HKSAR v. WILLIAM TANG

DCCC917/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 917 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has today pleaded guilty to one count of dealing with property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) of and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.455. This charge is colloquially known as “money laundering”.

2.  The specifics are that between 2 and 24 December 2010, the defendant received in his bank account $788,507.02.

3.  He has admitted knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that this amount of money represents the proceeds of an indictable offence, and went on to deal with this money.

4.  The facts of this case are, sadly, familiar.

5.  A victim in Singapore received a phone call that he had miraculously won a cash prize of HK$800,000, but as usual, he was told over the phone that he would have to remit some processing and administrative fee before he could claim this amount of money.

6.  He remitted from Singapore 61-odd thousand dollars to two accounts in Hong Kong, one of which was the defendant’s HSBC account.  $24,000 was remitted into this account.

7.  This victim in Singapore never received any cash prize and made a report to the police, which led to an investigation into the defendant’s account.

8.  This account, having been opened for five-odd years, had a very low balance until December last year.  Between 2 and 23 December, five deposits of a total amount of 788-odd thousand dollars was either remitted or transferred into this account.

9.  The defendant has admitted withdrawing about $690,000 of that sum over the counter on two occasions. The balance was withdrawn using his ATM card at ATM machines by an unknown person.

10.  The defendant was arrested in July of this year.

11.  Under caution, he made a full admission to the police.

12.  He explained that he had given use of his account and his ATM card for the same account to a friend called “Ah Lap” and he had withdrawn the money over the counter on his instructions, having been coached by this Ah Lap on how to deal with the bank teller.

13.  He did not ask Ah Lap why he needed to use his account nor did he ask where the money came from, but he suspected it was not from a legitimate source.

14.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to this offence, which shows remorse, and has saved the time that would have been required for a trial.

15.  He does have previous convictions but they were when he was considerably younger, about 15 years old, and they are not similar offences.

16.  He is now 23 years old, received an education up to Form 3, and is single and living with his family.  According to mitigation and the record of interview, he has had employment but not a steady employment history.

17.  As is usual in these cases, a person who gives or lends their account would receive a financial reward, but there is a difference here.

18.  It has been put forward in mitigation that he felt threatened, having been threatened, and went along with Ah Lap’s instructions under duress.  He realises that he should have gone to the police.

19.  It is clear from his record of interview that he gave the police some details of a history between this Ah Lap and himself.

20.  He did report to the police an assault by this Ah Lap that took place in September 2010, which resulted in Ah Lap being charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

21.  From the facts, it seems that that assault was over affairs of the heart, involving a girl.  Ah Lap, I have been informed that he pleaded guilty to that charge in the Magistracy Court and was sentenced to probation in November 2010.

22.  These deposits in this case took place in December 2010.  The defendant says that Ah Lap threatened him with physical violence so he complied with Ah Lap’s request.

23.  I have been asked to take that into consideration when considering sentence.

24.  I have also been asked to consider an authority, HKSAR v Yeung Kin Chai, CACC 341/2008.  Mr Fenton has asked me to consider that from the facts of this authority, approximately a 2½-year starting point, would be appropriate.

25.  I have also considered a recent authority of Secretary of Justice v Wan Kwok Keung, CAAR 13/2010, and I quote from that authority, where sentencing is considered, the Court of Appeal has said,

“‘Money laundering’ is a serious offence, for not only does it encourage criminal activity indirectly, but also it attempts to legitimise the proceeds of crime. In order to crack down on serious crimes, to prevent offenders from getting financial gains, it is necessary to deter the commission of the ‘money laundering’ offence.”

26.  I further quote at paragraph 15:

“In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536, Cheung JA set out the amounts of money involved and the sentences passed in a number of ‘money laundering’ cases. The sentencing starting point is 3 years or so where the ‘black money’ involved is between 1 and 2 million dollars, 4 years or so where it is between 3 million and 6 million dollars, and could be over 5 years where it is above $10 million.”

27.  I have also taken the opportunity to look at the number of money laundering cases in that authority, Hsu Yu Yi.

28.  Mr Fenton has accurately set out what considerations are relevant when considering sentence for offences of this nature, and I recap, what would be relevant would be:

(1) the amount involved here, some 788-odd thousand dollars;

(2) there is what can be described as an international element - at least one of the victims was an overseas victim;

(3) thirdly, there is no evidence the defendant was a mastermind. In fact, he explains that he was acting under threat and duress;

(4) in addition, there were several deposits but it was over a short period of time, a number of days; and

(5) lastly, I repeat, the defendant says that he has not benefited by any financial reward.

29.  Defendant, please stand up.

30.  After careful consideration of all the factors that I have found relevant, especially the amount involved, the defendant’s mitigation, his reasons for committing this offence, the fact he has no previous similar convictions and has fully co-operated with the police, I will take a starting point of 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

31.  You have pleaded guilty and are, therefore, entitled to a discount of one-third.

32.  For this offence, you will be sentenced to 1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment.