HKSAR v. ROCERO JOSELHEN SAGUION

DCCC 80/2025

[2025] HKDC 1960

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 80 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant is charged with one count of “Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”[1]. She pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted the summary of facts. As a result, she is convicted accordingly.

Summary of Facts

2.  On 28 February 2023, the defendant opened a bank account at The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (“HSBC”) with the account number 166-861815-833 (“the said Account”).  At all material times, the defendant was the sole signatory of the said Account.

3.  Between May and June 2023, the said Account had the following transactions:

(a) On 29 May 2023, there was a transfer of HK$8 by one RIA-ULFATUN-NAFIAH;

(b) On 30 May 2023, US$47,900 was deposited into the said Account;

(c) On 31 May 2023, the above sum was exchanged into HK$373,906.44. Amongst this sum, HK$371,200 was immediately withdrawn in cash; HK$2,500 was transferred to RIA-ULFATUN-NAFIAH; and HK$200 was transferred to another bank account of the defendant;

(d) On 2 June 2023, US$85,400 was deposited into the said Account. The sum was immediately exchanged into HK$666,671.2 and placed in the current account of the said Account;

(e) On 5 June 2023, HK$290,671.2 was moved from the current account to the savings account;

(f) Between 5 and 6 June 2023, there were 12 ATM cash withdrawals in the total amount of HK$240,000 (HK$20,000 each time); and

(g) Between 5 and 10 June 2023, there were 5 transfers in the total amount of HK$50,685 to RIA-ULFATUN-NAFIAH.

4.  There were no further transaction afterwards.  The above transactions showed clear money laundering pattern including mirror pattern, quick speed of dissipation, temporary fund repository and low bank balance.

5.  On 7 May 2024, the defendant was arrested by the Police.  Under caution, the defendant said the followings:

(a) She came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper and her monthly income was HK$5,000;

(b) She had three bank accounts in Hong Kong including the said Account. She opened the said Account for savings purpose but there was no money in the said Account because she had no savings;

(c) She lost the ATM card of the said Account in or around 2020 and she never told anyone about the password of the ATM card; and

(d) She had no knowledge of the above transactions.

6.  The defendant now admits, during the period specified in the charge, together with an unknown person, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property, namely a total sum of US$133,300 in the said Account, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented proceeds of an indictable offence, and she dealt with the said property.

Mitigation

7.  The defendant is 41 years of age.  She was born and received education in the Philippines.  She is married and has a 16-year-old daughter.  Since 2014, she came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper and her current salary is about HK$5,000 per month.  She has a clear record.

8.  Defence submitted that the defendant is genuinely and extremely remorseful.  She admitted that she lent the said Account to a friend for a reward of HK$5,000 but she had no idea it would be used for illegal purpose.  Defence submitted that there is no evidence to prove what the predicate offence was and certainly the defendant had no involvement whatever it was.  Further, Defence submitted that apart from the punishment the defendant is going to receive, she will most likely lose her job.  The impact on her and her family will be significant.  Lastly, Defence urged the court to consider all the circumstances and impose a lenient sentence.

Sentencing Consideration

9.  There is no need to emphasize that money laundering is a very serious offence.  Not only does it encourage criminal activities indirectly, but it also helps criminals to legitimize the proceeds of crime.  The Court of Appeal in cases like HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi[2], Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung[3] and HKSAR v Boma[4] has already set out the sentencing principles for this offence.  The factors to be taken into account are:

(a) the amount of money involved;

(b) the level of participation of the defendant;

(c) the nature of the predicate offence;

(d) the defendant’s knowledge of the nature of the predicate offence;

(e) whether there is any international element;

(f) the sophistication of the offence; and

(g) duration of the offence.

10.  The Court of Appeal repeatedly said there is no guideline for this offence.  However, it was suggested in Wan Kwok Keung that if the “black money” involved is between HK$1 million and HK$2 million, the sentencing starting point could be about 3 years[5].

11.  Based on the facts admitted by the defendant, the court is prepared to accept that she did not have any knowledge of the predicate offence and the level of her participation is low.  The amount of money involved in the charge is about HK$1 million.  It certainly is not small amount but it is not a particularly large amount in this kind of cases.  There is no evidence that this case involved any international element.  All relevant transactions took place within about 10 days’ time so the duration of the offence is relatively short.

12.  The court has also considered the personal background of the defendant.  It appears that the defendant is an unsophisticated person who was unaware of the serious legal consequences of lending bank account to others.  Further, the defendant is a first offender and showed her remorse by pleading guilty to the charge.

13.  Considered all circumstances, the court adopts 30 months as the starting point.  The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and is entitled to one-third discount. As a result, the defendant is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.