HKSAR v. YUSEF ABDALLAH HASSAN

DCCC713/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 713 OF 2008

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant was charged with one count of money laundering.  He was convicted after trial which was literally a paper trial.  The sum involved was about $486,000-odd in US currency, equivalent to about HK$3.79 million.  Here are the reasons for sentence.

Brief Facts of the Case

2.  I have detailed the case against the defendant in my reasons for verdict delivered just now.  In gist, the defendant came to Hong Kong on 13 November 2006.  On the following day, the defendant bought two local companies: Prosperity (Hong Kong) Company Limited (PHKL) and Wealth (Asia) Limited (“Wealth Asia”), from a secretarial company, Asia Business Service Limited (“Asia Business”). 

3.  The defendant applied to open an integrated business account for PHKL with Hang Seng Bank (Hang Seng) on 14 November 2006.  He left Hong Kong on 19 November 2006.  Upon receiving the relevant documents, Hang Seng approved the opening of the integrated bank account on 5 December 2006 with the account number 283-537827-883 (the “the HASE account”). 

4.  Between 5 December 2006 and 24 June 2008, various telegraphic transfers from bank accounts in different countries were deposited into this HASE account.  On most occasions, when the telegraphic transfer was effected, the whole sum was remitted to other overseas bank accounts.  The said remittances were made via business e-bank system of Hang Seng.  As at June 2008, the remaining balance in the HASE account was $315-odd in US currency and HK$240.

Mitigation

5.  The defendant is now 36 years old and single.  He was born in East Africa.  It was submitted that there are various factors for mitigation.  There was no evidence to suggest that the defendant was involved in the commission of any indictable offence.  The present case was not the most serious type and so was the period of the offence.  The money-laundering activity did not involve sophisticated arrangement.  All the defendant did was to open two companies and some bank accounts in Hong Kong.

Sentence

6.  As said by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Javid Kamran CACC400/2004:

“Money laundering is a very serious offence as it is an attempt to legitimise proceeds from criminal activities.  It is not feasible to lay down guidelines for sentence of a money-laundering offence as there is a very wide range of culpability.  Other factors include the nature of the offence that generated the laundered money, the extent to which the offence assisted the crime or hindered its detection, the degree of sophistication of the offence and perhaps the defendant’s participation, including the length of time the offence lasted and the benefit he derived from the offence.”

The court also took the view that successful deterrence against money laundering could be effective measures against crime.

7.  In the present case, there is no evidence to identify the nature of the underlying offence.  However, the Court of Appeal said in HKSAR v Xu Xia Li [2004] 4 HKC 16:

“By the nature of the offence itself, in our judgment, the nature of the indictable offence from which the money was derived should be of no particular significance in sentencing save that if the defendant knew that the money was derived from very serious crimes, it would be an aggravating feature to be taken into account in sentencing.”

8.  The present offence was committed between 5 December 2006 and 24 June 2008 with a time span of almost one and a half years.  The sum involved was about HK$3.79 million.  Although there is no sentencing guideline for this kind of offences, I have considered the sentencing considerations as promulgated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Javid Kamran, HKSAR v Xu Xia Li, HKSAR v Chen Zhen Chu CACC433/2006 and HKSAR v Yam Kong Lai [2008] HKLRD 384.

9.  In the present case, the defendant was not perpetrating the offence alone.  Given the fund flow of the bank account, it is apparent that international elements were involved.  The defendant came to Hong Kong all the way from London in November 2006 and set up two companies on the following day upon his arrival.  He opened several bank accounts with Hang Seng and HSBC for his companies.  From the money transfers effected through the bank account, it is also not difficult to see that it was a transnational organised crime.

10.  As said in HKSAR v Mak Shing CACC322 of 2001, the Court of Appeal emphasised that when there was an international element to the offences, then Hong Kong has to take a very serious view of such matters as its international reputation is not to be sullied.

11.  The gravamen of a money-laundering offence is the amount of the money handled, not the amount of profit to the defendants or the loss to the victims.  Taking all factors into account, I would adopt a starting point of 4 years.  No mitigation of substance could be put forward by the defendant, but I would give credit to the defendant for his admission to the whole prosecution case.  To this end, I would reduce 3 months from the starting point.

12.  Accordingly, I sentence the defendant to 45 months’ imprisonment.