HKSAR v. CHE WING YIN

DCCC 1317/2024

[2025] HKDC 1912

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1317 OF 2024

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant is, upon his plea and agreement to amended Summary of Facts, convicted of a charge 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.

Facts

2.  At all material times, the defendant is the sole holder and beneficiary of Nanyang Commercial Bank Limited account number 04348210438334 (“Account”).

3.  On 25 May 2021, the defendant opened the Account as sole signatory.  In the opening mandate, the occupation of the defendant was described to be a construction worker with monthly income of HK$10,001 to HK$25,000.  The purpose of the Account was for salary and savings purpose.  The Account was closed on 7 January 2022.

4.  During the period from 29 June 2021 (date of first deposit) to 7 January 2022 (date of account closure), the Account recorded 14,374 deposits totalling HK$31,687,037.9 and 4,084 withdrawals totalling HK$31,671,409.57.  There were frequent inbound and outbound daily transactions, in which most incoming funds were quickly transferred out in an aggregated amount after merging of several deposits on the same day or shortly after.  All the transactions were made by bank transfer with numerous counterparties involved.

5.  On 11 May 2022, the defendant was arrested and remained silent under caution.

6.  Movement records show the defendant had no travel record during the period from 1 January 2021 to 24 August 2023.

7.  According to the record of Inland Revenue Department, there was no tax record of the defendant for the financial years from 2019 to 2021.

8.  The defendant now admits that he had sold the Account to another person for monetary reward.

Criminal Record

9.  The defendant has 26 previous criminal records involving convictions of 48 charges, none similar.

Mitigation

10.  The defendant is aged 44.  He received education up to Form 1.  He is single and was living with his then girlfriend at the time of the offence.  He had a daughter few months old.  He was financially responsible for his 70-year-old mother.

11.  At the time of the offence, the defendant was working as a casual construction worker earning daily wage of HK$600.  Due to a hand tendon injury 10-odd years ago, the defendant suffered recurrent pain and was sometimes unable to work because the pain was so intense.

12.  Defence counsel submitted that it is the first time that the defendant is convicted of money laundering charge.  She said that the defendant sold his bank account to a person whom he met online for HK$5,000 as he was then in the financial difficulty.

13.  Defence counsel submitted that in this case, the nature of the predicate offence is not known.  There is no evidence to suggest that it was of a serious kind, such as fraud and drug trafficking.  There is no evidence to suggest that the defendant had any knowledge of and was involved in any predicate offence. There was no international element.  There is no evidence to suggest that it involved sophisticated operation or it was committed by or on behalf of an organised criminal syndicate.  Although the amount of money laundered is substantial and involved many transactions, the offence was committed within 7 months.  It was said also that the defendant’s role was limited to that of a money-laundering stooge. 

14.  She admitted that the strongest mitigating factor is the defendant’s timely plea.

15.  On the issue of enhancement application, the defence does not challenge the statement of Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam dated 26 September 2025.  She submitted that it is for the prosecution to satisfy the court that at the time of sentencing the offence, the offence is still prevalent or the harm caused to the community is still substantial because the purpose of an enhanced sentence is to impose a deterrent on potential wrongdoers.

16.  The defendant in his letter in mitigation says that he is deeply remorseful as to what he has done and that he now realised the importance of his family.  He urged this court for a lenient sentence so that he could rejoin his family and be a responsible person to the family and the society.

Discussion

17.  Before sentencing, the court has considered all that was said on behalf of the defendant in mitigation, as well as the mitigation letter from the defendant and the statement of Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam. 

18.  On conviction upon indictment of this offence, a person is liable to a fine of HK$5 million and to imprisonment for 14 years.

19.  In the case of HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, Stock JA (as he then was) was explaining that it was not realistically possible or desirable to lay down guidelines in relation to the offence of money laundering because of the highly variable circumstances in which these offences were committed and the widely different roles played by those convicted of these offences.  He said that deterrence was paramount in the sentencing exercise as the criminality in laundering arose from the encouragement and nourishment that it gives to the crime in general. 

20.  He said that the amount of money laundered is a significant factor, and the court should take into account the factors including:

(a) the nature of the predicate offence;

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

(c) where the operation involved an international dimension, this would be a significant aggravating feature;

(d) the sophistication of the offence, including the degree of planning;

(e) where the offence was committed by or on behalf of an organised criminal syndicate, this would be an aggravating feature;

(f) whether there was one transaction or many, and the length of time over which the offence was committed;

(g) whether the offender continued to launder funds after he had discovered the nature of the funds were proceeds of an offence or a serious offence was involved; and

(h) the role of the offender and the acts performed by him.

21.  In this case, the amount of money laundered is HK$31,687,037.9.  This is a very substantial amount.  Duration of the offence is nearly 7 months.  It involves 14,374 deposits and 4,084 withdrawals.

22.  It is clear from the number of deposits and withdrawals, the period of time concerned, that the operation of the account involved a criminal syndicate of substantial size.  This court noted that the account was open about 1 month before it was being used by others.

23.  The predicate offence for the monies in the charge is unknown.

24.  In the case of SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, Yeung JA (as he then was) said that money laundering is serious offence and must be deterred.  In considering the sentence, the emphasis should be on the amount of “black money” laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant.

25.  There is no evidence before the court that the defendant was fully aware of the predicate offence.  According to the defendant, he only received HK$5,000 for lending the account to others for use. 

26.  In the Wan Kwok Keung case, the Court of Appeal referred to the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, where the sentencing starting point for laundering money over HK$10 million could be over 5 years’ imprisonment.

27.  Considering the factors aforesaid and the circumstances of the present case, in particular the amount of money laundered, the number of deposits and withdrawals, the period within which the offences were committed, the role of the defendant merely as a stooge, the involvement of a sophisticated criminal syndicate, the absence of evidence that the defendant had knowledge of the predicate offence, the absence of international element, the court finds that appropriate sentencing starting point in this case is 4½ years’ imprisonment.

28.  It is well established that money laundering is a serious offence and the personal background of the defendant is seldom a valid mitigating factor. Commission of the offence due to financial difficulty as in this case is not a valid mitigating factor.  Immediate custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentencing option in this case.

Enhancement of sentence

29.  The prosecution has applied for enhancement of sentence pursuant to section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, on the grounds of prevalence of the use of stooge accounts in the commission of these specific offences, and the nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by reason of occurrences of these specific offences.

30.  In support of the application, there is a statement from Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam dated 26 September 2025 lodged with the court.  According to the statement:

(a) The total number of deception cases and money laundering cases (both detected and undetected) remains high for the period from year 2023 to August 2025. The number of cases were respectively 42,004, 47,063, and 31,185 for first 8 months in the year 2025 (or 46,777 cases by projection for the whole year of 2025).

(b) The total number of stooges arrested represented 70.19%, 75.10%, and 72.01% of the arrested persons (detected case) for the year 2023, 2024, and January to August in 2025.

(c) For the period from 2022 to January to August 2025, amount of reported losses and/or proceeds laundered via stooge accounts represented 99.11%, 82.97%, 73.04% and 29.46% of the total amount of reported loss and/or proceeds laundered in deception and money laundering cases (detected with arrest).

31.  Although the figure appears to have fallen for the first 8 months of 2025 statistically, the same could not be interpreted as a falling trend as it involves only a few months.  In any event, the note to Table B stated that but for the deception case reported in July 2025 which involved HK$1.06 billion, the amount relating to stooge account would then represent 51.84% of the total.

32.  The use of the stooge account is clearly still very prevalent in deception and money laundering cases.  Having considered the statement of Chief Inspector Li, including the tables and the notes to the tables, the court is satisfied that the grounds of application for enhancement has been made out by the prosecution.

33.  This court finds that enhancement of sentence at 25% is appropriate.  Accordingly, the sentencing starting point for the charge, after enhancement, would be 67 months and 15 days’ imprisonment.

34.  The defendant has pleaded guilty.  This is the most valid mitigating factor, for which he is entitled to full one-third sentencing discount.  He is therefore sentenced to 45 months’ imprisonment in this case.