HKSAR v. LEUNG KAM CHUEN AND OTHERS

DCCC 333/2025

[2026] HKDC 461

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 333 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendants were charged with one to three counts of money laundering respectively, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455. The defendants pleaded guilty to their respective charges, admitted the facts and were convicted accordingly. Charge 7 against D2 was left on court file not to be proceeded without leave.

2.  The prosecution applies for enhancement of sentence due to the prevalence and harm caused to the community by recent occurrences of money laundering.

3.  To accommodate the counsels’ diary, further mitigation and sentence of the defendants were adjourned to two consecutive days after conviction.

FACTS

4.  On 24 September 2020, D4 was arrested for a dangerous drugs-related case.  Upon body search, D4 was found in possession a bank card of D1’s Hang Seng Bank account (Account 1) and D2’s Hongkong and Shanghai Bank account (Account 2).

5.  Police investigation revealed that there were frequent transactions between Account 1, Account 2 and D3’s Hang Seng Bank account (Account 3).     

D1 and Account 1 (Charge 1)

6.  The account was opened on 11 March 2005 and was closed on 26 April 2021.  Between 11 November 2019 and 26 April 2021, there was a total deposit of HK$993,955 over 121 transactions and a total of HK$993,983.07 were withdrawn over 105 transactions, majority were via ATM, 7 of which were transferred withdrawal amounted to HK$10,083.07. Mirror transactions were frequently observed and inter-bank transactions between Account 1 and Account 2, between Account 1 and Account 3 were also observed within this period.  D1 applied replacement of ATM card after the arrest of D4.

7.  Under caution, D1 stated near the end of 2019 he sold Account 1 to Miss Chan for HK$5,000.  He gave the ATM card and password to Miss Chan.  Since then, he did not pay further attention to the account.

8.  D1 admitted that together with Miss Chan dealt with the deposit of Account 1, while knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe the total deposit of HK$993,955, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented proceeds of an indictable offence.

D2’s Account 2 (Charge 3)

9.  Account 2 was opened on 25 March 2000 and was closed on 11 February 2021.  There was only one lost report of Account 2’s bank card on 8 February 2010.

10.  Between 4 January 2020 and 11 February 2021, there was a total deposit of HK$2,493,713.56 over 365 transactions and a total of HK$2,511,254.03 were withdrawn over 398 transactions, less than 1/3 were via ATM, while autopay transactions were frequently noted. Mirror transactions were frequently observed and inter-bank transactions between Account 2 and Account 1, Account 2 and Account 3 were also observed within this period.  

11.  At all the material times, D2 worked as a taxi driver, earned a monthly income of around HK$20,000 to HK$30,000.  He had never filed any tax return, no landed property and remained in debt.

12.  Under caution, D2 stated he lent Account 2 to “Tung Shing” and gave him the bank card in mid-2020 for him to collect a debt until he applied for a new bank card.  He did not know how much “Tung Shing” withdrew and he did not follow-up.  He continued to operate Account 2 online.

13.  D2 admitted that together with “Tung Shing” dealt with the deposit of Account 2, while knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe the total deposit of HK$2,493,713.56, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented proceeds of an indictable offence.

D3’s Account 3 (Charge 5)

14.  Account 3 was opened on 26 November 2019 and closed on 8 April 2021.

15.  There was a total deposit of HK$2,628,400.07 over 325 transactions and a total of HK$2,628,400.07 were withdrawn over 228 transactions in Account 3, majority were via ATM/EPS and one cash withdrawal in the sum of HK$5,040.07.  Inter-bank transactions between Account 3 and Account 1, Account 3 and Account 2 were also observed within this period.

16.  Under caution, D3 stated few days after he opened Account 3, he passed the bank card and password to Wong Sin upon her request.  He then paid no attention to Account 3.  Though he received bank statement of Account 3 and saw some suspicious transactions, he simply threw the statement away.  He did not receive any remuneration from Wong Sin.  Upon the closure of the account, he withdrew the remaining HK$5,000 from the account and gave to Wong Sin.  Wong Sin’s husband is D4.

17.  D3 admitted that together with “Wong Sin” dealt with the deposit of Account 2, while knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe the total deposit of HK$2,628,400.07, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented proceeds of an indictable offence.

D4 (Charges 2, 4 & 6)

18.  D4 was arrested on 24 September 2020, he stated in VRI that:

(a) In early 2019, “Tung Shing” gave him the bank card of Account 1, upon Tung Shing’s request he has withdrawn money from Account 1 at ATM and pass the money to Tung Shing;

(b) “Tung Shing” also gave him the bank card of Account 2, he has transferred money from Account 1 to Account 2 and then withdrew money from Account 2 at ATM; and

(c) He borrowed D3’s bank card.

19.  Between 11 November 2019 and 24 September 2020, HK$947,130 were deposited into Account 1 via 95 transactions and HK$947,120 were withdrawn from the account via 82 withdrawals.

20.  Between 4 January 2020 and 24 September 2020, HK$2,367,956.39 were deposited into Account 2 via 333 transactions and HK$2,365,369.50 were withdrawn from the account via 342 transactions, about 1/2 was via ATM.

21.  Between 26 November 2019 and 24 September 2020, HK$1,980,460 were deposited into Account 3 via 167 transactions and HK$1,990,500.03 were withdrawn from the account via 246 transactions.

22.  D4 had together with “Tung Shing” deal with money so deposited into Account 1, 2 and 3 and had reasonable grounds to believe that the money was the proceeds of an indictable offence.

BACKGROUND/MITIGATION

D1

23.  The defendant aged 56, received education up to Primary 6, had worked as a cook with monthly salary of about HK$20,000.  He divorced in 2018, the daughter born in wedlock is living with the mother. After divorce, he lived with his father and younger brother before being remanded in custody.

24.  D1 was a drug addict, he has 3 previous conviction records, he was sentenced for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2012 (HCCC 229/2012) and 2022 (DCCC 500/2021) respectively.  He was being remanded since 5 February 2021 and sentenced to 75 months imprisonment for DCCC 500/2021 on 26 September 2022, he has served his sentence and currently remanded in custody in connection with this case since 5 April 2025. 

25.  D1 simply turned a blind eye to the transactions of Account 1 after he sold the account to Miss Chan.  He was lured by the ‘quick money’ offered by Miss Chan but he only received HK$2,500.  He obtained a new bank card for the account after the arrest of D4, thereafter he operated the account and took benefit from the tainted money, including the HK$2,500 from Miss Chan, he benefitted a total of HK$51,270, represents about 5% of the total amount laundered. The court is urged to take a starting point not more than 27 months’ imprisonment.

26.  D1 was arrested on 2 December 2021 and made full admission under caution.  However, he was not charged until 20 January 2025, amount to over 3 years of “uncertain suspense”.  The court is urged to consider a 3 months reduction for delay in addition to the 1/3 discount for his plea. 

27.  The defence accepts the figures stated in CIP Li Yiu-nam statement and does not oppose to the enhancement application but urges the court to consider an enhancement no more than 20%.

D2

28.  The defendant aged 61, received education up to Primary 6, had worked as a taxi driver with monthly salary around HK$20,000 to HK$30,000.   He is divorced with 2 adult daughters, he lived with his daughters prior his remand in custody.  Both daughters gave birth to their first child during the remand of D2.

29.  D2 was a drug addict, he has 24 previous conviction records, all together 29 counts, mainly drug-related offences. He was being remanded since 14 December 2020 and sentenced to 18 years 8 months for HCCC 199/2023 on 9 February 2024.  If the present case had been brought to court prior to his sentence in High Court, the cases might have been heard together.  The court is urged to consider the totality principle.

30.  D2 suffers from high blood pressure and vascular blockage and requires regular medical check-up.  D2 has indicated his plea at the earliest opportunity.  He is genuinely remorseful for his misdeed and promises not to reoffend. 

31.  D2 has no objection to the enhancement application but invites the court to adopt a lower percentage in the circumstances.

D3

32.  The defendant aged 63, clear record, received education up to Secondary one, had worked as a security guard and part-time cleaner and earned monthly salary of about HK$16,000 as security guard.   He divorced in 2003 and remarried with a Mainland resident in 2014.  He has an adult son from his first marriage, he lived with his son prior his arrest on 30 November 2021.

33.  D3 was a friend of D4’s wife Wong Sin and trusted her.  Upon the request of D4 and Wong Sin, he lent his bank card to them without questioning.  He had asked Wong Sin and D4 not to use the account for illegal purpose.  He had no knowledge of the predicate offence and received no remuneration. With a criminal record, he will not be able to work as security guard any more, he has deeply reflected on his conduct, and has learnt a profound lesson.   

34.  D3’s culpability falls at the lower end of the spectrum for this offence, he was a mere “stooge” account holder.  He was arrested in November 2021 and to be sentenced in March 2026.  Though the delay in this case is not attributable to any fault on the part of the prosecution.  Nevertheless, this protracted period, amounting to some 4.5 years, has left the matter hanging over his head for an extended time.  It has caused him significant and ongoing stress, anxiety, and uncertainty about his future.  The court is urged to take this delay into account as a mitigating factor and reduce the sentence accordingly.

35.  The defence has no objection to the enhancement application and leaves the matter entirely to the Court’s discretion

D4

36.  The defendant aged 56, received education up to Primary 4, had worked as a transportation worker with monthly salary of about  HK$15,000.   He is married with a son, he lived with his wife and son prior  his remand in custody. 

37.  D4 has 11 previous conviction records, a total of 14 counts.  He was arrested for a drug-related case on 24 September 2020 and had been remanded since then.  He was sentenced to 19 years imprisonment in HCCC 366/2024 on 27 March 2025.

38.  D4 pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. He was arrested on 24 September 2020 for the High Court case.  However, it was not until 13 July 2022 that he was arrested for the present offences.  He was charged in February 2025, a couple of days after the High Court case was fixed for plea and sentence.  Even accepting that it might take some time for the police to investigate, there is still an unacceptable delay in the circumstances.  Because of the delay, the present case and the High Court case could not be dealt with at the same time.  The court is urged to take into account of the totality principle. 

39.  The defence has no objection to the enhancement application.  The amount of enhancement is within the Court’s discretion.

Sentence

40.  A person commits money laundering is liable on conviction upon indictment to a fine of 5 million and to imprisonment for 14 years.

41.  Hon Yeung JA (as he then was) has said in HKSAR v Javid Kamran CACC 400/2004 that “money laundering is a very serious offence as it is an attempt to legitimize proceeds from criminal activities. Serious offences are very often motivated by financial gains and those who assist criminals in laundering money, indirectly encourage them in their criminal activities”, that “successful deterrents against money laundering could be effective measures against crime”, and that “it is not feasible to lay down guidelines for sentence of money laundering offence, as there is a wide range of culpability.”

42.  The defence refers to HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536. Hon Cheung JA (as he then was) reiterated at para.9 that:

“There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence because the facts vary from case to case.”

And listed out the factors to be taken into account when determining sentence:

i. the amount of money involved is a major consideration;

ii. the defendant’s level of participation;

iii. the sentence imposed on the predicate offence if it can be known;

iv. if the case has an international element; and

v. the length of time the offence lasted

And from the money laundering cases referred in that case with the amounts involved and the sentences passed, Hon Cheung JA observed that:

“[T]he starting point is 3 years or so where the ‘black money’ involved is between $1 million and $2 million; 4 years or so where it is between $3 million and $6 million; and could be over 5 years where it is above $10 million.”

43.  The defence also refers to HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33,in that case the Court of Appeal emphasized again the importance of deterrence for this kind of offence, pointed out that the amount of money laundered was a significant feature, and set out a non-exhaustive list of other significant features, which includes:

(a) the nature of the predicate offence,

(b) the state of the offender’s knowledge,

(c) whether an international element was involved,

(d) the sophistication of the offence,

(e) whether organised criminal syndicate was involved,

(f) the number of transactions and length of the offence,

(g) whether the offender continued to launder funds after knowing that they were proceeds of a serious crime,

(h) the offender’s role, whether reward was involved and how much.

Delay

44.  Delay in prosecution could amount to a mitigating factor.  The defence refers to HKSAR v Chiu Chi Wing CACC 243/2012, the relevant remark of the Court of Appeal is at para.37:

“The seven factors identified by Buss JA, which were stated not to be intended to be exhaustive or inflexible, were:

“ First, delay is not, of itself, a mitigating factor.

Secondly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it has been caused by difficulties in detecting, investigating or proving the offences committed by the offender, and the period of the delay is reasonable in the circumstances.

Thirdly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it is caused by the offender’s obstruction or lack of co-operation with the State, prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies, but the offender’s reliance on his or her legal rights is not obstruction or lack of co-operation for this purpose.

Fourthly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it results from the normal operation of the criminal justice system, including delay as a result of the offender or a co-offender exercising his or her rights; for example, interlocutory appeals and other interlocutory processes.

Fifthly, delay may be conducive to the emergence of mitigating factors; for example, if, during the period of delay, the offender has made progress towards rehabilitation or other circumstances favourable to him or her have emerged.

Sixthly, delay (not being delay of the kind described in the second, third and fourth guiding principles) will ordinarily be a mitigating factor if:

(a) The delay has resulted in significant stress for the offender or left him or her, to a significant degree, in ‘uncertain suspense’; or

(b) During the period of delay the offender has adopted a reasonable expectation that he or she would not be charged, or a pending prosecution would not proceed, and the offender has ordered his or her affairs on the faith of that expectation.

Seventhly, delay caused by dilatory or neglectful conduct by the State, prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies may result in a discount of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed on the offender, if the court thinks it an appropriate means of marking its disapproval of the conduct in question.”

45.  The prosecution has prepared the chronology of events for my consideration.  D4 was arrested on 24 September 2020, ATM card of Account 1 and Account 2 were seized from D4 and the present money laundering case was revealed upon initial investigation.  D1, D2 and D3 were arrested between 30 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Thereafter time was spent on further investigation, mobile phones inspection, fund flow analysis of the bank accounts involved, and all these took place during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Time being D4 was arrested on 13 July 2022 for the present case.

46.  The case was eventually submitted to DOJ for legal advice on 21 July 2023, further investigation was directed on 17 January 2024.  The further investigation completed on 7 October 2024, and the defendants were charged in January 2025.  Taking into account of the operation arrangement of all institutions during COVID-19, the volume of the transactions, and the limitation of the then fund flow analysis system, I consider the time spent was reasonable. 

47.  The case was subsequently brought to Shatin Magistrates’ Courts for transfer on 28 February 2025.  The defendants appeared at District Court on 20 March 2025, and the case was further adjourned to 29 May 2025.  On 29 May 2025, the case (except D2 requested more time for plea bargain) was adjourned to 6 March 2026 for plea and sentence. Ultimately D2 case also adjourned to 6 March 2026 for plea and sentence.  After the case was brought to court, it has been handled efficiently and there is no complaint from the defence.  I do not consider there is any undue delay in the present case.  Yet the present case has been hanging over the defendants’ heads for a considerable period is beyond dispute.

D1

48.  In between 11 November 2019 and 26 April 2021, Account 1 received 121 deposits in total of HK$993,955; almost all were withdrawn /transferred out of the account.  According to D1’s mitigation, he turned a blind eye to the transactions of the account after he sold it to Miss Chan.  D is a mature adult with various working and incarceration experience, he had grounds to believe the amount represented proceeds from crime but there is no evidence that D1 had knowledge of the predicate offence. 

49.  Like many other holders of stooge accounts, D took the matter lightly and committed the offence.   Being the account holder, he could have applied to suspend the account, reported loss of his ATM card, and changed the PIN for the operation related to the account.  Instead, he applied replacement of ATM card, continued to operate the account himself after the arrest of D4 until it was closed by the bank on 26 April 2021.

50.  In gist, for a reward of HK$51,270 (about 5% of the total amount laundered), D1 sold his account and in a period of 17 months, allowed Account 1 be used to receive 212 deposits, the black money involved was close to HK$1 million. 

51.  The offence was revealed after D4 being arrested and the seizure of the ATM card of Account 1 was seized on 24 September 2020.  Thereafter, D1 committed DCCC 500/2021 on 4 February 2021, he was sentenced to 75 months imprisonment for that case on 26 September 2022. Where the plea of this case could be heard before he served his sentence, under the totality principle, he could be able to obtain a partially concurrent sentence with DCCC 500/2021.  However, since D1 has been remanded since 5 February 2021, he has served his sentence by 5 April 2025.  If not because of this, I would have adopted 25 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.

52.  Having consider the circumstances as a whole and the principle of disparity, I reduce the starting point to one of 21 months’ imprisonment.  D1 entitled one-third discount for his plea.  I do not consider there to be any further mitigating factor.

D2

53.  D2 was released on 2 November 2019 after he served his sentence for WKCC 408/2019 and he was remanded again on 14 December 2020 for HCCC 199/2023.  In between 4 January 2020 and 11 February 2021, Account 2 received 365 deposits in total of HK$2,493,713.56; almost all were withdrawn /transferred out of the account.  D2 is a mature adult with various working and incarceration experience, he had grounds to believe the amount represented proceeds from crime but there is no evidence that D2 had knowledge of the predicate offence. 

54.  Unlike the case of D1 and D3, the facts admitted by D2 is that he was actively involved in the operation of the account on-line after he handed over the ATM card to Tung Shing.   Bank record of Account 2 shows suspicious on-line transactions before and after the arrest of D4 and frequent autopay transactions.  That being the case, at the material time D2 should have knowledge of all the transactions in the account, he actively participated in the dealing of the tinted money and derived benefit from the autopay transactions.    

55.  In gist, during a period of 13 months, together with Tung Sing, D2 used Account 2 for money laundering, received 365 deposits, the black money involved was close to HK$2.5 million.  Having consider the circumstances as a whole and the principle of disparity, I consider the appropriate starting point to be 3.5 years’ imprisonment.  D2 entitled one-third discount for his plea.  I do not consider there to be any further mitigating factor but the sentence could be run partially concurrent to HCCC 199/2023.

D3

56.  In between 26 November 2019 and 8 April 2021, Account 3 received 325 deposits in total of HK$2,628,400.07; all were withdrawn /transferred out of the account.  According to D3’s mitigation, he lent the account to Wong Sin. Though he noticed some suspicious transactions from the bank statements received, he turned a blind eye to the transactions.  D3 is a mature adult with various working experience, he had grounds to believe the amount represented proceeds from crime but there is no evidence that D3 had knowledge of the predicate offence. 

57.  Like many other holders of stooge accounts, D3 took the matter lightly and committed the offence.   Being the account holder, upon discovery of suspicious transactions he could have applied to suspend the account, reported loss of his ATM card, and changed the PIN for the operation related to the account.  Yet D3 paid no heed to the account, withdrew and handed over the remaining HK$5,000+ before it was closed by the bank on 8 April 2021.

58.  D3 alleged he had asked Wong Sin and D4 not to use the account for illegal purpose.  But why would anyone need to use others’ bank account for legitimate purpose.  In gist, D3 lent his newly opened bank account to a friend without questioning even after he discovered suspicious transactions from the bank statements and in a period of 16 months, allowed Account 3 be used to receive 325 deposits, the black money involved was over HK$2.6 million. 

59.  Taking the circumstances as a whole and the principle of disparity, I consider the appropriate starting point is one of 2 years 9 months’ imprisonment.  D3 entitled one-third discount for his plea.  D3 has a clear record, despite the ongoing stress, anxiety and uncertainty of the present case, he continued to lead a positive life after his arrest in November 2021, for all these I allow him a further 6 months reduction.

D4

60.  In between 11 November 2019 and 24 September 2020, D4 together with Tung Shing used 3 bank accounts for money laundering. The ATM cards of Account 1 and 2 were provided by Tung Shing while D4 borrowed that of Account 3 via his wife.  D4 transferred/withdrew money out of the accounts according to the instruction of Tung Shing.

61.  D4 is a mature adult with various working and incarceration experience, he had grounds to believe the amount represented proceeds from crime but there is no evidence that D4 had knowledge of the predicate offence. 

62.  D4 did not only operated the accounts according to the instruction of Tung Shing via ATM, he also obtained the use of D3’s account via his wife.    

63.  In gist, in slightly over 10 months, together with Tung Shing, D4 used 3 bank accounts for money laundering:

· Between 11 November 2019 and 24 September 2020, HK$947,130 were deposited into Account 1 via 95 transactions and HK$947,120 were withdrawn from the account via 82 withdrawals. (Charge 2)

· Between 4 January 2020 and 24 September 2020, HK$2,367,956.39 were deposited into Account 2 via 333 transactions and HK$2,365,369.50 were withdrawn from the account via 342 transactions. About 1/2 of the withdrawal was operated by him via ATM. (Charge 4)

· Between 26 November 2019 and 24 September 2020, HK$1,980,460 were deposited into Account 3 via 167 transactions and HK$1,990,500.03 were withdrawn from the account via 246 transactions. (Charge 6)

64.  Having consider the circumstances as a whole and the principle of disparity, I consider the appropriate starting point for Charge 2, Charge 4 and Charge 6 to be 2.5 years, 3 years and 3.5 years’ imprisonment while the overall starting point to be one of 4 years.  D4 entitled one-third discount for his plea.  I do not consider there to be any further mitigating factor but the sentence could be run partially concurrent to HCCC 366/2024.

Enhancement of sentence

65.  The prosecution applies for enhancement of the sentence pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance and submits the witness statement of CIP Li Yiu-nam to support the application, which provided the most up-to-date statistical data. The defendants do not challenge the evidence of CIP Li; I consider and attach full weight to his evidence.  The defence accepts that enhancement is appropriate in the light of the prevalence of similar cases.

66.  The defence refers to the statement of Hon Yeung JA (as he then was) in HKSAR v Xu Mai Qing CACC 464/2005:

“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.”

And the statement of Hon Cheung JA (as he then was) in HKSAR v Chung Chi King CACC 361/2002:

“as a matter of statutory construction, the prevalence of the offence must be considered at the time of the sentence since the purpose of an enhanced sentence is to impose a deterrence on potential wrong doers. Hence the time of the commission of the crime is irrelevant.”

67.  Though there is no evidence as to the predicate offence in the present case, very often the predicate offence of money laundering is deception.  From the evidence of CIP Li, I am satisfied that offences of deception and money laundering are prevalent and on the increase.  In 2020, the total number of deception and money laundering cases were 16,643, but the number keeps on rising, up to 20,114 cases in 2021, 28,936 cases in 2022, 42,004 cases in 2023, 47,063 cases in 2024, 47,701 in 2025 and 4,333 cases up to January 2026.

68.  In addition, from the evidence of CIP Li, I am satisfied that the use of stooges for money laundering is still high in both figures and proportion (in the present case, 3 stooges were involved). The data provided by CIP Li shows that in 2020, among the 2,422 persons arrested, only 760 of them (i.e. 31.38%) were stooges, while the corresponding data shows that use of stooges increases significantly over the years:

In 2021: 3,807 arrested with 2,220 (58.31%) being stooges;

In 2022: 5,264 arrested with 3,708 (70.44%) being stooges;

In 2023: 9,239 arrested with 6,485 (70.19%) being stooges;

In 2024: 10,496 arrested with 7,883 (75.10%) being stooges;

In 2025: 7,542 arrested with 5,355 (71.00%) being stooges; and

Up to January of 2026: 908 arrested with 638 (70.26%) being stooges.

69.  I am satisfied that the use of stooge accounts is prevalent in the commission of the offence of money laundering which is one of the specified offences as stipulated in the Ordinance, and that the prevalent use of stooges in money laundering offences has caused considerable harm to the community either directly or indirectly.  I am satisfied that this is a case where enhancement of sentence should be made.

70.  In addition, it is clear from the data provided by CIP Li that most of the arrest since 2021 were stooges, this not only demonstrates the prevalent use of stooges in money laundering offences, but also the number and the proportion of arrested persons who were the masterminds of the predicate offences remain low.

71.  I am of the view that deterring people from acting as stooges will have the effect of deterring people from committing the predicate offences and money laundering offences.  To achieve this sentencing purpose, I hold that the sentence to be imposed on the defendants is to be enhanced by no more than one-third.

72.  For these reasons, the term of imprisonment to be imposed on the defendants are enhanced accordingly.

ORDER