HKSAR v. TSE YEE TING, JIMMY

DCCC 435/2025

[2025] HKDC 1357

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 435 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Money laundering". In short, he lent his bank account to someone.

Summary of Facts

2.  The defendant was the holder of an account (No.883000025477)  with Airstar Bank, a virtual bank ("the Airstar Account").  A photograph of the defendant's Hong Kong Identity Card, 3 selfie photos of the defendant and the defendant's residential address were submitted to Airstar Bank in support of the online account opening application.  The Airstar Account was opened on 18 December 2020.

Deception

3.  Between November 2020 and January 2021, PWs 1 to 5 were lured to a bogus online investment scheme "INGOTSEX".  Wrongly believing that they could make some profits, PWs 1 to 5 injected funds into INGOTSEX by transferring money to several bank accounts (collectively "the 1^st Layer Accounts"), which aggregated to a sum of $2,116,000.  A sum of $1,852,800 was then transferred from the 1^st Layer Accounts to the Airstar Account.  When PWs 1 to 5 tried to withdraw their funds from the websites of INGOTSEX, they could not do so.  They went to the Police.

Deposits and withdrawals

4.  Between 18 December 2020 and 9 February 2021, the Airstar Account received a total of 416 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $11,882,876.  Of the 416 deposits, 21 were from the 1^st Layer Accounts, which constituted 16.5% of the total sum of deposits in terms of monetary value.  A total sum of $11,765,164 was withdrawn by 221 transactions.  "Mirror patterns" of deposits and withdrawals were found.

Arrest

5.  The defendant was arrested on 17 February 2022.  In his video recorded interview, he admitted, inter alia, that he is the person captured in the selfies submitted to Airstar Bank in connection with the opening of the Airstar Account.  The photo of the Hong Kong Identity Card submitted to Airstar Bank was his own ID card.  He claimed having no recollection if he had opened the Airstar Account.  He was a decoration worker earning $15,000 per month.

6.  The defendant's income and tax records are not commensurate with the magnitude of the deposits received by the Airstar Account.

7.  The defendant now admits that during the offence period, he, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the total sum of $11,882,876 received by the Airstar Account, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt with the said sum.

Mitigation & Sentence

8. The defendant is 44. He has 6 conviction records, none of which were related to "money laundering". Defence counsel Mr. So informed me that the defendant has a son (about 10 years old)  with his ex-girlfriend. He married his wife in 2015. Prior to his arrest, he was living with another woman. He worked in the marble field earning about $25,000 per month. In mitigation, Mr. So submitted that the defendant had no knowledge of any predicate offence (i.e. the bogus investment scheme). He lent his bank account to someone and turned a blind eye to its operation.

9. The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant to section 27(2)(c)  and (d)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap.455)  on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm caused to the community. Mr. So did not object.

10. I bear in mind the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Xu Mai Qing CACC 464/2005, whereas Yeung JA (as he then was)  held "Under section 27(11)  of OSCO, what the prosecution has to prove is the prevalence of the offence, not the increase in the number of such offences[1]."

11. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 14 April 2025. I am satisfied that in 2021, deception-related money laundering cases were prevalent in Hong Kong in terms of the number of cases as well as the total value of monetary loss.

12. There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money laundering using bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" is still widespread and commonly being practised in Hong Kong today. What true criminals need are gullible scapegoats like the defendant in the present case who would take the blame for them when the law enforcement takes action. The court must send a clear message to the general public that people who play the role of "ML Stooge" will receive severe punishment, so that there is a deterrent effect. When there are fewer or no willing "ML Stooges", the criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts would fail.

13. This is a typical case of money laundering by way of a stooge bank account. The defendant claimed complete ignorance of the investment scam against PWs 1 to 5; however, such a scam would have been meaningless without his bank account. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given his role, the total sum which went through the Airstar Account and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

14. The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 held :-

Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may not be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are in fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes, etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted upward.[2]

15. In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have also borne in mind the amount of money involved, the duration of the offence, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as his personal circumstances.

16. In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P held :-

Generally speaking, the sentence passed in a "money laundering" case is primarily to reflect the amount of the "illicit/black money" involved. Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money"was actually not derived from an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…[3]

17. I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i)  except the $2.1 million odd from PWs 1 to 5, the funds received by the Airstar Account were related to any predicate offence; and (ii)  the defendant was involved in or had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of the Airstar Account, the defendant should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.

18. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that a total sum of $11.8 million odd went through the Airstar Account within a period of less than 2 months. By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through the Airstar Account, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s)  of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.

19. I consider a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 40 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the sentence becomes 50 months.

20. I am aware of the "assistance to authority" issue raised by Mr. So. The defendant has given a non-prejudicial statement to the Police; however, the information provided by him was considered to be of no practical use. I am prepared to grant a nominal discount of 1 month to reflect the defendant's willingness to assist the Police. I sentence him to 49 months' imprisonment.

Overall sentence

21. Moments ago, I have just sentenced the defendant to 44 months' imprisonment in DCCC 348/2024. He committed the present "money laundering" offence almost 2 years before he committed the "Robbery" offence in DCCC 348/2024. Both cases have nothing in common and are separate and distinct. Notwithstanding the totality principle, I order 28 months in the present case to run consecutive to the sentence in DCCC 348/2024. In other words, the total prison term for both cases is 72 months.