HKSAR v. MA TING MAN

DCCC 502/2024 & 189/2025

(Consolidated)

[2025] HKDC 1915

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 502 OF 2024 AND 189 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant has entered a plea of guilty to the two charges on the indictment which are both offences contrary to Section 25(1) and (3) of Cap 455 which are colloquially known as money laundering offences.

2.  In respect of the 1^st charge, the total overall sum that would have been laundered is $6,069,315.89.  In the 2^nd charge, the amounts are HK$3,800 and US$951,812.36.  That is not on the charge converted into Hong Kong dollars but is a figure in the region of HK$7.4 million.

3.  The facts have been agreed.  The bank accounts themselves are firstly a Bank of China account in which the defendant was the sole signatory which was set up on 25 November 2019.  The active period for that account appears to range between 5 November 2021 and 15 November 2021, a total of 10 days, over which that $6 million-odd went through the account.

4.  The 2^nd charge relates to a bank account held by the Quwu Trading Limited which is a company incorporated on 6 January 2022 in Hong Kong and the defendant was serving as its sole shareholder-cum-director of that company.  On 11 April 2022, an account with Bank of Communications or BOCOM, as referred to in the facts, was set up in the name of that company.  The grand total of the two charges would be $13,476,915.89.

5.  The facts presented by the prosecution also show that both the charges were used for activities of a fraudulent nature, the receipt of moneys from activities of a fraudulent nature.  In respect of the 1^st charge, that is the Bank of China account, which the defendant, as I said, had set up in November of 2019, we can see from the facts that four citizens were subject to investment scams between the 10 and 14 November 2021 paying sums from up to almost $400,000-worth of money being paid into the account by these four people who were subject to fraudulent activities.

6.  Another large deposit of $825,400 put into the account was taken from another person, Mr Koo, of which some $78,000 was put into the Bank of China account.  Also, a Mr Wan was also a victim of fraudulent activity transferring some $25,000 into the Bank of China account. So it can be clearly seen that the monies in the Bank of China account were the proceeds of crime.

7.  As far as the 2^nd account, that is the BOCOM account, is concerned, the bulk of the money that was put in, that is the US$951,850, was as the result of a fraud practiced on a company called Ince Capital which is a venture capital firm which held a bank account with a Silicon Valley bank and on 1 June 2022 after the email of the account of the founder partner had been hacked, Ince Capital’s Financial Controller executed a payment of $951,850 out of the Silicon Valley bank account and credited it to the BOCOM account held by Quwu Trading of which the defendant was the sole shareholder and the director.

8.  There is also evidence of the payments of those monies and another $3,800 out of the account to various other bank accounts in other countries such as the United States, Shanghai, Hubei in China, OCBC Indonesia and the Central Bank Asia in Indonesia.

9.  The operation of the BOCOM accounts shows a degree of sophistication and also a degree of use of international accounts.

10.  I turn to the defendant’s antecedents. The defendant is aged 41 years old.  He is a person of Form 5 secondary education.  He has some 10 previous occasions in court.  A number of previous convictions show a record of drug-taking and dishonesty offences such as theft and shoplifting.  The purport of the antecedent statement is simply to show that the defendant is and has been for a number of years a petty criminal with a drug habit.  It seems unlikely, as I indicated to the defence, he was the kind of person who could of operated the fraud in the 2^nd  charge. The defendant, what he says in respect of that 2^nd charge, is that he had sold the account, I think for some $3,000, at the time knowing it would be used for illegal purposes.

11.  I note the defendant has been remanded in custody since 24 March 2024 and indicated pleas of guilty to these charges at the earliest possible opportunity.  When the defendant was arrested, he admitted that he had sold the Bank of China account for some $3,000 at his video-recorded interview, so the defendant had been cooperative with the police.

12.  As far as the approach to sentencing set out, there are a number of cases which deal with the proper approach by the courts.  The founding case or the earliest one in time would be HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 which indicates that there is no sentencing guideline for this offence.  The facts vary from case to case but the major factor would be the amount of money involved.  It is a major consideration and it is not necessarily the amount of benefit received by the defendant.  The culpability for the defendant lies in the assistance, support and encouragement to the commission of this particular offence, so the level of participation of the defendant is a relevant factor.

13.  As fraud has been indicated in respect of the money laundering in the two accounts, the court may take into account that indictable offence has been identified as an element in the commission of this offence.  It is also considered that cases with an international element are more serious and of course the court must take into account the length of time the offence lasted.

14.  The case of Hsu Yu Yi was considered in the later case of Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 which again says that money laundering is a serious offence and that sentence should largely reflect the amount of black money laundered.  In Wan Kwok Keung, some suggestions or suggested figures were given for starting points for sentence.  An amount above $10 million in total would result in a starting point of some 5 years or above.

15.  The final case that considered in detail the court’s approach was HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 where again it said guidelines could not be laid down but set out a number of factors that the court should consider when determining the starting point for sentence.  I have been very helpfully given a number of sentencing examples by the defence in their submission which again show the large range in which the sentences can be imposed.

16.  Now looking at the sentencing considerations in relation to this defendant. We have a charge and the amount of money laundered on the 1^st charge of $6 million-odd; in the 2^nd charge, some HK$7.5 million, totalling sum I think is $13.4 million in total.

17.  The nature of the predicate offence is here.  We can see there are fraudulent deceptions including the email fraud on the BOCOM account.  There is no suggestion here the defendant knew of the predicate offence other than his sale of the account for the use of illegal purposes.

18.  In respect of the 1^st charge, there is no evidence of an international element.  The 2^nd charge shows some evidence of an international element, the fraud being practiced against a company in the United States and the money being transferred to different countries.

19.  In respect of the 1^st charge, the scheme was simple.  I would not describe it as simple in respect of the 2^nd charge.  There is no evidence of organised criminal syndicates but we do know they are behind this kind of offending.  The offences occurred between 5 and 15 November 2021 and 28 April and 2 June 2022.  The offences themselves were committed over a short period with in the 1^st charge somewhat 126 deposits in total.  In the 2^nd charge only 4 deposits.

20.  Now as far as the defendant is concerned, the defendant’s role was limited and there is no evidence him playing any role in the underlying predicate offences.  The defendant’s culpability lies in the sale of the account with knowledge of the uses to which the account may be used.

21.  I also note in this case there is an application for enhancement of sentence which is supported by the evidence of Inspector Li as is required by Section 27(2) of Cap 455.  The evidence of Inspector Li is thorough and unchallenged.  It is considered.  It is not challenged by the defence that this is a prevalent offence, so the offence of money laundering is prevalent and that enhancement is appropriate.

22.  I do note that the evidence of Inspector Li shows a, I think what could be described as a levelling off of offences in the last few years and that will affect the level of enhancement that I will impose in respect of these offences.  Now taking all those factors into account, I will approach the sentence as follows:

In respect of each offence, that is charge 1 and charge 2, I will take a starting point for sentence at 48 months’ imprisonment. The defendant is entitled to a full-third discount on each charge which will lead to a sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment.

23.  There will be an enhancement of that sentence in the region of 20 per cent which will lead to an additional 6 months in respect of each charge, leading to a final sentence on charge 1 of 38 months’ imprisonment and a final sentence in charge 2 of 38 months’ imprisonment.

24.  I must now also consider the overall totality of sentence.  In this case, I consider an overall total of sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.  I shall achieve that by ordering that charge 2 be served with what will be 8 months consecutive to charge 1 and the balance concurrently, leading to a final sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment.