HKSAR v. CHAN NOK HIM, FRANCO

DCCC 1392/2024

[2026] HKDC 466

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1392 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charge

1.  The defendant pleads not guilty to one count of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence.  He is convicted as charged after trial. 

Facts

2.  The facts are all in the Reasons for Verdict, which was delivered in open court on 10 February 2026. 

3.  Put succinctly, the defendant with another person used the defendant’s Mox account to launder money.  During a period of ten-odd months between 3 June 2021 and 14 April 2022, there were 19,859 transactions consisting of 15,485 deposits and 4,374 withdrawals.  The total amount of deposits and withdrawals were $27,422,127.81 and $27,404,823.53 respectively.  All the deposits and withdrawals were made by internet transfers. 

4.  The account was all along used as a temporary repository of funds, including crime proceeds. 

5.  The bank closed the account on 3 June 2022. 

6.  In those ten-odd months, the defendant was in Hong Kong.  He was, however, in CSD custody between 8 December 2021 and 19 February 2022.  The court finds that the defendant had asked another person to manage his account while he was in CSD custody. 

7.  Of the many deposits in the account, there were two deposits made by a Mr Lam on 14 February 2022.  That Mr Lam was an online fraud victim.  He had been scammed of $470,806.  Such monies were deposited by him into various accounts, including two sums ($10,000.19 and $1,000.16)  into the defendant’s Mox account on 14 February 2022, while the defendant was in CSD custody. 

8.  There is no evidence that the defendant was a party to that scam or he had knowledge of Mr Lam’s having been defrauded.  Nevertheless, the court is sure the defendant and another person collaborating with him dealt with the funds in his Mox account between 6 June 2021 and 14 April 2022, which funds in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented proceeds of an indictable crime.

Record

9.  The defendant is aged 29 now.  He has a criminal record.  In 2021, he was convicted of possession of offensive weapons and dangerous drugs.  In 2025, he was convicted of five counts of obtaining property by deception.  For those offences, he was given in the magistracy a total of 8 months’ imprisonment.  He had already served the whole sentence.

Enhancement

10.  Money laundering is a specified offence under Cap 455 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance.  Prosecution asks for enhancement of sentence under section 27 of that ordinance on the grounds that such specified offences are prevalent and they have caused great harm, whether direct or indirect, to the community by their recurred occurrences. 

11.  Prosecution relies on Chief Inspector Lee’s statement dated 27 February 2026 to substantiate the above claims.

12.  Inspector Lee’s statement is submitted under section 65B of Cap 221. Neither party requires him to testify in court or to clarify anything in his statement.  The defendant has no evidence to adduce for rebuttal or for the court’s consideration. 

13.  According to Inspector Lee, there were many cases of money laundering in recent years.  Some involved stooge accounts. 

14.  Inspector Lee classifies money laundering cases into two types.  One, simply money laundering (ML)  cases, ie cases with no predicate crimes detected or the predicate crimes are only reported outside Hong Kong.  And two, deception cases, ie those involving local predicate crimes which are mainly scam-related. 

15.  In 2020, the total number of ML and deception cases was 1,844 involving laundered proceeds or losses of 3,017 million, among which 1,879 million were dealt with by stooge accounts and the number of stooges arrested was 760. 

16.  In 2021, the total number of ML and deception cases was 2,269 involving laundered proceeds or losses of 9,662 million, among which 5,565 million were dealt with by stooge accounts and the number of stooges arrested was 2,220. 

17.  In 2022, the total number of ML and deception cases was 3,705 involving laundered proceeds or losses of 36,644 million, among which 36,320 million were dealt with by stooge accounts and the number of stooges arrested was 3,708.

18.  In 2023, the total number of ML and deception cases was 5,529 involving laundered proceeds or losses of 12,033 million, among which 9,984 million were dealt with by stooge accounts and the number of stooges arrested was 6,485. 

19.  In 2024, the total number of ML and deception cases was 5,250 involving laundered proceeds or losses of 6,115 million, among which 4,466 million were dealt with by stooge accounts and the number of stooges arrested was 7,883. 

20.  In 2025, the total number of ML and deception cases was 4,955 involving laundered proceeds or losses of 7,624 million, among which 3,933 million were dealt with by stooge accounts and the number of stooges arrested was 5,355.

21.  In the one month of January 2026, the total number of ML and deception cases was 231, involving laundered proceeds or losses of 889 million, among which 217 million were dealt with by stooge accounts and the number of stooges arrested was 638. 

Mitigation

22.  Defence counsel says the defendant is now 29.  He was arrested in August 2022 and had been on bail until mid-2025 when his bail was revoked. Prior to his remand, he had been working as a salesman. 

23.  Counsel says the defendant has been married and he used to live with his family members.

24.  Counsel admits the defendant has two previous convictions involving a number of offences.  He was last sent to prison in May 2025 and had finished his sentence already.  Since then, he remains in custody for the present case.

25.  Counsel refers to the following cases, HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi, CACC 159/2009; SJ v Wan Kwok Keung, CAAR 13/2010; HKSAR v Boma, CACC 335/2010; and SJ v Xie Zhijian, CAAR 4/2024.

26.  Counsel asks the court to consider all the relevant circumstances of the case for sentence, not just looking at the amounts of money involved. 

27.  Counsel points out that there is no evidence to suggest the defendant knew of the source of the money, which was said to be laundered proceeds.  He says of all the money deposited into the defendant’s Mox account, only two sums totalling $11,000.35 have been proved to be scam proceeds.  However, there’s no evidence to show the defendant was involved in or was aware of that scam. Counsel further points out that the defendant was only convicted of the present charge on the reasonable grounds limb. 

28.  Counsel submits that the basic starting point for sentence should be no more than 5 years’ imprisonment.

29.  As to enhancement, counsel agrees that Inspector Lee’s statement supports Prosecution’s saying that money laundering offences are prevalent and that such specified offences harm the community significantly.  Counsel submits that while enhancement in the present case is not objectionable, the extent should not be more than 20 per cent. 

30.  Counsel submits mitigation letters written by the defendant himself, his wife and his mother.  All plea for leniency.  The defendant in his letter says he would reform himself. 

Sentence

31.  Money laundering is a serious offence.  There are many cases on money laundering sentence including those mentioned by counsel.  Yet there are no tariffs.  Each case depends on its own facts.  The appellate court asks the sentencer to look at all the relevant circumstances. 

32.  In the present case, there was only one bank account used by the defendant and another person for money laundering.  In a period of ten-odd months, there were 19,859 transactions consisting of 15,485 deposits totalling over $27 million and 4,374 withdrawals also totalling over $27 million. 

33.  Prosecution can prove two sums totalling $11,000.35 were scam money from the same victim.  There is however no evidence to show the defendant was involved in or knew of the scam. 

34.  The present case is serious because of the large number of transactions and the total amounts involved.  Over a period of ten-odd months, over $27 million had been deposited into the account and which had been largely withdrawn.  While the amounts of laundered money are not the only factors to be considered, they are very important factors for the purpose of sentencing in money laundering cases.

35.  The defendant has previous record but nothing of money laundering. Having considered the facts of the case and counsel’s mitigation, I am of the view that the basic starting point should be 4 years 9 months’ imprisonment, ie 57 months’ imprisonment. 

36.  Inspector Lee’s statement shows clearly the trend of money laundering. Such specified offences are still prevalent.  They bring much harm to the community as laundered money often includes scam proceeds from victims in the community, and scams of all kinds occur day in and day out. 

37.  Enhancement would heighten the deterrent effect on money launderers, which hopefully would also deter those culprits involved in the predicate crimes like scams.

38.  I have adopted a starting point of 57 months’ imprisonment.  An enhancement of 20 per cent would be sufficient to bring about the desired deterrence hopefully and that would match with the seriousness of the case.

39.  The defendant is convicted after trial.  He is not entitled to any discount.  The final sentence imposed for his convicted crime, after enhancement and rounding down to complete months, is one of 68 months’ imprisonment.