HKSAR v. LIN YUNG KWAN

 DCCC329/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 329 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Lin Yung-kwan, you have been convicted on your own plea of dealing with $5,284,684 knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that it represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.

2.  That money went through only one account, a savings account held by you with the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank. The offence took place over a period of 4½ years between 15 November 2003 and 14 May 2008. Over that period you filed no tax returns with the Inland Revenue Department, yet during that period a total of $8,563,395.25 was deposited into your account by various means: cash deposits, transfers, e-banking, phone banking and cheque deposits. More than half that sum was deposited on Mondays and Thursdays, the first working day after a horseracing day. The $5,284,684, the sum referred to in the charge, was deposited into your bank account by 422 deposits. It is apparent that that sum was the proceeds of illegal gambling, and that you would have been well aware of that fact.

3.  Indeed when you were arrested on the night of 14 May 2008, you were in premises where bookmaking was clearly going on. I bear in mind that you have not been charged with illegal bookmaking and that the charge before the court today is simply one of dealing with the proceeds of the bookmaking.

4.  A serious feature of this case is the length of time you were involved in this activity. There were a very large number of suspicious withdrawals from your account over this period, indicating that you were actively involved in operating this account. Obviously you were involved in this offence for the financial reward it would bring you, but the exact extent of that financial gain is not clear.

5.  I take into account the fact that the prosecution’s allegations only relate to one account, and that that account was a personal account in your name, rather than one in the name of a company. I also take into account that there is no evidence that you were laundering money obtained from overseas punters. This is therefore an offence that on the evidence took place over a substantial period of time, but does not appear to have involved elements of particular sophistication.

6.  In deciding the appropriate starting point I bear in mind that you are not someone who has been involved in this sort of activity previously. I am satisfied that the gravity of this offence would be adequately reflected by adopting a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. I have listened to everything that Mr Boyton has said on your behalf. I particularly bear in mind that before you got involved in this activity you were a man who was living an industrious and honest life.

7.  Your previous good character and your plea of guilty today entitles you to the usual discount of one-third. I am prepared to give you an additional discount of 4 months’ to reflect the length of time this matter has been hanging over your head. You were not charged until 9 March this year, that is 22 months after your arrest. Mr Ross accepts that there was delay in proceeding with this matter. Indeed, the delay was such that on 18 September last year the police released you from police bail, but at the same time told you that that did not mean that that was an end of the investigation.

8.  The sentence that I pass, therefore, is one of 20 months' imprisonment.