HKSAR v. IVANCHENKO DMYTRO

DCCC 327/2025 & DCCC 760/2025

(Heard together)

[2026] HKDC 300

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 327 OF 2025

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 760 OF 2025

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant (D) was charged with 3 counts of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 (DCCC 327/2025); and 3 counts of money laundering, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455 (DCCC 760/2025). The defendant pleaded guilty, admitted the facts and was convicted accordingly. For the prevalent and harm caused to the community, the prosecution applied for enhancement of the sentence of the money laundering charges.

FACTS

DCCC 327/2025

2.  At the material time, Emmanuel English Church (“Church”) had been borrowing a multi-purpose room (“Room”) from the neighbouring Emmanuel Primary School (“School”) for equipment storage.  And the Emmanuel Medical Mission (“Clinic”) was a clinic adjacent to the School.

3.  On the morning of 27 September 2024, principal of the School was informed a laptop valued at about $7,950, gone missing. Signs of ransacking were found in the prayer room of the School and the Room. The door of the Room was also prized open.  The case was reported and the Church was informed.

4.  The manager of the Church found the following items had gone missing from the Room:

(a) 2 iPads, valued at about $10,000,

(b)1 camera, valued at about $4,600;

(c) 1 camera lens, valued at about $3,500.

5.  As one could access the Clinic via the prayer room, the Clinic was also informed.  The doors and windows of the Clinic were properly locked when the staff got off from work on 26 September 2024. However, the manager of the Clinic found signs of ransacking and the following items had gone missing: 

(a) 3 laptops, valued at about $7,000, $30,000 and $13,000 respectively;

(b)1 Samsung Galaxy Tab A8, valued at about $1,800;

(c) Cash $9,990 and 20 HK$100 Parknshop coupons

6.  CCTV of the School and the Clinic captured, between 1:57 am and 3:07am on 27 September 2024, D climbed into the School and entered the Clinic, moved around and took various items away. 

7.  Upon subsequent investigation, the Police located D.  Four laptops, two iPads, one camera and one camera lens mentioned above were found in D’s residence.  Also, cash of $6,272.5 was seized from D. 

8.  D had on 27 September 2024, committed the burglaries as charged.

DCCC 760/2025

9.  D was holder of 3 stooge accounts used for money laundering: one HSBC integrated account, one Nanyang Commercial Bank account, and one Bank of China account.

Charge 1

10.  D claimed to be a student living in To Kwan Wan when he opened the HSBC integrated account on 5 June 2018.  0n 29 May 2020 D registered for online banking service.  The account was closed on 15 January 2022.

11.  Fund flow analysis showed that between 10 May 2021 and 21 May 2021 (12 days in total), there were:

(a) 98 HKD deposit transactions, a total of HK$3,526,939.01 (excluding HK$429,360.39 transferred from the HSBC USD A/C;

(b) 111 withdrawal transactions, a total of HK$3,956,288;

(c) 7 USD deposit transactions, a total of US$86,526.94; and

(d) 8 withdrawal transactions, a total of US$86,522.25.

12.  Out of the deposit, HK$78,000 was deposited, on 20 May 2021, by a victim of an investment fraud.

Charge 2

13.  D reported himself to be a delivery man for Food Panda, making $10,001 to $25,000 per month when he opened the NCB account on 9 August 2021.  The account was closed on 3 September 2021.

14.  Fund flow analysis showed that within 26 days, the account recorded a total deposit of HK$ 5,153,672.20 over 158 transactions and the monies were all withdrawn on 61 occasions via FPS/ATM.

Charge 3

15.  D reported himself to be a worker living in To Kwa Wan when he opened the BOC account on 28 May 2021.  The account was closed on 24 September 2021.

16.  Fund flow analysis showed that in less than 4 months, the account recorded a total deposit of HK$ 238,454.70 over 57 transactions and the monies were all withdrawn on 78 occasions via FPS/ATM.

17.  D was arrested on 1 December 2021.  Thereafter, he was arrested by different teams of police between 14 February 2023 and 4 December 2023.  And lastly on 27 September 2024 for DCCC 327/2025 and was remanded in custody thereafter.

18.  D was in control of all the three accounts at all the material times.  D had dealt with the funds in the subject accounts during the material times, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the said properties, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented proceeds of an indictable offence.

BACKGROUND/MITIGATION

19.  The defendant aged 26, born in Ukraine, came to Hong Kong when he was 6 years old.  He completed his Form 3 education in Hong Kong.  He is single and lived with his family prior his remand.  He was unemployed at time of his arrest on 27 September 2024.

20.  The defendant was a long-term drug abuser and has 3 previous convictions since 2018, all together 6 counts: 4 counts of burglaries, one count of possession of DD and one count of handling stolen goods.  He was last sentenced in 2023 to serve a total of 3.5 years for 3 counts of burglary committed in 2022 against 3 schools and one count of handling stolen goods.  He was released on 5 August 2024 and committed the present burglary case on 27 September 2024 shortly after released from prison.  He was remanded since his arrest on 27 September 2024.

21.  The defendant has history of polysubstance abuse and was known to public psychiatric services since January 2025, his next follow-up appointment was scheduled on 21 January 2026.   He is recommended for continued treatment and psychiatric follow-up.

22.  The defendant has taken his time in custody to complete two study courses.  The mother and sister wrote mitigation letters for him and they were impressed for his changes during his current remand, and indicated that they would continue to support him to help him to stay on the right path.

23.  For the burglary case, it related to non-domestic premises, the usual starting point is 2.5 years.  It is conceded that his criminal record may be taken into consideration. 

24.  For the money laundering case, the defendant has no knowledge of the predicate offence.  He was simply the holder of the “stooge accounts”.  He was given a few thousand dollars after he opened the BOC account by an unknown man and was promised some commission every month.  And he received another $2,000 to $3,000 after he opened the NCB account.

25.  It is conceded that the two cases are unconnected, consecutive sentences are unavoidable, and the sentence enhancement is likely for money laundering. Yet the court is urged to consider the totality principle in sentencing the defendant.

Sentence

DCCC 327/2025

26.  The customary starting point of sentence for non-domestic burglary is 30 months’ imprisonment.  Such burglaries will involve a measure of planning, and thus a degree of premeditation and planning is already built into the conventional starting-point. The conventional starting-point can be increased in the case of professional criminals who plan their burglaries with meticulous care and steal goods and cash of considerable value. 

27.  Hon Yeung JA, as he then was, said in HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338 & 339/2007 a case of burglary of non-domestic premises:-

“The proper starting point for sentence in a case of burglary of non-domestic premises is 30 months’ imprisonment (see Rv Wong Man unreported, CACC 372/1992). The starting point can be adjusted upwards if there are aggravating circumstances such as: (1) the offence is carefully planned and skilfully executed involving the use of heavy instrument or equipment; (2) the offence is committed by two or more people; (3) the offence targets at substantial premises and involves substantial properties; (4) the offender is a professional burglar and not just an opportunist; (5) the offender has previous convictions, particularly previous conviction of similar nature, and (6) the offender commits multiple offences.”

28.  The defendant here is a professional burglar, he climbed into the School, broke into the Room and the Clinic, ransacked and stole various items therein.  The defendant is a recidivist.  He started committing burglary in 2018, he has been convicted for 4 counts of burglary and committed burglary again shortly after his release of similar offence and while he was on police bail for DCCC 760/2025 pending police investigation.  For these factors, I enhance the starting point by 6 months to 3 years on each count, he committed 3 burglaries in the same morning, the Room was located within the School while the Clinic was adjacent to the School, I consider the overall starting point for the 3 burglaries should be 3 years 3 months imprisonment.

29.  The defendant has indicated his guilty plea from an early stage, he is entitled to the full 1/3 discount but I do not consider there to be any further mitigating factor.  

DCCC 760/2025

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

31.  Hon Yeung JA 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.”

32.  Hon Cheung JA reiterated in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536 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.”

33.  The defence refers to HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, 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 organized 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.

34.  Between 10 May 2021 and 24 September 2021, for a total of a few thousand dollars, D let his HSBC account be used as stooge account and opened another two accounts in 2.5 months, to be used as stooge account for money laundering, in part of a syndicate:

· For HSBC account, in 12 days (10 May to 21 May 2021), dealt with a total sum equivalent to about HKD 4.2 million;

· For NCB account, within 26 days (9 August to 3 September 2021), dealt with a total sum over HKD 5.1 million;

· For BOC account, in less than 4 months (28 May to 24 September 2021), dealt with a total sum over HKD238,000, making an overall sum over 9.5 million

35.  Though there is no evidence that D knew or involved in the predicate offence, he was in control of the three accounts at all material times.  I consider the appropriate starting point of Charge 1 and 2 is one of 4 years imprisonment and 2 years for Charge 3.  He committed Charge 1 and then on the same month committed Charge 3, and thereafter about 2.5 months later committed Charge 2, I consider the overall starting point for all 3 counts should be one of 5 years.

36.  The defendant has indicated his guilty plea from an early stage, he is entitled to the full 1/3 discount but I do not consider there to be any further mitigating factor.

Enhancement of sentence

37.  The prosecution applies for enhancement of the sentence pursuant to section 27(2) of the Ordinance and submits the witness statement of CIP Li Yiu-nam to support the application. The defence does not challenge the evidence of CIP Li. I attach full weight to his evidence.  The defence accepts that enhancement is appropriate in the light of the prevalence of similar cases.

38.  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 and 43,564 cases up to November 2025.

39.  In addition, from the evidence of CIP Li, I am satisfied that the use of stooges for money laundering is increasing in both figures and proportion. 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; and

Up to November of 2025: 7,054 arrested with 5,025 (71.24%) being stooges.

40.  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 Organized and Serious Crimes 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.

41.  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.

42.  I am of the view that deterring people from acting as stooges will have the effect of deterring people from committing the predicate offences of deception/fraud and money laundering offences.  To achieve this sentencing purpose, I hold that the sentence to be imposed should be enhanced by 1/3.  However, taking into account of the age of the defendant at time of the offences, I reduce the enhancement to 25%.

43.  For these reasons, the total imprisonment to be imposed on the defendant is enhanced from 40 months to 50 months.

44.  Further, taking into account of the totality principle, I consider it is appropriate to have part of the sentence of these two cases to run concurrently.

ORDER

DCCC 327/2025

Charge 1       24 months imprisonment

Charge 2       24 months imprisonment, concurrent with Charge 1

Charge 3       24 months imprisonment, 2 months consecutive a total of 26 months.

DCCC 760/2025

Charge 1       40 months imprisonment

Charge 2       40 months imprisonment, 8 months consecutive

Charge 3       20 months imprisonment, 2 months consecutive a total of 50 months.

14 months of DCCC 327/2025 is to run concurrently with DCCC 760/2025, making a total of 62 months imprisonment.