HKSAR v. TANG SIU WING

DCCC609/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 609 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a total of 26 offences of dealing property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence. He has agreed the facts of the case and I convicted him of those offences.

2.  The facts agreed clearly set out the nature of these offences.  They start by saying that this is a money laundering case and the defendant has totally six bank accounts in Hong Kong.  Five of those accounts were opened within three days between 25 and 27 February of last year, 2010.  In respect of three of those accounts large amounts of money were transferred into them and that has formed the subject matter of the first three charges.  The remaining charges concerns withdrawals at remittance agents and there were a total of 23 of those that the defendant has pleaded guilty to. The overall total of money the defendant dealt in is $4,097,056.57. 

3.  Some of the relevant details in respect to the charges are as follows - certainly relevant to the sentence in any event.  The 1st Charge concerns an account opened with the Wing Hang Bank on 25 February 2010.  A sum in excess of $323,000 was remitted into this account on five occasions between March and May last year, 2010.  For each remittance there is a corresponding withdrawal of the same amount.  All the withdrawals were counter withdrawals except for one through an ATM.  The amounts were remitted from Australia, Japan, Norway and South Korea in amounts from $19,760 to over $153,000.

4.  For the 2nd Charge the defendant had an account with the Bank of East Asia which was opened on 26 February 2010.  Over $1.2 million was remitted into this account between 25 March and 26 May 2010.  Again the money was withdrawn immediately after it was transferred into the account withdrawals either being made at the counter or through an ATM.  Monies were remitted from Australian, Canada, Guinea, Italy, Japan, Singapore and the US in amounts from 19,000 to 351,000.

5.  The third account was opened on 26 February 2010 with the Bank of China.  Over 1.8 million was deposited into this account on 47 separate occasions between 17 March and 23 June 2010, the money being withdrawn immediately after it was deposited either at the counter or the ATM.  Monies coming from Australian, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and the US in amounts ranging from $1,000 to up to $194,000-odd.

6.  Now, the remaining charges concern monies withdrawn from remittance agents.  A total of 23 withdrawals of cash remitted from Australian, Canada, Guam, Malaysia, New Zealand and the Philippines and the UK.  Overall total ^37,589.34.

7.  The defendant has clearly admitted his involvement in the movement of all those monies.  The amount is substantial and the defendant’s involvement extensive over a number of months last year, 2010 and the monies coming from overseas, there has obviously been a substantial international element to the crime. 

8.  The defendant’s antecedence are also admitted. He has a criminal record, one previous conviction for trafficking in a dangerous drug.  This was dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court.  He received a sentence of one years’ imprisonment.  

9.  The defendant is aged 28 years old.  Although his antecedent statement said he was unemployed he has in fact worked.  I am told at the age of 20 he went to Australia to study in computers.  There was an unfortunate family break down leading to his mother having some emotional and psychiatric problems which also was the case with his younger brother and the defendant returned from Australia to become the sole breadwinner of that family where there were also some aged parents who required care as well. 

10.  The defendant has established a stable relationship with his girlfriend and supported her university.  She has a degree in fashion.  The defendant clearly was prepared to enter into criminality to support himself and others and was convicted of the offence of trafficking.  On he release from prison he found that he could not obtain employment and obviously, shortly after he became in this money laundering scheme. 

11.  It is settled that there is no active tariff for cases of money laundering and sentences range considerably in respect of the offences.  No firm sentencing guidelines have been set down because of the range of facts that can be involved in the cases.  However, there are a number of factors which are to be taken into account and one of the important factors is the amount of money involved which is described as a major consideration. 

12.  As I have already indicated this is a substantial amount of money, over $4 million.  I also have to consider the defendant’s level of participation and the number of occasions in which he is involved in the money laundering activities.  I have set out in the facts there are obviously a number of occasions in which the defendant has been involved with these activities.  

13.  In respect of Charge 4 onwards there were 23 occasions when the defendant has been involved in withdrawals at remittance agents. There is the setting up of the three accounts in the first three charges and then the withdrawal of the amounts of money from the accounts shortly after money has been put into the accounts.  Five in respect of the 1st Charge, 15 in respect to the 2nd Charge, 47 in respect to the 3rd Charge.  So the defendant was engaged in a major way in respect to the financial activities of these accounts. 

14.  The defendant’s involvement can be described as extensive although, one would say that he is at the end of the chain - whatever chain it is.  His involvement was setting up the accounts and taking the money out.  In the facts I have no actual indictable offences identified so the court cannot assess the provenance of the money in that respect.

15.  There are two other elements to consider.  One is whether there is an international element involved in the activities.  Here the monies have come in from a range of countries.  And, finally, the length of time that the offences have lasted.  Here it is between February and June 2010 so it was not a short period of time as the activities carried on for a number of months.  These are all factors in assessing the appropriate starting point for sentence with respect to these charges as also is the remorse shown by the defendant; his full admission of these facts showing he is prepared to take active responsibility for the offences for which he is charged. 

16.  In some ways for offences like this it is easier to, or better to, take an overall starting point for the overall criminality disclosed by the 26 charges and then allocate the respective sentences amongst the charges, reflecting to a certain extent, the gravity of each.  I consider that an overall starting point should be taken and then clearly the appropriate discount which, in this case, is one-third be given to the defendant.

17.  The defence has very helpfully given me a recent case which sets out a large number of starting points adopted by various courts in respect of various facts.  I would say it is difficult to ascertain a unified approach to sentencing but offences involving sums in excess of $4 million have led to sentences in the region of a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment.  Obviously the amount is not the only consideration and I have set out all the other factors that I have considered. 

18.  I consider that the appropriate starting point in respect of the entirety of these offences should be one of 3 years and six months’ imprisonment, that is, 42 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant is entitled to one-third discount which leads to a figure of 28 months’ imprisonment.  I shall allocate that as follows.  On the 1st Charge there will be a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, on the 2nd Charge a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment, on the 3rd Charge a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment. On Charges 4 to 12, 14 to 16, 19, 20, 23, 26, 28 to 32, 34 and 35 there will be a sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment on each.  

19.  In order to achieve the correct overall totality, I will order that Charges 1 to 3 be served concurrently to each other.  The remaining charges which are, again, 4 to 12, 14 to 16, 19, 20, 23, 26, 28 to 32, 34 to 35 will be served concurrently to each other, four months consecutively to Charges 1 to 3 and 4 months concurrently giving an overall total of 28 months’ imprisonment.