HKSAR v. SUSILOWATI

DCCC 1548/2024

[2025] HKDC 1808

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1548 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of “Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”[1]. That between November and December 2022, a number of victims including PW1-5, were defrauded in scams, and were induced to deposit monies into three accounts held by the Defendant with Mox Bank (“the Mox Bank Account”), China CITIC Bank (“the China CITIC Bank Account”)  and Welab Bank (“the Welab Bank Account”). Defendant admitted the facts and was found guilty.

2.  It is the prosecution case that Defendant, together with Wulan, committed the three offences.

Admitted Facts

3.  Between November and December 2022, a number of victims, including PW1-5, were defrauded in scams, and were induced to deposit monies into three accounts held by the Defendant with Mox Bank, China CITIC Bank  and Welab Bank.

The Mox Bank Account

4.  Fund flow analysis showed that between 16 December 2022 and 26 April 2023, a total of HK$2,720,009.70 was deposited in the Mox Bank Account, and a corresponding total of HK$2,717,021.03 was withdrawn from it. Mirror pattern was observed.

5.  The Defendant was the sole signatory of the Mox Bank Account. She was a domestic helper by occupation in Hong Kong. Under caution, the Defendant stated that she had sold the Mox Bank Account to a fellow domestic helper called “Wulan” for HK$500.

The China CITIC Bank Account

6.  Fund flow analysis showed that between 1 December 2022 and 15 February 2023, a total of HK$1,070,635.65 was deposited in and withdrawn from the China CITIC Bank Account. Mirror pattern was observed.

7.  The Defendant was the sole signatory of the China CITIC Bank Account. Under caution, she remained silent.

The Welab Bank Account

8.  Fund flow analysis showed that between 19 December 2022 and 1 January 2023, a total of HK$5,336,922.18 was deposited in and withdrawn from the Welab Bank Account. Mirror pattern was observed.

9.  The Defendant was the sole signatory of the Welab Bank Account. Under caution, she remained silent.

Supplementary Information

10.  After the recent judgment of HKSAR v Xie Zhijian[2], prosecution provided more information on the predicate offence. In December 2022, PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW5 fell into employment scams. They received cold recruitment messages via “WhatsApp” or “Telegram” offering part-time job to earn quick money. They were instructed to complete tasks or missions on online platform to earn commission. They were provided with designated accounts (Defendant’s Mox and Welab Bank Account)  for deposit. They were asked to remit money into these designated accounts to top up their relevant online platform account to complete their tasks or missions. PW1 remitted HK$70,500 into the Mox Bank Account, and PW3-5 remitted between HK$10,700 to HK$150,000 into the Welab Account.

11.  In December 2022, PW2 fell into online investment fraud.  PW2 was lured to invest in Bitcoin by a person unknown via “Telegram”.  PW2 was provided with designated accounts (including Defendant’s China CITIC Bank Account)  to top up his investment account. PW2 remitted a total of HK$120,000 into the China CITIC Bank Account.

Enhancement

12.  Prosecution made an application for enhancement of sentence under section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance[3] on the grounds of the prevalence of this specified offence and the nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of this specified offence. Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam made a witness statement (“the said witness statement”)  in support the application.

13.  This case will be classified as “ML stooge”. According to the said witness statement, total number of deception cases and ML cases rose from 16,643 in 2020 to 47,063 in 2024 and 31,185 in Jan – Aug 2025. Total number of arrested person rose from 2,422 in 2020 to 10,496 in 2024 and 5,142 in Jan – Aug 2025. Total number of arrested stooges percentage rose from 31.38% in 2020 to 75.10% in 2024 and 72.01% in Jan – Aug 2025. Amount of reported losses from Deception and ML cases involving stooges account rose from HK$1,879.83M in 2020 to HK$4,466.39M in 2024 and HK$723.38M in Jan – Aug 2025.

Mitigation

14.  Defendant is 32 years old, an Indonesian National, who was employed as a domestic helper from 2015 until her arrest in May 2023. Defendant has had two employment contracts in Hong Kong, one lasting eight years terminated when her employers no longer required a helper, and the second lasting one year up until her arrest. Defendant has never been in any conflict with either of her employers.

15.  Defendant’s family are all in Indonesia, her father and mother, aged 72 and 63 respectively, her 39-year-old sister and her 12-year-old son. Defendant had been sending home HK$3,000 per month and was the main provider for her son’s education. Defendant is currently unclear how her family are managing as communication have become sporadic since she has been in detention.

The Sentencing Guidelines

16.  Defence submitted the following authorities on sentence of this offence:

(i)  HKSAR v Javid Kamran [4] sets out a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for laundering HK$1,190,264 after trial;

(ii)  HKSAR v Yam Kong-lai[5], almost HK$4 million laundered resulting in 4 years’ imprisonment after trial;

(iii)  HKSAR v Ho Shun-hsiung[6], HK$4.15 million, laundered through five offences with an international element and detailed planning resulting in 3 years’ imprisonment after a guilty plea.

17.  Further guidelines for sentencing are set out by Justice Stock in HKSAR v BOMA Amaso[7]. The Court of Appeal emphasised that “the question of the amount of money laundered is not the be-all and end-all of a case but is a significant feature”[8]. The Court went on to elaborate on the other relevant factors to be considered (at paragraph 40 of the judgment).

Mitigation

18.  While Defendant admits to the offence and that she acted upon the request of her trusted and long term friend “Wulan”, Defendant comes from a small town in East Java and has never had a bank account before and no exposure to the banking system. Defendant had been sending all her savings home via remittance companies.

19.  Defendant was not a willing participant in any deceptions. Defendant herself admits to assisting her then friend “Wulan” in the opening of the Mox Bank Account. This was done as a “favour to a long term friend” who claimed could not open an account and Defendant was told this was to assist in the garment trading business. Defendant did not know at the time that Wulan was also using her information to open the two additional accounts (“the China CITIC Bank Account and the Welab Bank Account”). This is supported by the banking documentation showing all accounts being approved at approximately the same time. When Defendant tried to contact Wulan after being arrested, Wulan’s number was no-longer operational. Defence, in the hearing, accepted that Defendant knew Wulan opened the two additional accounts with her information at the material time and Defendant allowed Wulan to use her accounts.

20.  Defendant took no part in the operation of the “scam” which involved the “scammers” contacting numerous people with the promise of commission paying jobs in return for transferring small sums. The offence itself is not a sophisticated one, and simply appeared to involve a lot of “cold calling” on the part of the scammers. There also does not appear to be an international element to the scam as all transfer made by the victims appear to be through channels such as FPS and Alipay to local bank accounts.

21.  Defendant, up this point, has a clear criminal record.

22.  Defendant has taken the opportunity to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity to obtain a possible 1/3 discount on any sentence.

23.  While Defendant acknowledges that a custodial sentence is going to be appropriate for the court, Defendant wishes to beg for the court’s mercy and for the court to impose concurrent sentences and consider overall ‘Totality’ in deciding on the sentence.

24.  Regarding the enhancement application, defence said that despite this is a lawful application, it is an overly harsh application for this type of defendant. Enhancement should rarely be invoked, as sentencing guidelines should have already considered the prevalence of such offences.

25.  Further, there are recent advertisements for public to guard against such offence. However, Defendant was arrested in 2023, without benefits of such advertisement.

26.  Defendant, with remorse, has no objection to the enhancement application. However, defence urged the court to consider a lower percentage as the enhancement in sentence and advertisement now has effect, as shown in figures in 2025.

Background report

27.  As Defendant has a clear record, a background report is obtained.  The report is consistent with the mitigation, in that Defendant has a son, now aged 14, from her marriage. Her husband deserted the family in 2017 and her son is currently taken care of by her parents with the help of her elder sister. Defendant came to Hong Kong in August 2014 and worked as a domestic helper for nearly 10 years until she was remanded in April 2024. Pertaining to the present convictions, Defendant stated that she just tried to do a favor for her best friend without thinking much of it, never imagining she would commit such a serious crime.  She expressed great remorse.

Considerations

28.  Money laundering is a very serious offence, for which a deterrent sentence is required. There is no sentencing guideline for the money laundering offence. A number of significant factors have been identified as relevant in considering the proper sentence, as stated in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [9] and HKSAR v Boma [10]. In HKSAR v Boma, the Court of Appeal stated that in considering the sentence, the amount of money laundered is a significant factor.

29.  I have also considered the recent authority of HKSAR v Xie Zhijian [11], where the Court of Appeal stated that while the amount of money involved is a signification factor, the sentencing judge should also consider the maximum sentence of predicate offence and the deterrence effect. The court also needs to consider the individual case and his overall view of the case.

30.  In assessing the sentence, I have the following considerations:

(i)  The predicated offence relating to Charges 1 and 3 were employment scams. The predicated offence relating to Charge 2 was investment fraud. All offences were committed via the use of “WhatsApp” or “Telegram”. The sentencing principals in internet fraud is considered: See HKSAR v Wong Ming Chun[12]; HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai[13];

(ii)  I accept Defendant has no knowledge of the predicated offence;

(iii)  There is no evidence of international elements;

(iv)  There is no evidence of a sophisticated offence, and committed by criminal syndicate;

(v)  There were about less than 20 transactions in each account, between November and December 2022;

(vi)  Defendant did not launder funds after she discovered the nature of funds; and

(vii)  She sold the accounts to her friend.

31.  Considering the above, I consider the following are the appropriate starting point for each offence:

(i)  Charge 1 : 3 years;

(ii)  Charge 2 : 2 years and 6 months; and

(iii)  Charge 3 : 3 years and 6 months.

32.  Defendant pleaded guilty in the first instance, entitled to 1/3 discount. I found no other mitigating factors that warrant any further discount. Therefore, the sentences before enhancement should be as follows:

(i)  Charge 1 : 2 years;

(ii)  Charge 2 : 1 years and 8 months; and

(iii)  Charge 3 : 2 years and 4 months.

Enhancement

33.  I accept the figures as stated in said witness statements. Therefore, I accept the offence is prevalent and the loss incurred is as stated in the said witness statement.

34.  I have considered the defence submission. However, even in 2024 and the first 8 months of 2025, the figures of arrested stooges are still high. Considering the figures, I am of the view a 25% enhancement is appropriate. Therefore, the sentence for each charge is:

(i)  Charge 1 : 2 years and 6 months;

(ii)  Charge 2 : 2 years and 1 month; and

(iii)  Charge 3 : 2 years and 11 months.

35.  Considering the totality, the total amount involved is about HK$9 million, and all from the same transaction where Defendant lend the accounts to her friend Wulan, I consider the total sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment appropriate. Therefore, I ordered that Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently. 5 months of Charges 1 and 2 to run consecutively to Charge 3.