HKSAR v. WONG KWOK BONG

DCCC 45, 224, 613 & 816/2023 (Consolidated)

[2024] HKDC 517

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NOS 45, 224, 613 & 816 OF 2023 (Consolidated)

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence, the offence being committed on 7 May 2019 involving a sum of $130,000. The offence that the money constitutes the offence came from a property mortgage fraud committed in 2019 when a loan of some HK$4 million was obtained on a property following fraudulent misrepresentations about the ownership of the property. The mechanics of the fraud was that moneys from a mortgage fraudulently obtained were then dissipated. The defendant who is the 3^rd defendant in this indictment was involved in the dissipation of the funds. In doing so, he cashed a cheque of $130,000 drawn from a Wing Lung Bank account into which some of the moneys had been paid. The explanation for this conduct by the defendant is contained in a video-recorded interview where he said one D2 he knew in a pub instructed him to withdraw $130,000 from the Wing Lung account in cash. He was given a cheque to do so by an unknown man who gave him $5,000 as a reward.

2.  The defendant is now aged 36 years old, educated to Form 5 level, has been working in his father’s construction company, he is an interior designer.  As part of his mitigation, I am told that he has been in a relationship for a number of years and has planned to marry as soon as this matter is completed. He has some minor ailments such as asthma.

3.  As far as the defendant’s criminal record is concerned, he does have convictions in the past dating back to 2017 having a conviction for a theft offence and dishonesty back in 2007.  More recently, some offences in gambling which are not relevant to this case.

4.  The explanation also given by the defendant in mitigation was that he committed the offence because he lacked the money.  He was arrested in July of 2020 and has been on bail since then.

5.  First, the approach to sentence the court is required to take in this case, we can see the principles that are to be adopted is the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545.  There is no sentencing guideline because the range of facts by which this offence can be committed is so different.  The primary consideration of course would be the amount of money that is involved in the money laundering exercise by the defendant; what is described as the defendant’s culpability, the extent of his participation in the offence; the nature of the offence or what could be described as the predicate offence, if that is known; whether any international element exists and the length of time the offence lasted.  It is also the principle established in a number of other cases that money laundering is a serious offence because of the way it encourages other criminal activities both directly and indirectly and also it encourages the legitimisation of the proceeds of crimes.

6.  Another case of some relevance to the approach is the case R v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33.  It again sets out a number of factors to be considered.  I bear in mind the factors set out in these cases.

7.  As far as this case is concerned, it is somewhat straightforward as far as this defendant is concerned.  The defendant’s involvement is in one single transaction on one day involving an amount of $130,000 which is the smallest transaction set out in this indictment.  The defendant admits to a relatively small monetary reward of $5,000.  This factual matrix provides no evidence of involvement or knowledge of the predicate offence.

8.  I have been referred again in mitigation to the range of sentences referred to in the HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi case where the similar analysis of a number of cases show that in cases involving one to two million dollars an immediate sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment was appropriate.  In this case, of course, or in the cases analysed in Hsu the amount is obviously much larger than the amount the defendant has dealt with in this case.  However, the approach to sentence in these cases is not purely mathematical and the Hsu case is not providing guidelines to the amounts of money involved.  I must bear in mind in determining a starting point of sentence it is a serious offence warranting an immediate custodial sentence and that needs to show that people such as the defendant should be prevented for providing the assistance that he did in the distribution of the proceeds of a criminal offence and there must be some element of basic deterrence in the determination of sentencing such offences and because of that a purely mathematical approach would not be appropriate for smaller sums and sentences should reflect society’s displeasure.

9.  As I have said, in respect of this defendant an immediate custodial sentence must be appropriate.  I did obtain a background report on him which sets out the basic facts about his life which does describe as not being totally aware of the adverse impact of his reckless behaviour.  It is to be hoped he can learn a lesson from this and settle down in the future and clearly he is fortunate in his family’s support for him.

10.  As I have determined, an immediate custodial sentence is appropriate. Having regard to the amount of money involved in this case and the defendant’s limited involvement, I will take a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment. He is entitled to a full one-third discount as a result of his plea of guilty which reduces the sentence to one of 8 months’ imprisonment.