HKSAR v. IFTIKHAR UMER

DCCC 83/2018

[2020] HKDC 1130

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 83 OF 2018

________________________

________________________

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.  The defendant has been convicted after trial of a single offence of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence, the particulars of that being the offence was committed between 7 January 2011 and 24 June of the same year. The total amounts of money dealt with were 7,446,885 United States dollars currency, 305,970 Hong Kong currency, 168,991 British pounds and 7,589 Swiss francs.

2.  I have already outlined the relevant facts in my judgment.  Just briefly, the defendant was involved in what is known about the Coins’ bank account used by the defendant to launder the proceeds from a mortgage fraud perpetrated in the United Kingdom.  As shown by the bank-opening mandates, the Coins’ account was opened on 8 December 2010 by the defendant. He was the sole legitimised authorised signatory.  It was an unlimited company resident in Hong Kong purported to be engaged in trading and retail sales of mobile phones.

3.  The account itself was a multi-currency bank account with five sub-accounts involving various currencies.  The proceeds from the mortgage fraud was deposited into one of the accounts, the British sterling account, and then further transfers from that account were made to other accounts and other companies.

4.  It was found that during the relevant period, some $60-odd million passed through the Coins’ bank account, and those are the figures that we are concerned with today. 

5.  The defendant’s role was to sign papers and be a signatory to the account.  He was involved in the operation, distribution of the moneys paid that originated from the mortgage fraud.

6.  In sentencing, the considerations the court has to consider are the amount of moneys involved and the culpability of the defendant and the period over which the offence took place.

7.  As far as the defendant’s background is concerned, he is aged 33.  He has no criminal record, completed secondary education in Pakistan.  He came to Hong Kong by way of migration in 2008, worked as a salesman selling mobile phones and also involved in this company.

8.  In the factors in respect of sentencing as set out in the case of SJ v Jerome Yuval Arnold Herzberg [2010] 1 HKLRD 502 and the case of Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the factors set out in those cases are the amounts of money laundered, the nature of the offence generating the money, how did the offender assist with the offence or hindering the detection of the offence, the sophistication of the offence, the defendant’s participation in the money-laundering activities, the length over which the offence lasted, the benefit derived by the defendant from the offence, and any international element.    

9.  I have already set out the amount of money laundered that we have considered.  It is in the region of HK$60 million.  We know that part of that money was generated from mortgage frauds in the United Kingdom.  The defendant’s involvement in this was as the bank accountholder and involved in the paperwork of the movement of moneys through the account.  It would appear that another man that the defendant has referred to was also involved as the intelligence behind the scheme. 

10.  The scheme is not particularly sophisticated, and the defendant seems to have participated in it, and the offence did not last over a great period.  There is no information on the benefit received by the defendant.  One assumes he was receiving some benefits from this enterprise.  And of course, there is an international element in that an overseas fraud was involved in at least part of the money that we have seen in the account.

11.  I would consider that in a case involving this sort of money, the starting point for sentence should range between 3 to 5 years.  I would describe the defendant’s culpability as being in the medium range for that, within that range.  Taking all those factors into account, the sentence I will impose on the defendant is 4 years’ imprisonment for this offence.