after trial of one count of dealing with property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence contrary to Section 25 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. 

2.  Between 2004 and 2008, over a period of four years, HK$14.8 million had been passing through one of her saving accounts.  Among this $14.8 million, $11.7 million was deposited/transferred by her husband. 

3.  The defendant claimed that the money in question was proceeds generated or derived from her husband’s renovation business, to which I have already rejected. 

4.  The husband was convicted of one count of illegal bookmaking in year 2007 for which he was given a most lenient sentence.

5.  In addition to the husband’s transfers and deposits, there were also some unknown transfers and deposits.  The 2nd defendant was convicted on the “reasonably believed” limb.  That, of course, was no mitigation. 

6.  Woo JA, in HKSAR v Xu Xia Li and another, CACC395/2003, said,

         “In our judgment, the nature of the indictable offence from which the money was derived should be of no particular significance in sentencing, save that if the defendant knew that the money was derived from very serious crimes, it would be an aggravating feature to be taken into account in sentencing.”

7.  The above passage was reaffirmed in HKSAR v Chen Sze Ming, CACC270/2005 and HKSAR v Leong Wai Keong, CACC476/2007. 

8.  What can be said on behalf of the 2nd defendant is that the laundering operation was not a sophisticated one and that no international dimension was involved. 

9.  Insofar as her personal gains are concerned, I do not think it is right to say that she did not derive any benefit.  In a case like this, where the husband was the perpetrator of the underlying indictable offence, the family wealth inevitably as a whole would be unjustifiably enriched.  This can be seen from D2’s share trading activities.

10.  Having said that, I am of course aware of the fact that the defendant should not be sentenced based on the underlying indictable offence (HKSAR v Chen Sze Ming). 

11.  Although it was not a sophisticated operation, the scheme however lasted over a period of four years, a very lengthy period.  The amount from the husband’s account alone came to $11.7 million, a very substantial amount of money.  The offence committed by the defendant cannot and should not be treated lightly.

12.  It was observed in HKSAR v Javid Kamran, CACC400/2004:

          “Money laundering is a very serious offence as it is an attempt to legitimise proceeds from criminal activities.  Serious criminal offences are very often motivated by financial gains and those who assist criminals in laundering money indirectly encourage them in their criminal activities. 

          Successful deterrents against money laundering could be effective measures against crimes.” 

13.  Having considered all the circumstances of the case, mitigation made on behalf of the 2nd defendant, I am of the view that the appropriate starting point in this case is one of 4 years’ imprisonment.

14.  The defendant is convicted after trial, no further discount can be given.

15.  For the sole offence the defendant stands convicted, she is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.