HKSAR v. WONG WING HA (aka WONG CHIN SING)

DCCC 858/2024

[2025] HKDC 1022

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 858 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.   The Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering involving a total sum of HK$5.6 million. She was convicted accordingly. The Prosecution also applied for an enhancement of sentence under the OSCO, to which there is no objection from the Defence.

Brief Facts

2.  A male victim, aged 82, was defrauded of a sum of about HK$7.5 million, of which monies were deposited into 9 bank accounts between 28 October 2020 and 15 December 2020. 

3.  On 4 December 2020, a sum of HK$350,000 was deposited via bank transfer into the Defendant’s bank account with the Standard Chartered Bank with the account number 433-8-131667-1.  On 14 December 2020, another sum of HK$400,000 was deposited by bank transfer.

4.  The said bank account was opened by the Defendant on 7 December 2017, and he was the sole signatory of the account.  The Defendant claimed that he was a shipping officer, earning HK$10,600 a month. 

5.  Bank records of the account showed that between 1 November 2020 and 31 December 2020, a total sum of HK$5,618,505.05 was deposited into the account, and monies totalled HK$5,618,450 were withdrawn, leaving a balance of $55.05 as of 14 December 2020.  The account was closed on 4 February 2021. 

6.  Investigation of the account revealed that patterns of money laundering was observed, namely, mirror pattern (ie same or aggregate amount being deposited and withdrawn), quick speed of dissipation of funds and low remaining balance.  The account was being used as a temporary fund repository.

7.  On 22 October 2021, the Defendant was arrested. 

8.  House search of the Defendant’s residence was conducted.  The police seized 3 bank advices issued by the Standard Chartered Bank relating to the bank account. Three advices include one outward remittance application dated 10 December 2020, one letter regarding credit for $85,000 dated 16 December 2020 and one direct debit authorisation dated 4 January 2021. 

9.  On 22 October 2021, the Defendant in the video-recorded interview, under caution, claimed that he did not know about the opening of the account and its use.  He had received the 3 bank advices but had no knowledge of the purpose of the letter.

10.  Records from the Inland Revenue Department showed that:-

(1)  Between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019, the Defendant earned a total of $138,939 as a storekeeper of LHT Express;

(2)  Between 1 April 2019 and 8 August 2019, the Defendant earned a total of $44,652 in the same capacity; and

(3)  Between 1 August 2020 and 31 December 2020, he earned $90,000 as a supervisor of Bright Legend Asia Pacific Limited.

Mitigation

13.  The Defendant was born in Guangzhou and is now aged 35. He was up to Form 5 level and is single. The Defence said the Defendant opened the account in 2017 to receive his salary. In mid-2020, he got his wages in cash on daily basis. He was a car technician and transportation worker, earning about $18,000 per month. The Defence submitted that at the end of 2020, the Defendant “foolishly” lent the account to his friend as his friend was a bankrupt and could not open a bank account.It is submitted that there was no financial benefit to the Defendant, and the Defendant was unaware of the source of the illicit funds. He did not participate in the fraudulent activities.

15.  The Defence told the Court that the Defendant is applying to be enrolled in a new education scheme set by the CSD. The scheme was established in 2023. If the Defendant is accepted, that would be beneficial to the Defendant’s new life, once discharged.

16.  The Defence also informed this Court that the Defendant committed the present offence prior to the commission of the drugs trafficking case in May 2022. The drugs case was heard in CFI and the Defendant was sentenced to 5 years and 8 months on 24 December 2024, and together with another charge, the total sentence the Defendant got was 6 years and 8 months (HCCC 126/2024).

17.  The Defence does not object to the application for sentence enhancement and accept the evidence of the Chief inspector in this regard.

18.  The Defence said the primary mitigation factor is the Defendant’s timely guilty plea, and the Defendant has been sincere in his admission of guilt. The Defendant did not have any personal gain and was motivated by a foolish desire to assist a friend (paragraph 15 of the mitigation submission).

19.  The Defence urges the Court to pass a sentence that is partly consecutive with the sentence of the drugs case that the Defendant is currently serving.

Sentence

20.  The Court of Appeal has repeatedly promulgated the sentencing considerations for cases of money laundering (see: HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi, HKSAR v Boma, and HKSAR v Wan Kwok Keung), although there is no sentencing guidelines.

21.  The Defence has rightly pointed out that whether there was any personal gain to the Defendant is not material. In fact, the total sum of money involved can only be regarded as part of the sentencing considerations. The said bank account was opened in 2017, and the offence commenced in November 2020 for about one month. That means this bank account was not opened specifically for the purpose of money laundering. There is no evidence to suggest that the Defendant had any knowledge of the predicate offence nor was there any evidence to show the Defendant’s involvement in any scam in any way or form. However, that does not exonerate his culpability.

22.  When asked, the Court was informed that the 82-year-old victim lived in Hong Kong, and there is no cross-border or international element in this offence.

23.  That said, I do not accept the Defendant’s version that he was foolishly helping his friend who got bankrupt. If the Defendant said he had nothing to do with the banking activities, then it must mean that the Defendant passed his ATM card or PIN of the telebanking to his so-called friend. The problem is the Defendant still needs a bank account, even though he claimed he received his income by cash on daily basis. Moreover, the Defendant still received correspondence from the bank, at least on 3 occasions in December 2020 and January 2021 respectively. The 3 bank advices were tendered (marked as “MFI 1”).

24.  From these documents, it can be inferred that the Defendant still has some knowledge or even control of his bank account, despite what he alleged in the VRI, as stated in paragraph 8 of the Summary of Facts.

25.  The Defendant had a total of 6 convictions starting from January 2010. In December 2024, he was sentenced to a total of 6 years and 8 months in the High Court.

26.  Taking all factors into account and the total sum involved, I would adopt a starting point of 3½ years (42 months). With his guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 28 months.

27.  Regarding the enhancement of sentence, I accept the statement of CIP Li, dated 21 March 2025. The total number of deception and money laundering cases rose from 16,643 cases in 2020 to 47,063 cases in 2024, with the number of stooge rose from 760 persons in 2020 to 7,883 persons in 2024. The amount of money in cases with the involvement of stooge accounts amounted to 1,879 million-odd in 2020 to 4,466 million-odd in 2024. All these statistics substantiated the prevalence of the use of stooge accounts in these specified offences and the devastating nature and the extent of harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community.

28.  I would enhance the sentence by 25%, resulting in a sentence of 35 months (28 plus 7).

29.  As regards the totality principle, this money laundering case was committed before the drugs case (December 2024), and these 2 cases carry a totally different nature. In normal circumstances, the two sentences should run consecutively. That said, given his lengthy sentence term in the drugs case and out of leniency, I make a discretionary step by ordering 3 months to be served concurrently with his current sentence. That means the Defendant still has to serve 32 months’ imprisonment upon completion of his current sentence.