HKSAR v. ROBIAH SITI

DCCC 479/2025

[2025] HKDC 2005

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 479 OF 2025

————————

————————

————————————————

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

————————————————

1.  Ms Robiah pleaded guilty before me to two charges of Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.

2.  Particulars are that she, between A and B, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, together with a person known as “Aning”, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property, namely a total sum of C Hong Kong currency in the bank account with D, account number E, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

3.  For Charge 1, A is 1 February 2023; B is 13 February 2023; C is $84,800; D is The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited; E is 027-827666-833.

4.  For Charge 2, A is 21 July 2023; B is 31 July 2023; C is $527,152.78; D is Hang Seng Bank Limited; E is 391-657418-668.

Facts admitted by Ms Robiah

5.  At all material times, Ms Robiah was the sole account holder of :-

(a) A personal savings account numbered 027-827666-833 (“Account 1”) of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited; and

(b) A personal savings account numbered 391-657418-668 (“Account 2”) of the Hang Seng Bank Limited.

6.  Ms Poon (PW1) fell for a romance scam.  She got acquainted with a fraudster on Instagram.  The fraudster claimed he had sent a gift to PW1 but a purported courier requested PW1 to pay HKD19,500.  PW1 complied and sent the sum via two transactions to Account 1 on 13 February 2023.

7.  Ms He (PW2) also fell for a romance scam.  She got acquainted with a fraudster on Bumble.  The fraudster claimed that his bank account with a substantial balance was frozen and he requested PW2 to lend him money.  PW2 lost a total of HKD7,210,630.08, of which 2 sums totaling HKD355,950 were sent to Account 2 on 28 July 2023 and 31 July 2023.

Charge 1 (Account 1)

8.  On 3 September 2022, Ms Robiah opened Account 1 in her name.  She reported a phone number subscribed by her (“Reported Number”) for the account.

9.  Between 1 and 13 February 2023, there was a spike in transactions in Account 1.  During the period:-

(a) A total of 7 deposits amounting to HKD84,800 were deposited into Account 1;

(b) A total of 13 withdrawals amounting to HKD84,800 were withdrawn from Account 1 through ATM;

(c) After deposits were made, the funds accumulated were quickly dissipated on the same day or shortly afterwards; and

(d) Account 1 had an opening balance of HKD100 as at 1 February 2023 and a closing balance of HKD100 as at 13 February 2023.

10.  At all material times, Account 1 was being used as a temporary repository of funds.

11.  On 21 July 2023, Ms Robiah was arrested for her dealings with Account 1.  During a cautioned interview, Ms Robiah admitted lending Account 1 to a person named Aning by passing the ATM card to her around a month after account opening; that she trusted Aning as they were both Indonesians; that she tried but failed to reach Aning upon receiving a notification from the bank concerning a HKD50,000 deposit.

Charge 2 (Account 2)

12.  On 17 September 2022, Ms Robiah opened Account 2 in her name.  She also reported the Reported Number for Account 2.

13.  Between 21 and 31 July 2023, there was a spike in transactions in Account 2.  During the period:-

(a) A total of 20 deposits amounting to HKD572,152.78 were deposited into Account 2;

(b) A total of 27 withdrawals amounting to HKD391,255.94 were withdrawn from Account 2; except for one cash withdrawal of HKD6,155.94 on 31 July 2024, all withdrawals were made through ATM;

(c) After deposits were made, the funds accumulated were quickly dissipated on the same day or shortly afterwards (substantial balance remained in Account 2 since 29 July 2023);

(d) Account 2 had an opening balance of HKD100 as at 21 July 2023 and a closing balance of HKD180,996.84 as at 31 July 2023; and

(e) On 1 November 2023, police issued a letter of no consent over the HKD181,386.44 balance in Account 2.

14.  At all material times, Account 2 was being used as a temporary repository of funds.

15.  On 27 May 2024, Ms Robiah was arrested for her dealings with Account 2. During a VRI, Ms Robiah admitted she lent Account 2 to Aning in November 2022 as she was unable to repay a debt to Aning; that she later tried to find Aning but the latter had returned to Indonesia and asked Ms Robiah to cancel Account 2.

16.  Ms Robiah was in Hong Kong at all material times.

Criminal record

17.  Ms Robiah has a clear record in Hong Kong.

Antecedents

18.  Ms Robiah is aged 44 (41-42 at the time of the offences), educated up to junior high school level in Indonesia, has been a domestic helper in Hong Kong since January 2019 and was so at the time of arrest.  Ms Robiah is divorced. Her mother passed away in 2023.  Her son (22) is living with her father (70) in Indonesia.

Mitigation

19.  Ms Elizabeth Herbert of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Ms Robiah.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

20.  Ms Robiah is an Indonesian national.  She was educated to Form 3 level. She came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper in 2019.  She changed employer once in 2023.  Prior to her arrest, she was the sole bread winner of the family.

21.  Ms Robiah has a clear record.

22.  In the second half of 2022, Ms Robiah’s mother fell ill.  The medical expenses were beyond Ms Robiah’s means.  She therefore borrowed $2,000 from Aning, an Indonesian woman who was working for a domestic helper agency.  Ms Robiah failed to repay the loan; Aning suggested she hand over her ATM card relating to Account 1 until she could repay the loan.  Later, Ms Robiah required a second loan of $2,000.  Aning did the same in relation to Account 2.

23.  It was submitted that Ms Robiah should be treated as a stooge account holder, ie someone who turned over the use of her accounts to another.  There is no evidence to suggest that Ms Robiah would have known the nature of the predicate offence or that there was an international element.

24.  The Court of Appeal made remarks in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, at para 9, in relation to the factors to be taken into account in sentencing for this type of offence.

25.  The Court of Appeal also made observations on culpability and aggravating features in HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 at para 40.

26.  Hsu Yu Yi was subsequently summarized in Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 at para 15 as follows:

“15. In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, Cheung JA set out the amounts of money involved and the sentences passed in a number of “money laundering” cases. The sentencing 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.”

27.  The two charges took place over a relatively short time period (each less than 2 weeks).  Together, the total amount involved was less than one million dollars.  A sum of HK$183,327.21 is still in the HSB account and will be recovered.  Ms Robiah has consented to a confiscation order in respect thereof.  Ms Robiah was not the main perpetrator of the money laundering scheme, nor did she recruit people to conduct money laundering.  Her role was as a stooge account holder.

28.  It was submitted that because of her limited education background and her relatively low level of culpability, this case is likely to be one where Ms Robiah was taken advantage of by Aning.  The court is asked to take into account her clear record, her good employment record.  The court is urged to note the limited reward she received from the offences, the likelihood of her not being able to work again in Hong Kong, and the hardship in being incarcerated away from her family.

29.  Based on the authorities, it was submitted that the starting point should be no more than 3 years.  Ms Robiah pleaded guilty in time and 1/3 sentencing discount is asked for.

30.  Ms Herbert invited the court to impose a lenient sentence on Ms Robiah.

31.  Ms Herbert submitted on behalf of Ms Robiah two mitigation letters written respectively by Ms Robiah’s ex-employer in Hong Kong and her son in Indonesia, with the latter letter having an English translation.  The contents generally are that Ms Robiah was a trustworthy and responsible employee; that she has expressed her regret for the crime she committed; that her son misses her very much and wishes her an early return home.

Sentence

32.  Money laundering is a serious offence.  A deterrent sentence is always called for.

33.  I bear in mind the short duration of the two offences, the relatively small amounts laundered, the total number of transactions, Ms Robiah’s limited role and knowledge (including lack of evidence of knowledge of the predicate offences of deception), the meagre rewards Ms Robiah in effect received, and her consent to confiscation of the remaining balance of Account 2.  I also note there is no evidence of international element/dimension.  In light of all these factors, I will accede to the submission that a lower starting point be adopted for the two offences.

34.  For Charge 1, I will adopt a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment.

35.  For Charge 2, I will adopt a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment.

36.  Ms Robiah pleaded guilty to the charges in good time.  She shall be given the full 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

37.  The two offences, though of the same nature, were committed at different times, and ought, for that reason, to attract consecutive sentences.  However, I will bear in mind the totality principle when determining how to combine the two sentences in order to form one final sentence.

(Ms Robiah, please stand)

38.  For Charge 1, the sentence is 16 months’ imprisonment.

39.  For Charge 2, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

40.  I order 2 months of the sentence on Charge 1 to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 2, forming an aggregate sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment.